seb146 wrote:

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

I don't believe that is factually correct.

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/97787958 ... 1914040147

A few had guns, the ones they caught, many ran away and were arrested later, plenty had offensive weapons that could injure or kill, one Capitol Officer described it was 'more frightening' than his two Iraq tours.

What's the difference between those lying or just trying to downplay what happened and those '9/11 Truthers?'
Very little as far as I can see.

GDB wrote:

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters-were-armed-here-are-the-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used?t=1641914040147

A few had guns, the ones they caught, many ran away and were arrested later, plenty had offensive weapons that could injure or kill, one Capitol Officer described it was 'more frightening' than his two Iraq tours.

What's the difference between those lying or just trying to downplay what happened and those '9/11 Truthers?'
Very little as far as I can see.

The difference between the two is chalk and cheese. In the 9/11 the U.S. Govt. did held back some information which they had to disclose years later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_28_pages

Many people both inside the United States as well as outside were convinced that Saudis were part of it and not Afghanistan or Iraq and from the 28 pages that have been declassified, it does appear that at the very least that the Saudis knew and did provide some kind of help, training, logistics, and god knows what else. Now how much the U.S. Govt. goes down that rabbit hole is up to them. It is possible that the Saudis had a much bigger role but again it is for the citizens to pressure the country to find more about it. The irony is both Republicans and Democrats love the Saudis so nothing changed during Trump and probably nothing will change even during this administration (probably) unless there are some new relevations.

GDB wrote:

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters-were-armed-here-are-the-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used?t=1641914040147

A few had guns, the ones they caught, many ran away and were arrested later, plenty had offensive weapons that could injure or kill, one Capitol Officer described it was 'more frightening' than his two Iraq tours.

What's the difference between those lying or just trying to downplay what happened and those '9/11 Truthers?'
Very little as far as I can see.

Like I've said before, I didn't vote for Trump either time (Gary Johnson in 2016 and Biden in 2020)
and consider the rioters in Washington as treasonous but I still don't think that they were "armed to the teeth". They had improvised weapons. The person who I responded to also said that the rioters in Kenosha weren't dangerous because they just had big skateboards, etc. I'm sorry but he can't have it both ways. If the one group was armed and dangerous, so was the other. Yes, the 1/6 group was more dangerous for democracy, but they weren't armed to the teeth.

pune wrote:

GDB wrote:

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters-were-armed-here-are-the-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used?t=1641914040147

A few had guns, the ones they caught, many ran away and were arrested later, plenty had offensive weapons that could injure or kill, one Capitol Officer described it was 'more frightening' than his two Iraq tours.

What's the difference between those lying or just trying to downplay what happened and those '9/11 Truthers?'
Very little as far as I can see.

The difference between the two is chalk and cheese. In the 9/11 the U.S. Govt. did held back some information which they had to disclose years later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_28_pages

Many people both inside the United States as well as outside were convinced that Saudis were part of it and not Afghanistan or Iraq and from the 28 pages that have been declassified, it does appear that at the very least that the Saudis knew and did provide some kind of help, training, logistics, and god knows what else. Now how much the U.S. Govt. goes down that rabbit hole is up to them. It is possible that the Saudis had a much bigger role but again it is for the citizens to pressure the country to find more about it. The irony is both Republicans and Democrats love the Saudis so nothing changed during Trump and probably nothing will change even during this administration (probably) unless there are some new relevations.

You are comparing an attempt to cover up how dopey the massive US intel network was, in not seeing this, well some did but different agencies did not talk to each other, as well as a disinterested and lazy President at the time.
With the long attempt to deny treatment for many including emergency responders, for the effects of all that crap they breathed in, denied by those on Capitol Hill with good state funded healthcare thank you very much!

The '9/11 Truthers' are a bunch of ignorant wack jobs, with a childish political agenda.
Whose claims are and have been totally debunked.

As for the Saudis, the relationship is not as simplistic as you make out, no the head of the Saudi State did not have anything to do with it, he relied ultimately on US support, that country however is not a democracy, that huge Royal Family have their own empires doing their own thing. Start from the beginning, near the end of WW2 and an ailing US President meeting Saudis on a US warship in the Red Sea, a part called Bitter Lake.

https://www.history.com/news/fdr-saudi-arabia-king-oil

(Bitter Lake is also the starting point and title of a feature length doc by my favorite documentary maker, Adam Curtis, you can find it easily enough).

Many worked with the US in the 1980's when funneling support to those fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, there is clearly a potential overlap there with what happened in 2001 which the US government would prefer be forgotten about.

Otherwise, I see no parallels, then again I don't live in an ill informed but paranoid world, like those who took part last year in the Capitol.
Do you?

My essential point remains, we know what we saw, both on 9/11 and 1/6, we know who inspired it, who the perps were though in larger numbers than 19 hijackers and the network that funded and helped them in all other aspects, frankly I'd trust (factions) of the Pakistani ISI less than the Saudis, another group that had the $ largesse in the 1980's which you are right, some in the US would rather we not know about or forget.

Only difference, the perps of 9/11 in the planning and funding are either dead or banged up, why are the perps of 1/6 still walking? Being rich, white GOP perhaps?

FlapOperator wrote:

seb146 wrote:

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

I don't believe that is factually correct.

I can't say that all participants were armed, but some were.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 57164.html
Most heavily armed January 6 rioter pleads guilty to bringing five firearms and 11 Molotov cocktails to Capitol
Lonnie Coffman admits federal weapons charges after bringing arsenal of firearms and explosive devices to Capitol

https://www.abc10.com/article/news/veri ... 0744ad6331
Jan. 6 one year later: Fact-checking three claims about the insurrection
No, the insurrection was not a completely unarmed protest. Several individuals involved in the mob were charged or sentenced for crimes involving a weapon.
.
.
.
According to DOJ records, more than 200 people have now been arrested and charged with assaulting police on Jan. 6, 2021. Some protesters did have guns - that includes Lonnie Coffman, who pleaded guilty to driving his pickup to the Capitol while in possession of several loaded guns, ammunition, a crossbow, machetes and jars filled with ingredients for molotov cocktails.

Prosecutors say weapons don’t necessarily only mean firearms. An array of makeshift weapons were used in the melee, including crutches, flagpoles and stolen police batons, records say.

The FBI still has a flier on their website calling for the public’s assistance in finding an individual accused of planting pipe bombs across the city the night before the riot.

johns624 wrote:

Like I've said before, I didn't vote for Trump either time (Gary Johnson in 2016 and Biden in 2020)
and consider the rioters in Washington as treasonous but I still don't think that they were "armed to the teeth". They had improvised weapons. The person who I responded to also said that the rioters in Kenosha weren't dangerous because they just had big skateboards, etc. I'm sorry but he can't have it both ways. If the one group was armed and dangerous, so was the other. Yes, the 1/6 group was more dangerous for democracy, but they weren't armed to the teeth.

I'd consider how heavily armed the Capitol rioters were to be something of a red herring - they were armed enough for what was going on given their numbers and intent. The 9/11 hijackers were by no means "armed to the teeth" either, yet we all saw what they were capable of.

GDB wrote:

pune wrote:

GDB wrote:

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters-were-armed-here-are-the-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used?t=1641914040147

A few had guns, the ones they caught, many ran away and were arrested later, plenty had offensive weapons that could injure or kill, one Capitol Officer described it was 'more frightening than his two Iraq tours.

What's the difference between those lying or just trying to downplay what happened and those '9/11 Truthers?'
Very little as far as I can see.

The difference between the two is chalk and cheese. In the 9/11 the U.S. Govt. did held back some information which they had to disclose years later.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_28_pages

Many people both inside the United States as well as outside were convinced that Saudis were part of it and not Afghanistan or Iraq and from the 28 pages that have been declassified, it does appear that at the very least that the Saudis knew and did provide some kind of help, training, logistics, and god knows what else. Now how much the U.S. Govt. goes down that rabbit hole is up to them. It is possible that the Saudis had a much bigger role but again it is for the citizens to pressure the country to find more about it. The irony is both Republicans and Democrats love the Saudis so nothing changed during Trump and probably nothing will change even during this administration (probably) unless there are some new revelations.

You are comparing an attempt to cover up how dopey the massive US intel network was, in not seeing this, well some did but different agencies did not talk to each other, as well as a disinterested and lazy President at the time.
With the long attempt to deny treatment for many including emergency responders, for the effects of all that crap they breathed in, denied by those on Capitol Hill with good state-funded healthcare thank you very much!

The '9/11 Truthers' are a bunch of ignorant wackjobs, with a childish political agenda.
Whose claims are and have been totally debunked.

As for the Saudis, the relationship is not as simplistic as you make out, no the head of the Saudi State did not have anything to do with it, he relied ultimately on US support, that country however is not a democracy, that huge Royal Family have their own empires doing their own thing. Start from the beginning, near the end of WW2 and an ailing US President meeting Saudis on a US warship in the Red Sea, a part called Bitter Lake.

https://www.history.com/news/fdr-saudi-arabia-king-oil

(Bitter Lake is also the starting point and title of a feature-length doc by my favorite documentary maker, Adam Curtis, you can find it easily enough).

I will answer the above in two parts as when I tried to post, saw you amended post and then some SQL error happened in the posting The forum software really needs an update but seems that is a hard task so let's leave that aside.

Now as far as Mr. Trump is concerned there are many examples to see what kind of person he is. First when he says to the 'protestors' I will walk down with you to the capitol and then goes home, what kind of leader would do that ??? Also he sneaked out of the American War draft saying he injured the leg and then saying he didn't want to die on some random hill. I would have had far more respect from Mr. Trump if he had been a Conscientious objector but that means having both courage and empathy, two things Mr. Trump lacks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conscientious_objector

Now, as far as the Saudis are concerned you are right that it is a complex relationship and I would definitely see the documentary if I find it. I do find documentaries fascinating anyways For me, the needle moved from there was no Saudi involvement except for those hijackers to there was some and there was some financial and logistics help given, given by whom or high it goes is probably a matter of investigation.

GDB wrote:

Many worked with the US in the 1980s when funneling support to those fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan, there is clearly a potential overlap there with what happened in 2001 which the US government would prefer to be forgotten about.

Otherwise, I see no parallels, then again I don't live in an ill-informed but paranoid world, like those who took part last year in the Capitol.
Do you?

My essential point remains, we know what we saw, both on 9/11 and 1/6, we know who inspired it, who the perps were though in larger numbers than 19 hijackers and the network that funded and helped them in all other aspects, frankly I'd trust (factions) of the Pakistani ISI less than the Saudis, another group that had the $ largesse in the 1980s which you are right, some in the US would rather we not know about or forget.

The only difference, the perps of 9/11 in the planning and funding are either dead or banged up, why are the perps of 1/6 still walking? Being rich, white GOP perhaps?

I agree with your last point. As I shared in the thread above, all the enemies of the U.S. would have been very glad of this event as the U.S. itself is imploding in itself, at least that is how it would look, more so if no consequences are there for there for the rioters and not just for the rioters, those who did the planning, provided the finance, the logistics everything. If it isn't weeded out now, then Americans should be ready for even more of the same and perhaps even bigger. Once this idea takes root that violence is the only means then you have lost the plot, plain and simple

Newark727 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Like I've said before, I didn't vote for Trump either time (Gary Johnson in 2016 and Biden in 2020)
and consider the rioters in Washington as treasonous but I still don't think that they were "armed to the teeth". They had improvised weapons. The person who I responded to also said that the rioters in Kenosha weren't dangerous because they just had big skateboards, etc. I'm sorry but he can't have it both ways. If the one group was armed and dangerous, so was the other. Yes, the 1/6 group was more dangerous for democracy, but they weren't armed to the teeth.

I'd consider how heavily armed the Capitol rioters were to be something of a red herring - they were armed enough for what was going on given their numbers and intent. The 9/11 hijackers were by no means "armed to the teeth" either, yet we all saw what they were capable of.

Once again, look at the post that I was replying to.

Tugger wrote:

NIKV69 wrote:

Newark727 wrote:

Joe Biden got through the primaries and won 80 million votes in the general election without pandering to a single domestic terrorist. If the system is so unacceptable to you stop voting for its products.

Oh come on, Of course he did. Problem is when a person who votes Democrat blows something up or burns something down he or she is called an "activist" and not a terrorist. It's identity politics at it's worst. As for stop voting for it's products I never vote in primaries for this reason.

I was going to note that Biden did state he would have a female POC as his running mate... That is pandering and part of the base he was pandering to were very vocally in support of the BLM violence that occurred. He wanted those votes (or more accurately he couldn't afford to lose them).

Tugg

Actually, he promised a female running mate, but later it was narrowed to female POC after George Floyd's death. Whitmer and Klobuchar were originally in the running mate mix prior to Floyd's death. The BLM movement went full drive after his death. Let's not jump to riots (BLM violence) in absence of that event, without acknowledging majority of black Democrats wanted justice for Floyd's death.

NIKV69 wrote:

Though I don't consider it an insurrection and more of a riot

Definition of insurrection from Merriam Webster:
an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government.

1/6 wasn't just a riot. It happened at the Capitol with intent to barge in and stop the electoral process.

skyservice_330 wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

seb146 wrote:

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

I don't believe that is factually correct.

I can't say that all participants were armed, but some were.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 57164.html
Most heavily armed January 6 rioter pleads guilty to bringing five firearms and 11 Molotov cocktails to Capitol
Lonnie Coffman admits federal weapons charges after bringing arsenal of firearms and explosive devices to Capitol

https://www.abc10.com/article/news/veri ... 0744ad6331
Jan. 6 one year later: Fact-checking three claims about the insurrection
No, the insurrection was not a completely unarmed protest. Several individuals involved in the mob were charged or sentenced for crimes involving a weapon.
.
.
.
According to DOJ records, more than 200 people have now been arrested and charged with assaulting police on Jan. 6, 2021. Some protesters did have guns - that includes Lonnie Coffman, who pleaded guilty to driving his pickup to the Capitol while in possession of several loaded guns, ammunition, a crossbow, machetes and jars filled with ingredients for molotov cocktails.

Prosecutors say weapons don’t necessarily only mean firearms. An array of makeshift weapons were used in the melee, including crutches, flagpoles and stolen police batons, records say.

The FBI still has a flier on their website calling for the public’s assistance in finding an individual accused of planting pipe bombs across the city the night before the riot.

They had pipe bombs AND GUNS but so peaceful.

Oh, and let's not forget the gallows for then-VP Mike Pence and House Speaker Pelosi.

Armed right wing domestic terrorists that were peaceful. And murdered officers. And Republicans are defending this. Scroll though this thread alone and see all the Republicans defending the right wing domestic terrorists who were armed.

dmg626 wrote:

Yes the actions of a few that day represent the whole party just like the actions of a few represent the whole Democratic Party. Politicians and media want this narrative to continue, I would hope that majority of people see through this, but apparently not evident here.

They see through it IMO, it just serves them well to pretend not to. The most interesting part is I think they truly believe they're the only ones that see through it and they're actually convincing anyone of anything and that everyone who claims to agree with the points they make don't see through it too.

At this "insurrection" none of them had guns, the capitol police waved them in, the only person killed that day was a Trump supporter and she was killed by a police officer, and Congress went back into session in the Capitol hours later to certify the election for Joe.

afcjets wrote:

dmg626 wrote:

Yes the actions of a few that day represent the whole party just like the actions of a few represent the whole Democratic Party. Politicians and media want this narrative to continue, I would hope that majority of people see through this, but apparently not evident here.

They see through it IMO, it just serves them well to pretend not to. The most interesting part is I think they truly believe they're the only ones that see through it and they're actually convincing anyone of anything and that everyone who claims to agree with the points they make don't see through it too.

At this "insurrection" none of them had guns, the capitol police waved them in, the only person killed that day was a Trump supporter and she was killed by a police officer, and Congress went back into session in the Capitol hours later to certify the election for Joe.

The party can separate themselves by condemning the actions of those insurrectionists who entered the capital, not condoning them by calling them protesters. Republicans generally are either silent on the matter or they downplay the actions of those who entered the capital building illegally on January 6th. (Many Republicans initially condemned the insurrectionists on January 6th and 7th, but stopped doing that pretty quickly once they saw which way the wind was blowing from the party leader, Donald Trump, and that they would be targeted politically (or even further) by those who follow Trump if they didn't change their tune.)

I'd have to go check, but most Democratic politicians generally support peaceful protests in places open to the public, but condemn violent protests, even when they are in places open to the public. Relatedly, you have Democrats who have condemned and used political will to remove sexual harassers from office. (Andrew Cuomo and Al Franken are examples that come to mind.) I'm also quite sure that if the sexual mores of today existed in the 90s, Democrats would have pressured Bill Clinton to resign.

Finally, for this discussion while they're not members of the party per se: Fox News commentators should be lumped with the Republicans. MSNBC commentators should be lumped with the Democrats. And CNN is somewhere in the middle.

seb146 wrote:

skyservice_330 wrote:

FlapOperator wrote:

I don't believe that is factually correct.

I can't say that all participants were armed, but some were.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 57164.html
Most heavily armed January 6 rioter pleads guilty to bringing five firearms and 11 Molotov cocktails to Capitol
Lonnie Coffman admits federal weapons charges after bringing arsenal of firearms and explosive devices to Capitol

https://www.abc10.com/article/news/veri ... 0744ad6331
Jan. 6 one year later: Fact-checking three claims about the insurrection
No, the insurrection was not a completely unarmed protest. Several individuals involved in the mob were charged or sentenced for crimes involving a weapon.
.
.
.
According to DOJ records, more than 200 people have now been arrested and charged with assaulting police on Jan. 6, 2021. Some protesters did have guns - that includes Lonnie Coffman, who pleaded guilty to driving his pickup to the Capitol while in possession of several loaded guns, ammunition, a crossbow, machetes and jars filled with ingredients for molotov cocktails.

Prosecutors say weapons don’t necessarily only mean firearms. An array of makeshift weapons were used in the melee, including crutches, flagpoles and stolen police batons, records say.

The FBI still has a flier on their website calling for the public’s assistance in finding an individual accused of planting pipe bombs across the city the night before the riot.

They had pipe bombs AND GUNS but so peaceful.

Oh, and let's not forget the gallows for then-VP Mike Pence and House Speaker Pelosi.

Armed right wing domestic terrorists that were peaceful. And murdered officers. And Republicans are defending this. Scroll though this thread alone and see all the Republicans defending the right wing domestic terrorists who were armed.

I haven't really seen anyone defending 1/6. Myself and others were simply pointing out the error in your statement about being "armed to the teeth". Some folks on here are talking about if its an insurrection or riot, but again, that is not defending it.

USAirKid wrote:

I'd have to go check, but most Democratic politicians generally support peaceful protests in places open to the public, but condemn violent protests, even when they are in places open to the public.

You can start with Kamala Harris. She tweeted asking for people to donate to the Minnesota Freedom Fund to bail out rioters last summer.

“Among those bailed out by the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF) is a suspect who shot at police, a woman accused of killing a friend, and a twice-convicted sex offender, according to court records,” Fox 9 Minneapolis reported at the time. “According to attempted murder charges, Jaleel Stallings shot at members of a SWAT Team during the riots in May. Police recovered a modified pistol that looks like an AK-47. MFF paid $75,000 in cash to get Stallings out of jail.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/bail-fun ... arsely-api

From this side of the pond it looked like a mob intent on preventing the democratic process operating because a politician of the wrong political complexion was being confirmed as head of state.

Would they have done the same if the situation were reversed (Trump had been declared winner but they believed Biden had won)?

afcjets wrote:

Congress went back into session in the Capitol hours later to certify the election for Joe.

Which was absolutely the correct thing to do - the insurrectionist traitors and their liar-in-chief could not be seen to change the course of democracy.

afcjets wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

I'd have to go check, but most Democratic politicians generally support peaceful protests in places open to the public, but condemn violent protests, even when they are in places open to the public.

You can start with Kamala Harris. She tweeted asking for people to donate to the Minnesota Freedom Fund to bail out rioters last summer.

“Among those bailed out by the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF) is a suspect who shot at police, a woman accused of killing a friend, and a twice-convicted sex offender, according to court records,” Fox 9 Minneapolis reported at the time. “According to attempted murder charges, Jaleel Stallings shot at members of a SWAT Team during the riots in May. Police recovered a modified pistol that looks like an AK-47. MFF paid $75,000 in cash to get Stallings out of jail.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/bail-fun ... arsely-api

Bail is a different issue and it is legal. For many states the ability to leave jail while you’re awaiting trial is completely based on if you have or if you can borrow money. A bail fund is working within that system. It is legal and part of our judicial system..

I agree that at least a few of those people should not have been allowed to leave jail. However, that is something the judge should’ve handled by not setting a bail. (Or depending on the details, the legislature should change the law to prevent bail being set in these cases, or just to get rid of bail all together.)

I’m also damn sure that Kamala Harris didn’t make the decisions for who the MFF would bail out. FWIW, we’ve abolished bail at the federal level, and we’d all be safer if we abolished it nationwide.

Isn't it amazing as the further we go on, more and more of the actual Election fraud seems to have been committed in the name of Republicans.

https://www.newsweek.com/pro-trump-grou ... 20-1667825

Groups supporting former President Donald Trump in Arizona and Michigan sent fake documents to the National Archives falsely showing that he had won those states' Electoral College votes.

Forged certificates of ascertainment were sent to the National Archives by pro-Trump groups in each state in December 2020. The document from Arizona bore the state seal and legal action was taken against those responsible.

Certificates of ascertainment identify how a state's electors have cast their votes in the presidential election and the faked documents show Trump and then Vice President Mike Pence winning the slates of electors in both states.

and isn't' it amazing how the system works to capture such fraud.

The National Archives informed Hobbs' office on December 11, 2020 about the forged certificate, sending it to state officials "for your awareness." The Archives had rejected the fake documents.

But the corruption runs deep, especially in Michigan,

The Michigan document did not use the state's seal and it appears no legal action was taken against those involved. However, a number of state Republicans were signatories to the certificate.

These included Michigan GOP co-chair Meshawn Maddock, Shelby County Clerk Stanley Grot and Republican National Committee member Kathy Brenden. Maddock was elected to her position after the document was sent.

art wrote:

From this side of the pond it looked like a mob intent on preventing the democratic process operating because a politician of the wrong political complexion was being confirmed as head of state.

Would they have done the same if the situation were reversed (Trump had been declared winner but they believed Biden had won)?

Biden had not been whining and screaming the election was rigged for a year before the election. That is a very important point to make.

seb146 wrote:

art wrote:

From this side of the pond it looked like a mob intent on preventing the democratic process operating because a politician of the wrong political complexion was being confirmed as head of state.

Would they have done the same if the situation were reversed (Trump had been declared winner but they believed Biden had won)?

Biden had not been whining and screaming the election was rigged for a year before the election. That is a very important point to make.

However, Senator Wyden had been discussing election security for five years prior to 2020, and with his position on the Senate Intelligence Oversight committee, an interesting confluence.

afcjets wrote:

dmg626 wrote:

Yes the actions of a few that day represent the whole party just like the actions of a few represent the whole Democratic Party. Politicians and media want this narrative to continue, I would hope that majority of people see through this, but apparently not evident here.

They see through it IMO, it just serves them well to pretend not to. The most interesting part is I think they truly believe they're the only ones that see through it and they're actually convincing anyone of anything and that everyone who claims to agree with the points they make don't see through it too.

At this "insurrection" none of them had guns, the capitol police waved them in, the only person killed that day was a Trump supporter and she was killed by a police officer, and Congress went back into session in the Capitol hours later to certify the election for Joe.

It's the excuse making I don't get. Perfectly reasonable and otherwise intelligent conservative leaning Republican's work so hard to excuse and justify what they would otherwise vociferously condemn.

afcjets, you are a perfect example. "They didn't have guns"! "Someone waved them in"! "Only person killed was a Trump supporter"! You are working hard to justify what happened, what Trump supporters, who tend to be registered Republican's, did that day in attempting to stop or change the legislative process.

And saying "Other groups do it too and people are OK with it" is a fallacy as well. YOU are not OK with it based on your posts regarding such actions.

If you support what they did, just say so. You don't need to make excuses. Just say "I support mobs of people trying to halt the legal processes of the USA." But then you would need to also be OK with other such actions, which, as you have noted regarding the BLM protests and riots, you are not. So I have to ask, why are you being duplicitous?

I'll be clear: I am not OK with either. Any mob violence is just not OK. Attacking police stations is as unacceptable as attacking the Capitol of the United States.

Tugg

Tugger wrote:

afcjets wrote:

dmg626 wrote:

Yes the actions of a few that day represent the whole party just like the actions of a few represent the whole Democratic Party. Politicians and media want this narrative to continue, I would hope that majority of people see through this, but apparently not evident here.

They see through it IMO, it just serves them well to pretend not to. The most interesting part is I think they truly believe they're the only ones that see through it and they're actually convincing anyone of anything and that everyone who claims to agree with the points they make don't see through it too.

At this "insurrection" none of them had guns, the capitol police waved them in, the only person killed that day was a Trump supporter and she was killed by a police officer, and Congress went back into session in the Capitol hours later to certify the election for Joe.

It's the excuse making I don't get. Perfectly reasonable and otherwise intelligent conservative leaning Republican's work so hard to excuse and justify what they would otherwise vociferously condemn.

afcjets, you are a perfect example. "They didn't have guns"! "Someone waved them in"! "Only person killed was a Trump supporter"! You are working hard to justify what happened, what Trump supporters, who tend to be registered Republican's, did that day in attempting to stop or change the legislative process.

And saying "Other groups do it too and people are OK with it" is a fallacy as well. YOU are not OK with it based on your posts regarding such actions.

If you support what they did, just say so. You don't need to make excuses. Just say "I support mobs of people trying to halt the legal processes of the USA." But then you would need to also be OK with other such actions, which, as you have noted regarding the BLM protests and riots, you are not. So I have to ask, why are you being duplicitous?

I'll be clear: I am not OK with either. Any mob violence is just not OK. Attacking police stations is as unacceptable as attacking the Capitol of the United States.

Tugg

+100 on this

Tugger wrote:

afcjets wrote:

dmg626 wrote:

Yes the actions of a few that day represent the whole party just like the actions of a few represent the whole Democratic Party. Politicians and media want this narrative to continue, I would hope that majority of people see through this, but apparently not evident here.

They see through it IMO, it just serves them well to pretend not to. The most interesting part is I think they truly believe they're the only ones that see through it and they're actually convincing anyone of anything and that everyone who claims to agree with the points they make don't see through it too.

At this "insurrection" none of them had guns, the capitol police waved them in, the only person killed that day was a Trump supporter and she was killed by a police officer, and Congress went back into session in the Capitol hours later to certify the election for Joe.

It's the excuse making I don't get. Perfectly reasonable and otherwise intelligent conservative leaning Republican's work so hard to excuse and justify what they would otherwise vociferously condemn.

afcjets, you are a perfect example. "They didn't have guns"! "Someone waved them in"! "Only person killed was a Trump supporter"! You are working hard to justify what happened, what Trump supporters, who tend to be registered Republican's, did that day in attempting to stop or change the legislative process.

And saying "Other groups do it too and people are OK with it" is a fallacy as well. YOU are not OK with it based on your posts regarding such actions.

If you support what they did, just say so. You don't need to make excuses. Just say "I support mobs of people trying to halt the legal processes of the USA." But then you would need to also be OK with other such actions, which, as you have noted regarding the BLM protests and riots, you are not. So I have to ask, why are you being duplicitous?

I'll be clear: I am not OK with either. Any mob violence is just not OK. Attacking police stations is as unacceptable as attacking the Capitol of the United States.

Tugg

Such blatant and frankly disgusting lies and double standards, from the usual suspects, (who as stated before, make all sorts of excuses and mental gymnastics when trying to justify when police use excessive, often deadly force, against unarmed people in non riot situations), no cops were killed says one, well they KNOW that is a lie. One on the day, others through suicide which seems to be PTSD related.

The others who were rioting, I do not recall any sympathy for any peaceful demonstrators, much less any rioters, injured, certainly not killed. Of course they were for civil rights, not White Supremacy, they were also the 'wrong' colour.
You lot are fooling no one but yourselves.

One violent rioter died via law enforcement action, others were medical or their own stupidity.

https://www.newsweek.com/january-6-capi ... de-1665815

USAirKid wrote:

afcjets wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

I'd have to go check, but most Democratic politicians generally support peaceful protests in places open to the public, but condemn violent protests, even when they are in places open to the public.

You can start with Kamala Harris. She tweeted asking for people to donate to the Minnesota Freedom Fund to bail out rioters last summer.

“Among those bailed out by the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF) is a suspect who shot at police, a woman accused of killing a friend, and a twice-convicted sex offender, according to court records,” Fox 9 Minneapolis reported at the time. “According to attempted murder charges, Jaleel Stallings shot at members of a SWAT Team during the riots in May. Police recovered a modified pistol that looks like an AK-47. MFF paid $75,000 in cash to get Stallings out of jail.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/bail-fun ... arsely-api

Bail is a different issue and it is legal. For many states the ability to leave jail while you’re awaiting trial is completely based on if you have or if you can borrow money. A bail fund is working within that system. It is legal and part of our judicial system..

I agree that at least a few of those people should not have been allowed to leave jail. However, that is something the judge should’ve handled by not setting a bail. (Or depending on the details, the legislature should change the law to prevent bail being set in these cases, or just to get rid of bail all together.)

Bail is a financial assurance you will return for your court dates. If you stand to lose money, the more likely you will show up, or your family and/or whoever lends you the money will rat you out if you don't. The system wasn't designed with bail bondsmen in mind, that came about later. I would bet the judge set Stallings bail at 75K because he thought it would keep him locked up with being overly excessive. I don't think the judge expected the MFF to pay it. Remember that the 8th Amendment protects US Citizens from excessive bail since you are innocent until proven guilty in our justice system. Of course there are some exceptions to the 8th, but I am not very well read on that subject.

The entire justice system is rigged in favor of the haves and against the have-nots, but that is a completely separate conversation.

bpatus297 wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

afcjets wrote:

You can start with Kamala Harris. She tweeted asking for people to donate to the Minnesota Freedom Fund to bail out rioters last summer.

“Among those bailed out by the Minnesota Freedom Fund (MFF) is a suspect who shot at police, a woman accused of killing a friend, and a twice-convicted sex offender, according to court records,” Fox 9 Minneapolis reported at the time. “According to attempted murder charges, Jaleel Stallings shot at members of a SWAT Team during the riots in May. Police recovered a modified pistol that looks like an AK-47. MFF paid $75,000 in cash to get Stallings out of jail.”

https://www.dailywire.com/news/bail-fun ... arsely-api

Bail is a different issue and it is legal. For many states the ability to leave jail while you’re awaiting trial is completely based on if you have or if you can borrow money. A bail fund is working within that system. It is legal and part of our judicial system..

I agree that at least a few of those people should not have been allowed to leave jail. However, that is something the judge should’ve handled by not setting a bail. (Or depending on the details, the legislature should change the law to prevent bail being set in these cases, or just to get rid of bail all together.)

Bail is a financial assurance you will return for your court dates. If you stand to lose money, the more likely you will show up, or your family and/or whoever lends you the money will rat you out if you don't. The system wasn't designed with bail bondsmen in mind, that came about later. I would bet the judge set Stallings bail at 75K because he thought it would keep him locked up with being overly excessive. I don't think the judge expected the MFF to pay it. Remember that the 8th Amendment protects US Citizens from excessive bail since you are innocent until proven guilty in our justice system. Of course there are some exceptions to the 8th, but I am not very well read on that subject.

The entire justice system is rigged in favor of the haves and against the have-nots, but that is a completely separate conversation.

Yeah, except bail initially was set up that it'd only be paid if you didn't show up. It wasn't a deposit with the court and/or a contract with a bail bondsman. Vox gives a reasonable summary and links to some academic articles comparing the two systems: https://www.vox.com/2019/5/7/18527237/p ... ute-report

And for more fun, John Oliver did a piece on bail a few years ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS5mwymTIJU

Its a broken system that doesn't really do what its supposed to, and allows rich defendants to get out of jail when they probably shouldn't.

USAirKid wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Bail is a financial assurance you will return for your court dates. If you stand to lose money, the more likely you will show up, or your family and/or whoever lends you the money will rat you out if you don't. The system wasn't designed with bail bondsmen in mind, that came about later. I would bet the judge set Stallings bail at 75K because he thought it would keep him locked up with being overly excessive. I don't think the judge expected the MFF to pay it. Remember that the 8th Amendment protects US Citizens from excessive bail since you are innocent until proven guilty in our justice system. Of course there are some exceptions to the 8th, but I am not very well read on that subject.

The entire justice system is rigged in favor of the haves and against the have-nots, but that is a completely separate conversation.

Yeah, except bail initially was set up that it'd only be paid if you didn't show up. It wasn't a deposit with the court and/or a contract with a bail bondsman. Vox gives a reasonable summary and links to some academic articles comparing the two systems: https://www.vox.com/2019/5/7/18527237/p ... ute-report

And for more fun, John Oliver did a piece on bail a few years ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS5mwymTIJU

Its a broken system that doesn't really do what its supposed to, and allows rich defendants to get out of jail when they probably shouldn't.

It probably really is a good separate topic and could become one but it does apply within this one as well. The thing about bail though, is that it does a job that is hard to do. What else can be done in place if it?

The idea is to create a tool, and incentive which the defendant/accused can use, that obligated the person to show up for court in lieu of just remaining in a cell. The bail also creates an independent pool of money to pay for service to bring the person in if they do not show up as promised.

Tugg

FlapOperator wrote:

seb146 wrote:

art wrote:

From this side of the pond it looked like a mob intent on preventing the democratic process operating because a politician of the wrong political complexion was being confirmed as head of state.

Would they have done the same if the situation were reversed (Trump had been declared winner but they believed Biden had won)?

Biden had not been whining and screaming the election was rigged for a year before the election. That is a very important point to make.

However, Senator Wyden had been discussing election security for five years prior to 2020, and with his position on the Senate Intelligence Oversight committee, an interesting confluence.

Discussing election security is vastly different than holding rallies and screaming "THE ELCTION IS RIGGED!!!!" every few days...

BTW, does this mean TX and GA and MS and AL and OK and SD and (insert Republican controlled state here) had zero election laws before December 2020? I am asking because all of these sudden laws being passed to limit who can vote and where seems to be happening in lawless states controlled by Republicans. Or am I wrong?

Tugger wrote:

USAirKid wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Bail is a financial assurance you will return for your court dates. If you stand to lose money, the more likely you will show up, or your family and/or whoever lends you the money will rat you out if you don't. The system wasn't designed with bail bondsmen in mind, that came about later. I would bet the judge set Stallings bail at 75K because he thought it would keep him locked up with being overly excessive. I don't think the judge expected the MFF to pay it. Remember that the 8th Amendment protects US Citizens from excessive bail since you are innocent until proven guilty in our justice system. Of course there are some exceptions to the 8th, but I am not very well read on that subject.

The entire justice system is rigged in favor of the haves and against the have-nots, but that is a completely separate conversation.

Yeah, except bail initially was set up that it'd only be paid if you didn't show up. It wasn't a deposit with the court and/or a contract with a bail bondsman. Vox gives a reasonable summary and links to some academic articles comparing the two systems: https://www.vox.com/2019/5/7/18527237/p ... ute-report

And for more fun, John Oliver did a piece on bail a few years ago https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IS5mwymTIJU

Its a broken system that doesn't really do what its supposed to, and allows rich defendants to get out of jail when they probably shouldn't.

It probably really is a good separate topic and could become one but it does apply within this one as well. The thing about bail though, is that it does a job that is hard to do. What else can be done in place if it?

The idea is to create a tool, and incentive which the defendant/accused can use, that obligated the person to show up for court in lieu of just remaining in a cell. The bail also creates an independent pool of money to pay for service to bring the person in if they do not show up as promised.

Tugg

It’s not a better tool than the alternatives. The John Oliver piece shows an alternative. The Vox article describes alternatives and links to research papers on it.

That being said, getting back to the initial topic, bail is legal, even if it isn’t good.

Tugger wrote:

It's the excuse making I don't get. Perfectly reasonable and otherwise intelligent conservative leaning Republican's work so hard to excuse and justify what they would otherwise vociferously condemn.

afcjets, you are a perfect example. "They didn't have guns"! "Someone waved them in"! "Only person killed was a Trump supporter"! You are working hard to justify what happened, what Trump supporters, who tend to be registered Republican's, did that day in attempting to stop or change the legislative process.

And saying "Other groups do it too and people are OK with it" is a fallacy as well. YOU are not OK with it based on your posts regarding such actions.

If you support what they did, just say so. You don't need to make excuses. Just say "I support mobs of people trying to halt the legal processes of the USA." But then you would need to also be OK with other such actions, which, as you have noted regarding the BLM protests and riots, you are not. So I have to ask, why are you being duplicitous?

I'll be clear: I am not OK with either. Any mob violence is just not OK. Attacking police stations is as unacceptable as attacking the Capitol of the United States.

Tugg

I'm not the perfect example since I'm not and never have been a Republican, or a member of any political party. I wasn't making excuses by saying they didn't have guns, I was making the point it wasn't an insurrection without them, combined with the fact hours later Congress was back in session at the Capitol certifying Joe as the next President. While the media only shows videos of the riots, there are other videos showing capitol police waving orderly people to come into the Capitol away from all the chaos. Call me naive but I would think that means it's ok to go in the Capitol. I have never been to the White House or the Capitol, but I know they allow visitors to at least the WH and if they do at the Capitol, I would assume the Capitol police know what parts you can enter and when.

I am not being duplicitous as you state in the way you meant. I am for rioting (within reason) when cops murder people absent of self defense:

Afcjets wrote:

N583JB wrote:

Multiple buildings on fire at this moment in Saint Paul. Protesting is warranted. Violent rioting is not. Hope the National Guard gets this under control.

It wasn't (justified) in Ferguson, it might be in this case.

One of the reasons (but not the only reason) I haven't condoned the capitol riots aside from the tragic loss of life, is when they occurred the election hadn't even been certified yet.

GDB wrote:

Such blatant and frankly disgusting lies and double standards, from the usual suspects, (who as stated before, make all sorts of excuses and mental gymnastics when trying to justify when police use excessive, often deadly force, against unarmed people in non riot situations), no cops were killed says one, well they KNOW that is a lie. One on the day, others through suicide which seems to be PTSD related.

The others who were rioting, I do not recall any sympathy for any peaceful demonstrators, much less any rioters, injured, certainly not killed. Of course they were for civil rights, not White Supremacy, they were also the 'wrong' colour.
You lot are fooling no one but yourselves.

One violent rioter died via law enforcement action, others were medical or their own stupidity.

https://www.newsweek.com/january-6-capi ... de-1665815

Nothing I said was a lie. I read your linked article twice, and it mentions two people passed away on the day of the riots, both Trump supporters, including the one I mentioned shot by police, and another while talking to his wife on the phone while on the sidewalk, and from a health condition. Another person it doesn't state when they did, but also a Trump supporter. The cops who committed suicide is tragic no matter when it happened or whatever the reason. I have also never claimed anyone (of any color, since you're making it about race) died from their own stupidity. I have more compassion than that.

afcjets wrote:

At this "insurrection" none of them had guns,

I'm sorry, who didn't have guns?

afcjets wrote:

the capitol police waved them in

They were completely outnumbered. Many Police were gassed and standing behind metal barriers. They would have been tramped, run over or beaten up.
And they were outnumbered for so long because certain people REFUSED to call in support and the National Guard. There were also nowhere near enough Police in attendance.

All of this was on video. Some of it was even shown live on TV.

You've seen the videos of the Poilce 8-10 deep at entrance doors being pushed against by the rioters? Being gassed, being threatened, having things thrown at them, being spat on, being punched. This was more than a Riot.

afcjets wrote:

, the only person killed that day was a Trump supporter and she was killed by a police officer

Yes, shot trying to break through a door guarded by the Police only feet from Elected officials being evacuated. Warnings were given.
Did you see the testimony given to the investigation panel by some of the officers who were there? It was chilling.

afcjets wrote:

, and Congress went back into session in the Capitol hours later to certify the election for Joe.

As was entirely right, when it was safe to do so. I like the way you always call him "Joe", maybe to make it sound like he's less than he is. I'll start calling him Donald all the time, when I'm not calling him far ruder things.

Reinhardt wrote:

afcjets wrote:

At this "insurrection" none of them had guns,

I'm sorry, who didn't have guns?

The people arrested at the Capitol on 1/6 (unless you want to count stun guns), according to the NPR link from GDB in the second post on this page, even though he says otherwise in his post. In all fairness to him, the headline might have been designed to mislead and like many people he didn't actually read the article.

Reinhardt wrote:

afcjets wrote:

the capitol police waved them in

They were completely outnumbered. Many Police were gassed and standing behind metal barriers. They would have been tramped, run over or beaten up.
And they were outnumbered for so long because certain people REFUSED to call in support and the National Guard. There were also nowhere near enough Police in attendance.

All of this was on video. Some of it was even shown live on TV.

Yes, we've all seen the videos. I'm talking about the videos which have since been deleted by YouTube and Facebook which show different parts of the Capitol nowhere near the chaos. You actually see police opening the barricades and waving peaceful protestors (who are several feet back with plenty of open space between them) into the Capitol. There was even a video of peaceful protestors singing inside the Capitol, walking around slowly in circles in the lobby area holding American flags. The Capitol police are casually standing at various spots around the lobby watching them like it's no big deal.

Politifact even admits Facebook deleted the videos that went against the narrative that 100 percent of the protestors who entered the Capitol were anything but monsters...

"The footage shows people milling around the Capitol, some carrying Trump flags. Someone can be heard singing the national anthem while others shout "freedom" and "USA."...

This post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed."

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2 ... aceful-pr/

Reinhardt wrote:

You've seen the videos of the Poilce 8-10 deep at entrance doors being pushed against by the rioters? Being gassed, being threatened, having things thrown at them, being spat on, being punched. This was more than a Riot

Yes, very similar to the riots in Portland and Seattle, except no police officers or protestors/rioters were shot and killed by the rioters on 1/6, which make those riots worse IMO.

Reinhardt wrote:

I like the way you always call him "Joe", maybe to make it sound like he's less than he is. I'll start calling him Donald all the time, when I'm not calling him far ruder things.

I don't call him rude things like you admit calling Trump. Joe ran on being someone the average guy can relate to and his wife constantly called him Joe when campaigning for him. It seemed they wanted you to feel like Joe would be a President you could be on a first name basis with. Nonetheless, I think he's a terrible President and I'm no longer a fan of Joe the person either like I was in the past.

afcjets wrote:

I'm talking about the videos which have since been deleted by YouTube and Facebook which show different parts of the Capitol nowhere near the chaos. You actually see police opening the barricades and waving peaceful protestors (who are several feet back with plenty of open space between them) into the Capitol.

Ahh so it's all part of that big FBI conspiracy theory Bannon et al have been pushing. Okay dude, thanks for making that clear.

Aaron747 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

I'm talking about the videos which have since been deleted by YouTube and Facebook which show different parts of the Capitol nowhere near the chaos. You actually see police opening the barricades and waving peaceful protestors (who are several feet back with plenty of open space between them) into the Capitol.

Ahh so it's all part of that big FBI conspiracy theory Bannon et al have been pushing. Okay dude, thanks for making that clear.

I don't know why they were deleted, but I have seen several of the videos he's talking about. They exist.

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

afcjets wrote:

I'm talking about the videos which have since been deleted by YouTube and Facebook which show different parts of the Capitol nowhere near the chaos. You actually see police opening the barricades and waving peaceful protestors (who are several feet back with plenty of open space between them) into the Capitol.

Ahh so it's all part of that big FBI conspiracy theory Bannon et al have been pushing. Okay dude, thanks for making that clear.

I don't know why they were deleted, but I have seen several of the videos he's talking about. They exist.

You are all talking about the ones where the barricades were . far out, and prior to the violent attacks on the inner side of the Capitol where they smashed doors, beat officers, and forced entry and destroyed property. The videos of the peaceful entry, are rather like watching the prelude to the disaster.
So don't t give a pass to the treasonous disgrace that chose to try to overthrow the will of the American People based on the the lies of their perverted cult leaders

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Ahh so it's all part of that big FBI conspiracy theory Bannon et al have been pushing. Okay dude, thanks for making that clear.

I don't know why they were deleted, but I have seen several of the videos he's talking about. They exist.

You are all talking about the ones where the barricades were . far out, and prior to the violent attacks on the inner side of the Capitol where they smashed doors, beat officers, and forced entry and destroyed property. The videos of the peaceful entry, are rather like watching the prelude to the disaster.
So don't t give a pass to the treasonous disgrace that chose to try to overthrow the will of the American People based on the the lies of their perverted cult leaders

I don't give them a pass either, just point out that there is a lot of information being ignored and swept under the rug. I have my options as to why, but its not worth debating on here. That day was a disgrace, but no where on the level of infamy as Peral Harbor as some have said.

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Ahh so it's all part of that big FBI conspiracy theory Bannon et al have been pushing. Okay dude, thanks for making that clear.

I don't know why they were deleted, but I have seen several of the videos he's talking about. They exist.

Please show me where I said the videos did not exist...man oh man.

You didn't, but your comments insinuate it. .

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I don't know why they were deleted, but I have seen several of the videos he's talking about. They exist.

You are all talking about the ones where the barricades were . far out, and prior to the violent attacks on the inner side of the Capitol where they smashed doors, beat officers, and forced entry and destroyed property. The videos of the peaceful entry, are rather like watching the prelude to the disaster.
So don't t give a pass to the treasonous disgrace that chose to try to overthrow the will of the American People based on the the lies of their perverted cult leaders

I don't give them a pass either, just point out that there is a lot of information being ignored and swept under the rug. I have my options as to why, but its not worth debating on here. That day was a disgrace, but no where on the level of infamy as Peral Harbor as some have said.

It was and is worse than Pearl harbor. The issue continues. Liars and frauds are working to overturn democracy from within the country.

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

You are all talking about the ones where the barricades were . far out, and prior to the violent attacks on the inner side of the Capitol where they smashed doors, beat officers, and forced entry and destroyed property. The videos of the peaceful entry, are rather like watching the prelude to the disaster.
So don't t give a pass to the treasonous disgrace that chose to try to overthrow the will of the American People based on the the lies of their perverted cult leaders

I don't give them a pass either, just point out that there is a lot of information being ignored and swept under the rug. I have my options as to why, but its not worth debating on here. That day was a disgrace, but no where on the level of infamy as Peral Harbor as some have said.

It was and is worse than Pearl harbor. The issue continues. Liars and frauds are working to overturn democracy from within the country.

I will agree to disagree that it was anywhere close to Pearl Harbor. A foreign power attacked the US on our own soil which resulted in 2403 killed and over a thousand injured at Peral Harbor. Yes a few folks died on 01/06, and the election certification was delayed a few hours, but that is nothing compared to Pearl Harbor.

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I don't give them a pass either, just point out that there is a lot of information being ignored and swept under the rug. I have my options as to why, but its not worth debating on here. That day was a disgrace, but no where on the level of infamy as Peral Harbor as some have said.

It was and is worse than Pearl harbor. The issue continues. Liars and frauds are working to overturn democracy from within the country.

I will agree to disagree that it was anywhere close to Pearl Harbor. A foreign power attacked the US on our own soil which resulted in 2403 killed and over a thousand injured at Peral Harbor. Yes a few folks died on 01/06, and the election certification was delayed a few hours, but that is nothing compared to Pearl Harbor.

It didn;t stop on Jan 6. We still have Right wing sites and politicians working to subvert elections. The whole issue leading to Jan 6 is still there, and it is depriving millions of a good and effective government.
Just the misinformation itself coming out of the Right wing has led to hundreds of thousands of needless deaths.

afcjets wrote:

Reinhardt wrote:

afcjets wrote:

At this "insurrection" none of them had guns,

I'm sorry, who didn't have guns?

The people arrested at the Capitol on 1/6 (unless you want to count stun guns), according to the NPR link from GDB in the second post on this page, even though he says otherwise in his post. In all fairness to him, the headline might have been designed to mislead and like many people he didn't actually read the article.

But this was posted above. Was this guy not armed and there on 1/6 ? I'm confused.

skyservice_330 wrote:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/worl ... 57164.html
Most heavily armed January 6 rioter pleads guilty to bringing five firearms and 11 Molotov cocktails to Capitol
Lonnie Coffman admits federal weapons charges after bringing arsenal of firearms and explosive devices to Capitol

.
According to DOJ records, more than 200 people have now been arrested and charged with assaulting police on Jan. 6, 2021. Some protesters did have guns - that includes Lonnie Coffman, who pleaded guilty to driving his pickup to the Capitol while in possession of several loaded guns, ammunition, a crossbow, machetes and jars filled with ingredients for molotov cocktails.

Prosecutors say weapons don’t necessarily only mean firearms. An array of makeshift weapons were used in the melee, including crutches, flagpoles and stolen police batons, records say.

afcjets wrote:

the capitol police waved them in

Yes, we've all seen the videos. I'm talking about the videos which have since been deleted by YouTube and Facebook which show different parts of the Capitol nowhere near the chaos. You actually see police opening the barricades and waving peaceful protestors (who are several feet back with plenty of open space between them) into the Capitol.

I haven't seen those so cannot comment.

afcjets wrote:

There was even a video of peaceful protestors singing inside the Capitol, walking around slowly in circles in the lobby area holding American flags. The Capitol police are casually standing at various spots around the lobby watching them like it's no big deal.

And? They just stormed the building. Again, the Police were massively outnumbered.

afcjets wrote:

Politifact even admits Facebook deleted the videos that went against the narrative that 100 percent of the protestors who entered the Capitol were anything but monsters...

"The footage shows people milling around the Capitol, some carrying Trump flags. Someone can be heard singing the national anthem while others shout "freedom" and "USA."...

They were not all violent, they were not all "monsters". We know that. The problem was, enough of them were.

afcjets wrote:

Yes, very similar to the riots in Portland and Seattle, except no police officers or protestors/rioters were shot and killed by the rioters on 1/6, which make those riots worse IMO.

Really, you can't tell the difference? You think storming the Capitol building where the next President and hand over of power is in the process of being voted on, with the precise intention to stop it to try to keep in place your leader is not anything less than a massive attempt to thwart democracy? People being shot and killed at protests unfortunately happens the world over every year. It shouldn't but it does. But the repercussions are in no way equatable to what happened on 1/6.

The downplaying and refusal to accept this from the GOP and it's supporters is mind blowing.

afcjets wrote:

I don't call him rude things like you admit calling Trump.

I call Trump as I see him. A fraud, what idiots think a clever person is, what someone who thinks Obama was out to destroy stopped. An Manwho became rich through screwing over everyone else. A man devoid of class, taste, ability to construct and deliver a coherent sentence. A documented liar. More lies told per day than any leader in history, deliberately. A man who ushered in the era of the acceptance of stupidity in a leader. A man who committed more crimes and lies than any president before him. A man who lost more aids to Prison and removed from positions than anyone before him. A man only interested in himself, his self advancement.

That man deserves no respect and I'll call him out at any opportunity.

afcjets wrote:

Joe ran on being someone the average guy can relate to and his wife constantly called him Joe when campaigning for him. It seemed they wanted you to feel like Joe would be a President you could be on a first name basis with.

Agree that is true.

afcjets wrote:

Nonetheless, I think he's a terrible President and I'm no longer a fan of Joe the person either like I was in the past.

That's a shame. He's not the best President ever, but he's a massive advance over the last one (not remotely hard).

But then I guess he's to blame for high gas prices, Afghanistan, Covid in the US, not getting leglistation through etc. Except he isn't.

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

It was and is worse than Pearl harbor. The issue continues. Liars and frauds are working to overturn democracy from within the country.

I will agree to disagree that it was anywhere close to Pearl Harbor. A foreign power attacked the US on our own soil which resulted in 2403 killed and over a thousand injured at Peral Harbor. Yes a few folks died on 01/06, and the election certification was delayed a few hours, but that is nothing compared to Pearl Harbor.

It didn;t stop on Jan 6. We still have Right wing sites and politicians working to subvert elections. The whole issue leading to Jan 6 is still there, and it is depriving millions of a good and effective government.
Just the misinformation itself coming out of the Right wing has led to hundreds of thousands of needless deaths.

Please site what these "hundreds of thousands" of deaths are from? If you are thinking Covid, please site something that points that fact. Also, every conservatives, liberal, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, and Independent I know has moved on from 01/.06. The election is over and it is certified. The dumbasses that went into the Capitol have been arrested and are facing the consequences.

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I don't know why they were deleted, but I have seen several of the videos he's talking about. They exist.

Please show me where I said the videos did not exist...man oh man.

You didn't, but your comments insinuate it. .

Nope - what I was speaking to is totally unrelated to videos. But thanks for assuming.

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

I will agree to disagree that it was anywhere close to Pearl Harbor. A foreign power attacked the US on our own soil which resulted in 2403 killed and over a thousand injured at Peral Harbor. Yes a few folks died on 01/06, and the election certification was delayed a few hours, but that is nothing compared to Pearl Harbor.

It didn;t stop on Jan 6. We still have Right wing sites and politicians working to subvert elections. The whole issue leading to Jan 6 is still there, and it is depriving millions of a good and effective government.
Just the misinformation itself coming out of the Right wing has led to hundreds of thousands of needless deaths.

Please site what these "hundreds of thousands" of deaths are from? If you are thinking Covid, please site something that points that fact. Also, every conservatives, liberal, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, and Independent I know has moved on from 01/.06. The election is over and it is certified. The dumbasses that went into the Capitol have been arrested and are facing the consequences.

THe covid deaths are from misinformation and bad politicians. And no, people have not moved on from Jan 6. The same criminals that made it possible are still holding offices in many states and in the federal government.

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

It didn;t stop on Jan 6. We still have Right wing sites and politicians working to subvert elections. The whole issue leading to Jan 6 is still there, and it is depriving millions of a good and effective government.
Just the misinformation itself coming out of the Right wing has led to hundreds of thousands of needless deaths.

Please site what these "hundreds of thousands" of deaths are from? If you are thinking Covid, please site something that points that fact. Also, every conservatives, liberal, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, and Independent I know has moved on from 01/.06. The election is over and it is certified. The dumbasses that went into the Capitol have been arrested and are facing the consequences.

THe covid deaths are from misinformation and bad politicians. And no, people have not moved on from Jan 6. The same criminals that made it possible are still holding offices in many states and in the federal government.

Please site a source that points to misinformation causing hundreds of thousands of deaths from Covid or claim that it is your opinion. I said people I know, I am not talking about politicians. Hell there are still politicians that claim the BS about BHOs birth certificate. I don't really listen to much of what politicians say, they lie.

Aaron747 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Aaron747 wrote:

Please show me where I said the videos did not exist...man oh man.

You didn't, but your comments insinuate it. .

Nope - what I was speaking to is totally unrelated to videos. But thanks for assuming.

So you weren't talking about the videos being deleted as part of a conspiracy?

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Please site what these "hundreds of thousands" of deaths are from? If you are thinking Covid, please site something that points that fact. Also, every conservatives, liberal, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, and Independent I know has moved on from 01/.06. The election is over and it is certified. The dumbasses that went into the Capitol have been arrested and are facing the consequences.

This isn't over by any means. The vast majority of Republicans still believe strongly that the election was stolen. Trump continues his delusional rants and people like you still support him. Poll workers are receiving death threats and being hounded out of office, New election officials who support Trump's big lie are being put in place and preparations are being made to make sure that the next putsch will be successful. Moderate Republicans are retiring from office. People like Marjorie Taylor Green, Jim Jordan and Madison Cawthorn are now the Republican mainstream, These people have contempt for the truth, democracy, and the rule of law.

bpatus297 wrote:

casinterest wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

Please site what these "hundreds of thousands" of deaths are from? If you are thinking Covid, please site something that points that fact. Also, every conservatives, liberal, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, and Independent I know has moved on from 01/.06. The election is over and it is certified. The dumbasses that went into the Capitol have been arrested and are facing the consequences.

THe covid deaths are from misinformation and bad politicians. And no, people have not moved on from Jan 6. The same criminals that made it possible are still holding offices in many states and in the federal government.

Please site a source that points to misinformation causing hundreds of thousands of deaths from Covid or claim that it is your opinion. I said people I know, I am not talking about politicians. Hell there are still politicians that claim the BS about BHOs birth certificate. I don't really listen to much of what politicians say, they lie.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-sho ... death-rate

NPR looked at deaths per 100,000 people in roughly 3,000 counties across the U.S. from May 2021, the point at which vaccinations widely became available. People living in counties that went 60% or higher for Trump in November 2020 had 2.73 times the death rates of those that went for Biden. Counties with an even higher share of the vote for Trump saw higher COVID-19 mortality rates.

Politicians lies don't help when they are cheer leaded by the followers.
https://www.prri.org/research/competing ... er-attack/

More than two-thirds of Republicans (68%), compared to 26% of independents and 6% of Democrats, believe that the election was stolen from Trump. These shares are even greater among Republicans who most trust Fox News (82%) and essentially universal among those who most trust far-right news (97%). Less than half of Republicans who most trust mainstream news agree (44%).