J6

[anon_5e8aassgcbjz1]

Well, he specifically said treason, as have many other morons. However, I will address your question. By definition, seditious conspiracy is pretty broad. For example, anyone attempting to take anything belonging to the govt or trying to delay any federal law can be convicted of said charge. So, by definition, anyone taking a notepad from the capitol or using force in any manner against any of the capitol police that day could be charged/convicted of seditious conspiracy.
While this is an extreme example, it is no less true and points out the difference in that charge and treason. There is much more wiggle room for the govt to charge/convict people of seditious conspiracy for shock factor to lunatics like you than there is for more serious charges such as treason.

“If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”

Literally everything in the charge requires “by force.” So no, stealing something from your local post office isn’t getting you a seditious conspiracy charge. Try again some other time

 

[jfegaly]

Your link is for a completely different image.

This is why I think you must be a Trump supporter trolling as a Hiden boy. Even they aren't this stupid.

Hilarious. If he/she/it isn’t a Trump supporter that’s doing this on purpose, then I can guarantee he/she/it had to have his/her/it’s ballot cured.

 

[CUT93]

“If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”

Literally everything in the charge requires “by force.” So no, stealing something from your local post office isn’t getting you a seditious conspiracy charge. Try again some other time

If you break in the post office(by force) and steal it, you could be strictly based on the definition.

 

[anon_5e8aassgcbjz1]

If you break in the post office(by force) and steal it, you could be strictly based on the definition.

Almost like there’s this thing called prosecutorial discretion so that the justice system can pursue cases where armed groups aim to obstruct the proceedings of an election while ignoring a guy who smashes a window for some stamps. Who knew!

And if you think your fellow citizens will understand, you even get a jury trial like Stewart Rhodes. Yayyyy

And if you don’t like how that goes you can appeal. Yayyyy.

Then if that fails, you can whine on the internet while calling liberals weak. The irony is rich as hell lol

 

[CUT93]

Almost like there’s this thing called prosecutorial discretion so that the justice system can pursue cases where armed groups aim to obstruct the proceedings of an election while ignoring a guy who smashes a window for some stamps. Who knew!

And if you think your fellow citizens will understand, you even get a jury trial like Stewart Rhodes. Yayyyy

And if you don’t like how that goes you can appeal. Yayyyy.

Then if that fails, you can whine on the internet while calling liberals weak. The irony is rich as hell lol

My comment was that you could, in fact, be charged with seditious conspiracy for stealing something from the post office, not that you WILL be. Which again, differentiates it to great degree from treason- which is what I objected to in my original post until you specifically asked about sedition.

As to your last points, if I were on a jury I would have to vote guilty for anyone who was in the building that day as it would be almost impossible to argue there was no force involved in the group breaking into the capitol. Also, I have said numerous times I DID NOT support the storming of the capitol.
Having said that, the characterization of the events and the motivation/intent of those in the capitol building that day has been ridiculously blown out of proportion. I guess you consider anyone with zip ties or anyone able to take their shoe off and hit you with it as "armed" also, lol.

 

[ctcseb]

My comment was that you could, in fact, be charged with seditious conspiracy for stealing something from the post office, not that you WILL be. Which again, differentiates it to great degree from treason- which is what I objected to in my original post until you specifically asked about sedition.

As to your last points, if I were on a jury I would have to vote guilty for anyone who was in the building that day as it would be almost impossible to argue there was no force involved in the group breaking into the capitol. Also, I have said numerous times I DID NOT support the storming of the capitol.
Having said that, the characterization of the events and the motivation/intent of those in the capitol building that day has been ridiculously blown out of proportion. I guess you consider anyone with zip ties or anyone able to take their shoe off and hit you with it as "armed" also, lol.

Here's the military oath:

"I, ____________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”


1 in 5 defendants (not rioters, actual defendants that were arrested for committing crimes that day) had served in the military and pledged that oath.


These are people that had sworn to protect our country and constitution against all enemies that made a deliberate decision to betray that oath and become a domestic enemy to prevent the peaceful transfer of power we had successfully done for 250 years. Not sure in what world that is not being a traitor.

You think it's overblown and that's been the MO since it happened. It was a "peaceful protest", which anyone who saw the videos knows it absolutely wasn't. And as the convictions are proving out, there were a number of people that did plan to overthrow the government and attempted to do it.

There's something really cowardly about the undermining fallacy of "they only had zip ties" for two reasons. First, you do not need to have actual results to be convicted of a crime. You need two components: intent and some action even if it's ineffectual. If you plan on murdering your ex-wife (intent) and show up at her house, even if it's with a plastic spoon (action of going there and bringing something to cause injury), you are considered a criminal. The fact that some of these idiots were (thankfully) ineffective absolutely doesn't absolve them of a crime. Second, the zip ties part hides the actual truth, the oath keepers had prepared a massive weapons cash to help in their efforts:

"I had not seen that many weapons in one location since I was in the military,” recalled Terry Cummings, a Florida resident who said he joined the Oath Keepers in 2020 amid concerns about left-wing violence in Portland, Ore. and joined the group leaders’ private chats in advance of their Jan. 6 trip to D.C"

Oath Keeper describes group’s large weapons cache ahead of Jan. 6

The group’s founder, Stewart Rhodes, and several regional leaders are charged with conspiring to disrupt the transfer of power and preparing for violence to enforce their will.

www.politico.com

Edit: more info on weapons on site. People are leveraging the fact that most arrests were made weeks later and not on site to undercount the number of weapons available that day:
https://www.statesman.com/story/new...earms-other-weapons-capitol-jan-6/7621149001/

Was everyone there an absolute enemy of the state? Of course not. They were a number of idiotic MAGA followers going along for the ride and just there to stir up shit and send a message. You know what though, they could have done that ANYWHERE. They could have held protests, been on TV, heck they could have damaged property (like the BLM riots) and nobody would be accusing them of being an enemy of the state.

But when you deliberately choose to interfere with the transfer of power to a new president by illegally breaking into the building where the electoral college vote count is supposed to happen and prevent that process from happening, you lose the ability to say you were simply expressing your thoughts. The vote was delayed till early the next morning, you can't deny that, through emergency procedures the VP had to be escorted to a safe/secure location, you can't deny that, a couple of thousand national guards had to be called in to restore order, you can't deny that. You think it's overblown??? How many examples do you have of anything like that happening in France, Germany, the U.K., Sweden, Japan, Norway, etc. over the past 50 years??? The center of government, with all the elected officials in it, brought to a halt, on total lockdown and you are like "meh." Really? If that happened to any other country in the world we would absolute mock the shit out of them.

I'll give you one thing though. It's not a one size fits all. There were different levels of engagement in this shit show, so maybe moving forwards I should have a better gradient of traitors / criminals / pieces of shit to refer to the various people that entered the building that day.

 

[anon_5e8aassgcbjz1]

Here's the military oath:

"I, ____________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”


1 in 5 defendants (not rioters, actual defendants that were arrested for committing crimes that day) had served in the military and pledged that oath.

View embedded media

These are people that had sworn to protect our country and constitution against all enemies that made a deliberate decision to betray that oath and become a domestic enemy to prevent the peaceful transfer of power we had successfully done for 250 years. Not sure in what world that is not being a traitor.

You think it's overblown and that's been the MO since it happened. It was a "peaceful protest", which anyone who saw the videos knows it absolutely wasn't. And as the convictions are proving out, there were a number of people that did plan to overthrow the government and attempted to do it.

There's something really cowardly about the undermining fallacy of "they only had zip ties" for two reasons. First, you do not need to have actual results to be convicted of a crime. You need two components: intent and some action even if it's ineffectual. If you plan on murdering your ex-wife (intent) and show up at her house, even if it's with a plastic spoon (action of going there and bringing something to cause injury), you are considered a criminal. The fact that some of these idiots were (thankfully) ineffective absolutely doesn't absolve them of a crime. Second, the zip ties part hides the actual truth, the oath keepers had prepared a massive weapons cash to help in their efforts:

"I had not seen that many weapons in one location since I was in the military,” recalled Terry Cummings, a Florida resident who said he joined the Oath Keepers in 2020 amid concerns about left-wing violence in Portland, Ore. and joined the group leaders’ private chats in advance of their Jan. 6 trip to D.C"

Oath Keeper describes group’s large weapons cache ahead of Jan. 6

The group’s founder, Stewart Rhodes, and several regional leaders are charged with conspiring to disrupt the transfer of power and preparing for violence to enforce their will.

www.politico.com

Edit: more info on weapons on site. People are leveraging the fact that most arrests were made weeks later and not on site to undercount the number of weapons available that day:
https://www.statesman.com/story/new...earms-other-weapons-capitol-jan-6/7621149001/

Was everyone there an absolute enemy of the state? Of course not. They were a number of idiotic MAGA followers going along for the ride and just there to stir up shit and send a message. You know what though, they could have done that ANYWHERE. They could have held protests, been on TV, heck they could have damaged property (like the BLM riots) and nobody would be accusing them of being an enemy of the state.

But when you deliberately choose to interfere with the transfer of power to a new president by illegally breaking into the building where the electoral college vote count is supposed to happen and prevent that process from happening, you lose the ability to say you were simply expressing your thoughts. The vote was delayed till early the next morning, you can't deny that, through emergency procedures the VP had to be escorted to a safe/secure location, you can't deny that, a couple of thousand national guards had to be called in to restore order, you can't deny that. You think it's overblown??? How many examples do you have of anything like that happening in France, Germany, the U.K., Sweden, Japan, Norway, etc. over the past 50 years??? The center of government, with all the elected officials in it, brought to a halt, on total lockdown and you are like "meh." Really? If that happened to any other country in the world we would absolute mock the shit out of them.

I'll give you one thing though. It's not a one size fits all. There were different levels of engagement in this shit show, so maybe moving forwards I should have a better gradient of traitors / criminals / pieces of shit to refer to the various people that entered the building that day.

I suggest using units of Babbitt for that gradient

 

[jfegaly]

Here's the military oath:

"I, ____________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”


1 in 5 defendants (not rioters, actual defendants that were arrested for committing crimes that day) had served in the military and pledged that oath.

View embedded media

These are people that had sworn to protect our country and constitution against all enemies that made a deliberate decision to betray that oath and become a domestic enemy to prevent the peaceful transfer of power we had successfully done for 250 years. Not sure in what world that is not being a traitor.

You think it's overblown and that's been the MO since it happened. It was a "peaceful protest", which anyone who saw the videos knows it absolutely wasn't. And as the convictions are proving out, there were a number of people that did plan to overthrow the government and attempted to do it.

There's something really cowardly about the undermining fallacy of "they only had zip ties" for two reasons. First, you do not need to have actual results to be convicted of a crime. You need two components: intent and some action even if it's ineffectual. If you plan on murdering your ex-wife (intent) and show up at her house, even if it's with a plastic spoon (action of going there and bringing something to cause injury), you are considered a criminal. The fact that some of these idiots were (thankfully) ineffective absolutely doesn't absolve them of a crime. Second, the zip ties part hides the actual truth, the oath keepers had prepared a massive weapons cash to help in their efforts:

"I had not seen that many weapons in one location since I was in the military,” recalled Terry Cummings, a Florida resident who said he joined the Oath Keepers in 2020 amid concerns about left-wing violence in Portland, Ore. and joined the group leaders’ private chats in advance of their Jan. 6 trip to D.C"

Oath Keeper describes group’s large weapons cache ahead of Jan. 6

The group’s founder, Stewart Rhodes, and several regional leaders are charged with conspiring to disrupt the transfer of power and preparing for violence to enforce their will.

www.politico.com

Edit: more info on weapons on site. People are leveraging the fact that most arrests were made weeks later and not on site to undercount the number of weapons available that day:
https://www.statesman.com/story/new...earms-other-weapons-capitol-jan-6/7621149001/

Was everyone there an absolute enemy of the state? Of course not. They were a number of idiotic MAGA followers going along for the ride and just there to stir up shit and send a message. You know what though, they could have done that ANYWHERE. They could have held protests, been on TV, heck they could have damaged property (like the BLM riots) and nobody would be accusing them of being an enemy of the state.

But when you deliberately choose to interfere with the transfer of power to a new president by illegally breaking into the building where the electoral college vote count is supposed to happen and prevent that process from happening, you lose the ability to say you were simply expressing your thoughts. The vote was delayed till early the next morning, you can't deny that, through emergency procedures the VP had to be escorted to a safe/secure location, you can't deny that, a couple of thousand national guards had to be called in to restore order, you can't deny that. You think it's overblown??? How many examples do you have of anything like that happening in France, Germany, the U.K., Sweden, Japan, Norway, etc. over the past 50 years??? The center of government, with all the elected officials in it, brought to a halt, on total lockdown and you are like "meh." Really? If that happened to any other country in the world we would absolute mock the shit out of them.

I'll give you one thing though. It's not a one size fits all. There were different levels of engagement in this shit show, so maybe moving forwards I should have a better gradient of traitors / criminals / pieces of shit to refer to the various people that entered the building that day.

TLDR. Just the bolded.

I mean, there is that part of the oath “foreign AND Domestic”

 

[jfegaly]

I suggest using units of Babbitt for that gradient

Let’s see how many vile people like this garbage.

 

[NavigatorII]

Here's the military oath:

"I, ____________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”


1 in 5 defendants (not rioters, actual defendants that were arrested for committing crimes that day) had served in the military and pledged that oath.

View embedded media

These are people that had sworn to protect our country and constitution against all enemies that made a deliberate decision to betray that oath and become a domestic enemy to prevent the peaceful transfer of power we had successfully done for 250 years. Not sure in what world that is not being a traitor.

You think it's overblown and that's been the MO since it happened. It was a "peaceful protest", which anyone who saw the videos knows it absolutely wasn't. And as the convictions are proving out, there were a number of people that did plan to overthrow the government and attempted to do it.

There's something really cowardly about the undermining fallacy of "they only had zip ties" for two reasons. First, you do not need to have actual results to be convicted of a crime. You need two components: intent and some action even if it's ineffectual. If you plan on murdering your ex-wife (intent) and show up at her house, even if it's with a plastic spoon (action of going there and bringing something to cause injury), you are considered a criminal. The fact that some of these idiots were (thankfully) ineffective absolutely doesn't absolve them of a crime. Second, the zip ties part hides the actual truth, the oath keepers had prepared a massive weapons cash to help in their efforts:

"I had not seen that many weapons in one location since I was in the military,” recalled Terry Cummings, a Florida resident who said he joined the Oath Keepers in 2020 amid concerns about left-wing violence in Portland, Ore. and joined the group leaders’ private chats in advance of their Jan. 6 trip to D.C"

Oath Keeper describes group’s large weapons cache ahead of Jan. 6

The group’s founder, Stewart Rhodes, and several regional leaders are charged with conspiring to disrupt the transfer of power and preparing for violence to enforce their will.

www.politico.com

Edit: more info on weapons on site. People are leveraging the fact that most arrests were made weeks later and not on site to undercount the number of weapons available that day:
https://www.statesman.com/story/new...earms-other-weapons-capitol-jan-6/7621149001/

Was everyone there an absolute enemy of the state? Of course not. They were a number of idiotic MAGA followers going along for the ride and just there to stir up shit and send a message. You know what though, they could have done that ANYWHERE. They could have held protests, been on TV, heck they could have damaged property (like the BLM riots) and nobody would be accusing them of being an enemy of the state.

But when you deliberately choose to interfere with the transfer of power to a new president by illegally breaking into the building where the electoral college vote count is supposed to happen and prevent that process from happening, you lose the ability to say you were simply expressing your thoughts. The vote was delayed till early the next morning, you can't deny that, through emergency procedures the VP had to be escorted to a safe/secure location, you can't deny that, a couple of thousand national guards had to be called in to restore order, you can't deny that. You think it's overblown??? How many examples do you have of anything like that happening in France, Germany, the U.K., Sweden, Japan, Norway, etc. over the past 50 years??? The center of government, with all the elected officials in it, brought to a halt, on total lockdown and you are like "meh." Really? If that happened to any other country in the world we would absolute mock the shit out of them.

I'll give you one thing though. It's not a one size fits all. There were different levels of engagement in this shit show, so maybe moving forwards I should have a better gradient of traitors / criminals / pieces of shit to refer to the various people that entered the building that day.

 

[dpic73]

Let’s see how many vile people like this garbage.

 

[jfegaly]

Pretty sure you have spent most of your childhood just like that. The last one picked.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

TLDR. Just the bolded.

I mean, there is that part of the oath “foreign AND Domestic”

How many spontaneous heart attacks will the libs have in Jan 2025 when Trump pardons them all on his first day back in office?

 

[NavigatorII]

Pretty sure you have spent most of your childhood just like that. The last one picked.

Remind you of anyone? 😂

 

[NavigatorII]

How many spontaneous heart attacks will the libs have in Jan 2025 when Trump pardons them all on his first day back in office?

Depends on how many jabs they've had.

 

[CUT93]

Here's the military oath:

"I, ____________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.”


1 in 5 defendants (not rioters, actual defendants that were arrested for committing crimes that day) had served in the military and pledged that oath.

View embedded media

These are people that had sworn to protect our country and constitution against all enemies that made a deliberate decision to betray that oath and become a domestic enemy to prevent the peaceful transfer of power we had successfully done for 250 years. Not sure in what world that is not being a traitor.

You think it's overblown and that's been the MO since it happened. It was a "peaceful protest", which anyone who saw the videos knows it absolutely wasn't. And as the convictions are proving out, there were a number of people that did plan to overthrow the government and attempted to do it.

There's something really cowardly about the undermining fallacy of "they only had zip ties" for two reasons. First, you do not need to have actual results to be convicted of a crime. You need two components: intent and some action even if it's ineffectual. If you plan on murdering your ex-wife (intent) and show up at her house, even if it's with a plastic spoon (action of going there and bringing something to cause injury), you are considered a criminal. The fact that some of these idiots were (thankfully) ineffective absolutely doesn't absolve them of a crime. Second, the zip ties part hides the actual truth, the oath keepers had prepared a massive weapons cash to help in their efforts:

"I had not seen that many weapons in one location since I was in the military,” recalled Terry Cummings, a Florida resident who said he joined the Oath Keepers in 2020 amid concerns about left-wing violence in Portland, Ore. and joined the group leaders’ private chats in advance of their Jan. 6 trip to D.C"

Oath Keeper describes group’s large weapons cache ahead of Jan. 6

The group’s founder, Stewart Rhodes, and several regional leaders are charged with conspiring to disrupt the transfer of power and preparing for violence to enforce their will.

www.politico.com

Edit: more info on weapons on site. People are leveraging the fact that most arrests were made weeks later and not on site to undercount the number of weapons available that day:
https://www.statesman.com/story/new...earms-other-weapons-capitol-jan-6/7621149001/

Was everyone there an absolute enemy of the state? Of course not. They were a number of idiotic MAGA followers going along for the ride and just there to stir up shit and send a message. You know what though, they could have done that ANYWHERE. They could have held protests, been on TV, heck they could have damaged property (like the BLM riots) and nobody would be accusing them of being an enemy of the state.

But when you deliberately choose to interfere with the transfer of power to a new president by illegally breaking into the building where the electoral college vote count is supposed to happen and prevent that process from happening, you lose the ability to say you were simply expressing your thoughts. The vote was delayed till early the next morning, you can't deny that, through emergency procedures the VP had to be escorted to a safe/secure location, you can't deny that, a couple of thousand national guards had to be called in to restore order, you can't deny that. You think it's overblown??? How many examples do you have of anything like that happening in France, Germany, the U.K., Sweden, Japan, Norway, etc. over the past 50 years??? The center of government, with all the elected officials in it, brought to a halt, on total lockdown and you are like "meh." Really? If that happened to any other country in the world we would absolute mock the shit out of them.

I'll give you one thing though. It's not a one size fits all. There were different levels of engagement in this shit show, so maybe moving forwards I should have a better gradient of traitors / criminals / pieces of shit to refer to the various people that entered the building that day.

A couple of things. First and foremost, the vast majority of people there were in the category of "idiotic MAGA followers" as you describe them and just along for the ride, as you say. Further more, if you look at the facts, that politico article you linked as proof of massive arms being used actually proves it was likely all for show to look strong for their lunatic membership. If that is not the case, then why were those guns not used in what you insist was an attempted overthrow of the govt? It was all show. Here is another quote from that article:
“Trump acts now maybe a few hundred radicals die trying to burn down cities,” he wrote. “Trump sits on his hands, Biden wins, millions die resisting the death of the 1st and 2nd amendment.” Did this happen? Of course it didn't, and it was never going to. A lot of big talk to members of a nut job organization that was never going to be followed through with. That statement indicated that a few hundred deaths was the LEAST amount of damage possible, when in fact there was not one single death at the capital that day of anyone representing the govt. The zip tie remark is actually extremely accurate- both to what happened AND to the intent. Were there a few nut cases who thought they could actually overthrow the govt and intended to do so? I have no doubt there were. There a re crazy people in every crowd. However the assertion that this was the intent of any large mass of people when they got there is completely contradicted by the facts. There were thousands of people there. There was evidently a large cache of weapons that could have been taken to the capitol if there were in fact a large group of people intent on actually doing it. BUT THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. WHY?

All the hyperbole you can come up with does not change the facts. They were all there with what was evidently an availability of a massive weapons cache that could have been taken to the capitol and used if that was the actual intent. They did not do that, which PROVES it was not their intent. There is no other explanation.

The other article you linked points out a whooping grand total of TWO people arrested with guns on the capitol grounds. There are hundreds of hours of video footage and thousands of pictures of the people in the capitol building. There is NOT ONE picture of anyone with a gun in the capitol building. Even if you make some asinine argument that they ALL just happened to avoid being videoed or photographed, how would you explain that there was no report of even ONE shot fired b anyone in the building? Please tell how you can say with a straight face that there was any significant number of people with intent to overthrow the govt, kill the vp, use force to stop the election certification, and not even ONE of those people made it in the capitol with a gun and tried to actually do what you say they intended. The statistical probability of that happening is literally almost zero.

Again, I am not defending anyone who entered that building. Everyone that was in that building committed a crime. However, the crime that all but maybe a handful committed is being vastly exaggerated based on the facts. Your last sentence is absolutely correct.

 

[NavigatorII]

At the end of the day, the world's first "unarmed insurrection in history" unfolded. It's amazing how much bullshit the media feeds the sheep is guzzled like a cold glass of kool aid. Had it been a true rebellion there would have hundreds or even thousands killed in a real riot. There were no firearms wielded by protestors nor any cars or buildings burned. This was NOT the "Summer of Love".

Who unlocked those fortress-like doors? Critical thinkers question these things.

 

[anon_5e8aassgcbjz1]

At the end of the day, the world's first "unarmed insurrection in history" unfolded. It's amazing how much bullshit the media feeds the sheep is guzzled like a cold glass of kool aid. Had it been a true rebellion there would have hundreds or even thousands killed in a real riot. There were no firearms wielded by protestors nor any cars or buildings burned. This was NOT the "Summer of Love".

Who unlocked those fortress-like doors? Critical thinkers question these things.

I guzzle cold glasses of MAGA tears. No Kool-Aid, not good for one’s health

 

[NavigatorII]

I guzzle cold glasses of MAGA tears. No Kool-Aid, not good for one’s health

Translation: You got nothing. 000Tiger

 

[BillCutting4585]

Dude, you and that dude are like hunters that set a bear trap and wondering why the bear is sidestepping it. "Come on, step on it!" LOL

Not sure if you invited your cousins or what, but there's now several new posters that are spouting the same kind of nonsense you are, except they don't have your sense or humor and they reek of condescension (which you don't). So, I'm starting to appreciate you more...

Going back to this thread, I immediately picked up that this dude was pretending to be reasonable and went straight to the core of the debate. And boom shakalaka, he immediately goes into "peaceful protest" BS and the tropes that we have rehashed for months. So, what exactly would be the point of debating and trying to prove him wrong? He obviously is set on his views and no amount of fact or reasoning will get him back to reality.

Look, at this point, it's a psychological fulfillment need for them. Read some of the new guys posts, they're like pretending to be part of this secret society that knows what the future will bring and how government will come down, blah blah blah. Like flat earthers, they find value in numbers and they compensate for insecurities by feeling that they alone are special and they alone know the truth. I love to debate but there's no point in arguing with people that are beholden to cognitive dissonance and need to believe in an alternate reality (aliens, KennedyJr is alive, flat earth, Elvis is alive, etc.) to feel good about themselves.

Thankfully, we have found there's enough reasonable fellow Republicans and independents to take the control back from the MAGA crazies, I'll focus on collaborating with these guys instead of trying to salvage the crazies.

There are four of us, we are mentioned in the Bible, we are the 4 horseman of the apocalypse

 

[BillCutting4585]

I guzzle cold glasses of MAGA tears. No Kool-Aid, not good for one’s health

No you don’t, we know what you guzzle and it comes from men 😂😂😂😂

 

[TigerGrowls]

BOOM!

 

[TigerGrowls]

 

[jfegaly]

View embedded media

Because the whole thing is a charade. Always was. We are in a movie.

 

[ctcseb]

A couple of things. First and foremost, the vast majority of people there were in the category of "idiotic MAGA followers" as you describe them and just along for the ride, as you say. Further more, if you look at the facts, that politico article you linked as proof of massive arms being used actually proves it was likely all for show to look strong for their lunatic membership. If that is not the case, then why were those guns not used in what you insist was an attempted overthrow of the govt? It was all show. Here is another quote from that article:
“Trump acts now maybe a few hundred radicals die trying to burn down cities,” he wrote. “Trump sits on his hands, Biden wins, millions die resisting the death of the 1st and 2nd amendment.” Did this happen? Of course it didn't, and it was never going to. A lot of big talk to members of a nut job organization that was never going to be followed through with. That statement indicated that a few hundred deaths was the LEAST amount of damage possible, when in fact there was not one single death at the capital that day of anyone representing the govt. The zip tie remark is actually extremely accurate- both to what happened AND to the intent. Were there a few nut cases who thought they could actually overthrow the govt and intended to do so? I have no doubt there were. There a re crazy people in every crowd. However the assertion that this was the intent of any large mass of people when they got there is completely contradicted by the facts. There were thousands of people there. There was evidently a large cache of weapons that could have been taken to the capitol if there were in fact a large group of people intent on actually doing it. BUT THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. WHY?

All the hyperbole you can come up with does not change the facts. They were all there with what was evidently an availability of a massive weapons cache that could have been taken to the capitol and used if that was the actual intent. They did not do that, which PROVES it was not their intent. There is no other explanation.

The other article you linked points out a whooping grand total of TWO people arrested with guns on the capitol grounds. There are hundreds of hours of video footage and thousands of pictures of the people in the capitol building. There is NOT ONE picture of anyone with a gun in the capitol building. Even if you make some asinine argument that they ALL just happened to avoid being videoed or photographed, how would you explain that there was no report of even ONE shot fired b anyone in the building? Please tell how you can say with a straight face that there was any significant number of people with intent to overthrow the govt, kill the vp, use force to stop the election certification, and not even ONE of those people made it in the capitol with a gun and tried to actually do what you say they intended. The statistical probability of that happening is literally almost zero.

Again, I am not defending anyone who entered that building. Everyone that was in that building committed a crime. However, the crime that all but maybe a handful committed is being vastly exaggerated based on the facts. Your last sentence is absolutely correct.

I appreciate your thoughtful response. There are three elements to people being outraged at what happened that you can't seem to factor in.

- Denial
Look at what a House of Representative elected official, Republican Andrew Clyde said:
"You know, if you didn’t know the TV footage was a video from January the 6th, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit". This is what people in this thread keep repeating, "peaceful protest this, peaceful protest that".

How can anyone seeing people with bear spray, gas masks, and baseball bats say THIS looked like a normal tourist visit?

Yet, that is exactly what a number of retards in this thread that keep perpetuating. We have pictures, video footage, 114 law enforcement officers injured, and yet, this was a normal tourist visit / peaceful protest???WTF?

Do you not get how infuriating it is to try to talk sense into someone seeing this riot and saying it's a tourist visit or "peaceful protest". When someone doesn't have the integrity to accept basic truth, it's hard to have a reasonable discussion. I get a sub-segment of MAGA, like the holocaust denying Nick Fuentes, have no trouble with ignoring reality and facts, but it should remain a sub-segment, you would hope most people would be more reasonable.

- Minimization
For the people, like you, that seem to be a lot more reasonable that your base MAGA lemming, there's been a "moving the goalpost" approach that is pernicious. "It was a peaceful protest". We prove to you it wasn't. "Well, they only had zip ties". We prove to you its not the case. "Well, they didn't have that many guns", etc. There's a constant attempt at minimizing the facts, at mocking "people blowing things up out of proportion". Again, please answer my question, how often have you seen the center of government in France, Sweden, Japan, Germany, etc. broken into during a transfer of power to a new head of state? Is it a frequent occurrence? Why are you trying to normalize ("it wasn't that bad" type of attitude) the interruption of transfer of power? Even the people that didn't want to outright overthrow the government, they broke into the control center of our government and prevented the official validation of the transfer of power.

- Hypocrisy
Part of the outrage is that the same people doing all this denying / minimizing are the "I'm a law and order type guy" "principled / conservative / not a RINO" type guys. The people that are okay with a cop shooting at other people for looking at them wrong ("they should have just complied") are ignoring and excusing what happened out of total hypocrisy. Quick thought experiment for you. Let's say Trump wins the next election and thousands of antifa and BLM protesters rush the Capitol to prevent the transfer of power. Do you think these guys would be saying "that's alright, peaceful protest, looks like a tourist visit to me". You and I both know that wouldn't be the case. If the riots hadn't been committed by MAGAs, there wouldn't be this attempt at rewriting a narrative and making fun of people outraged at what happened. If this were libs and black people doing this, several of the posters on this board would be offering to take up arms and go there to put down this insurrection. They would position themselves as saviors against these people preventing Trump from gaining power. But with MAGAs being the rioters, they're just fine with what happened. The lack of integrity and intellectual honesty is mindboggling.

 

[dpic73]

I appreciate your thoughtful response. There are three elements to people being outraged at what happened that you can't seem to factor in.

- Denial
Look at what a House of Representative elected official, Republican Andrew Clyde said:
"You know, if you didn’t know the TV footage was a video from January the 6th, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit". This is what people in this thread keep repeating, "peaceful protest this, peaceful protest that".

How can anyone seeing people with bear spray, gas masks, and baseball bats say THIS looked like a normal tourist visit?

Yet, that is exactly what a number of retards in this thread that keep perpetuating. We have pictures, video footage, 114 law enforcement officers injured, and yet, this was a normal tourist visit / peaceful protest???WTF?

Do you not get how infuriating it is to try to talk sense into someone seeing this riot and saying it's a tourist visit or "peaceful protest". When someone doesn't have the integrity to accept basic truth, it's hard to have a reasonable discussion. I get a sub-segment of MAGA, like the holocaust denying Nick Fuentes, have no trouble with ignoring reality and facts, but it should remain a sub-segment, you would hope most people would be more reasonable.

- Minimization
For the people, like you, that seem to be a lot more reasonable that your base MAGA lemming, there's been a "moving the goalpost" approach that is pernicious. "It was a peaceful protest". We prove to you it wasn't. "Well, they only had zip ties". We prove to you its not the case. "Well, they didn't have that many guns", etc. There's a constant attempt at minimizing the facts, at mocking "people blowing things up out of proportion". Again, please answer my question, how often have you seen the center of government in France, Sweden, Japan, Germany, etc. broken into during a transfer of power to a new head of state? Is it a frequent occurrence? Why are you trying to normalize ("it wasn't that bad" type of attitude) the interruption of transfer of power? Even the people that didn't want to outright overthrow the government, they broke into the control center of our government and prevented the official validation of the transfer of power.

- Hypocrisy
Part of the outrage is that the same people doing all this denying / minimizing are the "I'm a law and order type guy" "principled / conservative / not a RINO" type guys. The people that are okay with a cop shooting at other people for looking at them wrong ("they should have just complied") are ignoring and excusing what happened out of total hypocrisy. Quick thought experiment for you. Let's say Trump wins the next election and thousands of antifa and BLM protesters rush the Capitol to prevent the transfer of power. Do you think these guys would be saying "that's alright, peaceful protest, looks like a tourist visit to me". You and I both know that wouldn't be the case. If the riots hadn't been committed by MAGAs, there wouldn't be this attempt at rewriting a narrative and making fun of people outraged at what happened. If this were libs and black people doing this, several of the posters on this board would be offering to take up arms and go there to put down this insurrection. They would position themselves as saviors against these people preventing Trump from gaining power. But with MAGAs being the rioters, they're just fine with what happened. The lack of integrity and intellectual honesty is mindboggling.

👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏👏

 

[CUT93]

I appreciate your thoughtful response. There are three elements to people being outraged at what happened that you can't seem to factor in.

- Denial
Look at what a House of Representative elected official, Republican Andrew Clyde said:
"You know, if you didn’t know the TV footage was a video from January the 6th, you would actually think it was a normal tourist visit". This is what people in this thread keep repeating, "peaceful protest this, peaceful protest that".

How can anyone seeing people with bear spray, gas masks, and baseball bats say THIS looked like a normal tourist visit?

Yet, that is exactly what a number of retards in this thread that keep perpetuating. We have pictures, video footage, 114 law enforcement officers injured, and yet, this was a normal tourist visit / peaceful protest???WTF?

Do you not get how infuriating it is to try to talk sense into someone seeing this riot and saying it's a tourist visit or "peaceful protest". When someone doesn't have the integrity to accept basic truth, it's hard to have a reasonable discussion. I get a sub-segment of MAGA, like the holocaust denying Nick Fuentes, have no trouble with ignoring reality and facts, but it should remain a sub-segment, you would hope most people would be more reasonable.

- Minimization
For the people, like you, that seem to be a lot more reasonable that your base MAGA lemming, there's been a "moving the goalpost" approach that is pernicious. "It was a peaceful protest". We prove to you it wasn't. "Well, they only had zip ties". We prove to you its not the case. "Well, they didn't have that many guns", etc. There's a constant attempt at minimizing the facts, at mocking "people blowing things up out of proportion". Again, please answer my question, how often have you seen the center of government in France, Sweden, Japan, Germany, etc. broken into during a transfer of power to a new head of state? Is it a frequent occurrence? Why are you trying to normalize ("it wasn't that bad" type of attitude) the interruption of transfer of power? Even the people that didn't want to outright overthrow the government, they broke into the control center of our government and prevented the official validation of the transfer of power.

- Hypocrisy
Part of the outrage is that the same people doing all this denying / minimizing are the "I'm a law and order type guy" "principled / conservative / not a RINO" type guys. The people that are okay with a cop shooting at other people for looking at them wrong ("they should have just complied") are ignoring and excusing what happened out of total hypocrisy. Quick thought experiment for you. Let's say Trump wins the next election and thousands of antifa and BLM protesters rush the Capitol to prevent the transfer of power. Do you think these guys would be saying "that's alright, peaceful protest, looks like a tourist visit to me". You and I both know that wouldn't be the case. If the riots hadn't been committed by MAGAs, there wouldn't be this attempt at rewriting a narrative and making fun of people outraged at what happened. If this were libs and black people doing this, several of the posters on this board would be offering to take up arms and go there to put down this insurrection. They would position themselves as saviors against these people preventing Trump from gaining power. But with MAGAs being the rioters, they're just fine with what happened. The lack of integrity and intellectual honesty is mindboggling.

I have never said it was or characterized it as a peaceful protest or tourist visit. I have never defended what happened. I have said numerous times I would have set a perimeter and shot the first person that breached it. Just so we are clear on where I stand. I would also point out that I have seen very few, if any, people characterize it as a peaceful protest or tourist visit. Can you give me an example of that?

To answer your question, I have never seen that happen in any of those countries- which is irrelevant, imo. How often have you seen a group with assault weapons take control of a portion of a major city for weeks like what happened in Portland in any of those cities?

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2020/07/24/portland-mapping-unrest/assets/images/portland_mt_146-desktop-1050.jpg

As for the hypocrisy part, again, I have not defended the actions of the people there. However, if this were a BLM/Antifa protest and a cop shot an unarmed black person who was part of a crowd overtaking and attacking police how many people on your side would be outraged?

I guess you can put me in the minimization crowd, as the evidence clearly supports what I say happened. You point out that I did not answer your questions, yet you answered none of mine. If the intent for any significant number of people, particularly those in the organized groups such as oath keepers, was to take over the govt and had such a large cache of weapons available to them, why were they not used? Do you think they just forgot to bring them by accident? Why was the crowd in the capitol wandering around aimlessly taking selfies in offices with their feet up on desks? Why did they not immediately head to the area where the certification was to happen? How is it possible not one person in the building was seen, videoed, pictured, or even reported to have a gun? How is it possible people with the intent to overthrow the govt and kill the vp never fired one shot? How could they ALL be so inept even though many on your side claim they were coordinating with and receiving information from the potus and legislators to aid their attempted takeover?

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Yet, that is exactly what a number of retards in this thread that keep perpetuating. We have pictures, video footage, 114 law enforcement officers injured, and yet, this was a normal tourist visit / peaceful protest???WTF?

Do you not get how infuriating it is to try to talk sense into someone seeing this riot and saying it's a tourist visit or "peaceful protest". When someone doesn't have the integrity to accept basic truth, it's hard to have a reasonable discussion.

Ok fine, you want honesty? Then let's deal with this honestly.

What's infuriating to the rest of us is to hear libs tell us that Jan 6th was an attempt to overthrow the US government, but those same libs said NOTHING when hundreds of dems stormed the US capitol and ENTERED THE SENATE BUILDING and demanded that Kavanaugh not be allowed to join the SC.

There's ZERO difference between these two actions. The protestors that forced their way into the capitol in 2018 broke the law just as quickly as the protestors who broke into the capitol on Jan 6th.

THIS is what's maddeningly frustrating to us. Libs want to hold everyone else to a standard that they refuse to hold themselves to. Not a single lib here crying about Jan6th will dare call anyone that illegally entered the capitol in 2018 ANY of the names they are calling the Jan6 protestors.

Same exact crimes were commited.

Stop being hypocrites if you want to be taken seriously. We can tell you in both instances, the SAME laws were broken, and we can tell you in both instances the la breakers SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

Libs can't do that. Because libs put their politics above being decent people.

 

[dpic73]

I have never said it was or characterized it as a peaceful protest or tourist visit. I have never defended what happened. I have said numerous times I would have set a perimeter and shot the first person that breached it. Just so we are clear on where I stand. I would also point out that I have seen very few, if any, people characterize it as a peaceful protest or tourist visit. Can you give me an example of that?

To answer your question, I have never seen that happen in any of those countries- which is irrelevant, imo. How often have you seen a group with assault weapons take control of a portion of a major city for weeks like what happened in Portland in any of those cities?

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2020/07/24/portland-mapping-unrest/assets/images/portland_mt_146-desktop-1050.jpg

As for the hypocrisy part, again, I have not defended the actions of the people there. However, if this were a BLM/Antifa protest and a cop shot an unarmed black person who was part of a crowd overtaking and attacking police how many people on your side would be outraged?

I guess you can put me in the minimization crowd, as the evidence clearly supports what I say happened. You point out that I did not answer your questions, yet you answered none of mine. If the intent for any significant number of people, particularly those in the organized groups such as oath keepers, was to take over the govt and had such a large cache of weapons available to them, why were they not used? Do you think they just forgot to bring them by accident? Why was the crowd in the capitol wandering around aimlessly taking selfies in offices with their feet up on desks? Why did they not immediately head to the area where the certification was to happen? How is it possible not one person in the building was seen, videoed, pictured, or even reported to have a gun? How is it possible people with the intent to overthrow the govt and kill the vp never fired one shot? How could they ALL be so inept even though many on your side claim they were coordinating with and receiving information from the potus and legislators to aid their attempted takeover?

Watch GOP lawmaker compare Capitol riot to 'normal tourist visit'

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

View embedded media

The first thing the new Speaker of the House should do is order the Sergeant At Arms to release these videos.

 

[ctcseb]

I have never said it was or characterized it as a peaceful protest or tourist visit. I have never defended what happened. I have said numerous times I would have set a perimeter and shot the first person that breached it. Just so we are clear on where I stand. I would also point out that I have seen very few, if any, people characterize it as a peaceful protest or tourist visit. Can you give me an example of that?

To answer your question, I have never seen that happen in any of those countries- which is irrelevant, imo. How often have you seen a group with assault weapons take control of a portion of a major city for weeks like what happened in Portland in any of those cities?

https://static01.nyt.com/newsgraphics/2020/07/24/portland-mapping-unrest/assets/images/portland_mt_146-desktop-1050.jpg

As for the hypocrisy part, again, I have not defended the actions of the people there. However, if this were a BLM/Antifa protest and a cop shot an unarmed black person who was part of a crowd overtaking and attacking police how many people on your side would be outraged?

I guess you can put me in the minimization crowd, as the evidence clearly supports what I say happened. You point out that I did not answer your questions, yet you answered none of mine. If the intent for any significant number of people, particularly those in the organized groups such as oath keepers, was to take over the govt and had such a large cache of weapons available to them, why were they not used? Do you think they just forgot to bring them by accident? Why was the crowd in the capitol wandering around aimlessly taking selfies in offices with their feet up on desks? Why did they not immediately head to the area where the certification was to happen? How is it possible not one person in the building was seen, videoed, pictured, or even reported to have a gun? How is it possible people with the intent to overthrow the govt and kill the vp never fired one shot? How could they ALL be so inept even though many on your side claim they were coordinating with and receiving information from the potus and legislators to aid their attempted takeover?

"characterize it as a peaceful protest or tourist visit. Can you give me an example of that?"
Like this?

J6

What is the title of the thread? J6. You don’t see how discussing the Jan 6 events in a thread about Jan 6 is relevant? You must be new to this board. We have had this democracy vs republic discussion a number of times already over the past 6 months. Every time the argument came from...

clemson.forums.rivals.com

Jan 6th was nothing more than a Peaceful protest.

J6

What is the title of the thread? J6. You don’t see how discussing the Jan 6 events in a thread about Jan 6 is relevant? You must be new to this board. We have had this democracy vs republic discussion a number of times already over the past 6 months. Every time the argument came from...

clemson.forums.rivals.com

I fail to see where the narrative changed. It was a peaceful protest.

These comments were then lauded by other posters and there's variations of it.

Second of all, I didn't answer your questions, I addressed them instead:
" First, you do not need to have actual results to be convicted of a crime. You need two components: intent and some action even if it's ineffectual. If you plan on murdering your ex-wife (intent) and show up at her house, even if it's with a plastic spoon (action of going there and bringing something to cause injury), you are considered a criminal. The fact that some of these idiots were (thankfully) ineffective absolutely doesn't absolve them of a crime"

You are asking questions like why didn't shoot at Pence or why didn't they head directly for the right room as if this somehow diminished the severity of the situation. I will repeat again, if there is intent + action, there's a crime. That's the law, not my opinion. That day, there were a combinations of intent + actions:
- A few wanted to overthrow the government, planned it, went there, fought LE officers and broke into the building. They are being convicted of seditious conspiracy and will spend 20 years in prison. Intent + action = consequences
- A few stated by their own admission they wanted to kill Pence or Pelosi and broke into the building / some fought and hurt LE offices, they looked for these two. Intent + action = being detained and on trial
- A certain number wanted to disrupt the transition of power. They broke into the building, fought and hurt LE officers, caused a lockdown, evacuation of the elected officials, and delay of the electoral college vote count. Intent + action = being charged and on trial
- a larger number (there's 880 defendants) wanted to cause a disruption, had some levels of violence with LE officers (272 charged with assaulting an office), broke into the building, damaged property. Intent + action = being charged / convicted
- a large number tagged along, that's the people you guys are using as defense for the whole thing, the people just taking pictures inside, that is being used as a narrative shield and saying "see, they weren't dangerous people".

At the end of the day, you are asking questions that seem to be an attempt to try to disprove the severity of the intent and actions of a lot of people that day. Like I said, they could have protested anywhere, been heard, even the "peaceful protesters" had no business getting into this building.

 

[ctcseb]

Ok fine, you want honesty? Then let's deal with this honestly.

What's infuriating to the rest of us is to hear libs tell us that Jan 6th was an attempt to overthrow the US government, but those same libs said NOTHING when hundreds of dems stormed the US capitol and ENTERED THE SENATE BUILDING and demanded that Kavanaugh not be allowed to join the SC.

There's ZERO difference between these two actions. The protestors that forced their way into the capitol in 2018 broke the law just as quickly as the protestors who broke into the capitol on Jan 6th.

THIS is what's maddeningly frustrating to us. Libs want to hold everyone else to a standard that they refuse to hold themselves to. Not a single lib here crying about Jan6th will dare call anyone that illegally entered the capitol in 2018 ANY of the names they are calling the Jan6 protestors.

Same exact crimes were commited.

Stop being hypocrites if you want to be taken seriously. We can tell you in both instances, the SAME laws were broken, and we can tell you in both instances the la breakers SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE.

Libs can't do that. Because libs put their politics above being decent people.

Two things:
- I'm not a lib
- You do the crime, you do the time.

I agree with you. I don't care about the political affiliation of people committing crimes. A rapist needs to end up in jail whether they have a D or R voting record. So, I'm not going to argue with you there, I'm not for anyone having a free pass based on their party, law and justice should apply to everyone fairly. You are pushing for accountability and I agree 100% with you on that.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Two things:
- I'm not a lib
- You do the crime, you do the time.

I agree with you. I don't care about the political affiliation of people committing crimes. A rapist needs to end up in jail whether they have a D or R voting record. So, I'm not going to argue with you there, I'm not for anyone having a free pass based on their party, law and justice should apply to everyone fairly. You are pushing for accountability and I agree 100% with you on that.

Glad to hear it.

More honesty: I've never heard a SINGLE Trump supporter say that anyone that broke the law on Jan6 shouldn't be held accountable.

Not. A. Single. One.

And I never will.

On the other hand, I have NEVER heard a SINGLE dem say a SINGLE dem that broke the law in storming the capitol in 2018 should be held accountable.

Not. A. Single. One.

So when you see Trump supporters describing Jan6 as something less than 'a brazen attempt to overthrow the US government', understand that the people claiming it was such as the same people that said NOTHING when the same crimes were committed in 2018.

More honesty: If it maddens you to hear how Trump supporters describe their view of what happened on Jan6, why aren't you as equally upset about the blaise attitude that the libs here have toward what happened in 2018?

I've never seen you mention that. Why not?

 

[dpic73]

Glad to hear it.

More honesty: I've never heard a SINGLE Trump supporter say that anyone that broke the law on Jan6 shouldn't be held accountable.

Not. A. Single. One.

And I never will.

On the other hand, I have NEVER heard a SINGLE dem say a SINGLE dem that broke the law in storming the capitol in 2018 should be held accountable.

Not. A. Single. One.

So when you see Trump supporters describing Jan6 as something less than 'a brazen attempt to overthrow the US government', understand that the people claiming it was such as the same people that said NOTHING when the same crimes were committed in 2018.

More honesty: If it maddens you to hear how Trump supporters describe their view of what happened on Jan6, why aren't you as equally upset about the blaise attitude that the libs here have toward what happened in 2018?

I've never seen you mention that. Why not?

Total dishonesty! Your narratives only work if people don't fact check you. Of course, you'll then say the fact checkers are corrupt. No one is honest except Republicans LMAO

"In 2018, people demonstrated both in and outside the U.S. Capitol building during Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearings.

While some demonstrators protested outside, others waited in line for tickets to the confirmation hearing where they gathered to disrupt senators questioning Kavanaugh, USA TODAY reported.

Protests erupted after California professor Christine Blasey Ford alleged that Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her when they were in high school decades earlier. Kavanaugh has denied these allegations.

Roughly 300 people were arrested in October 2018 for protesting Kavanaugh's nomination, the Washington Post reported."

Fact check: Viral photo shows 2011 Wisconsin protests, not 2018 Kavanaugh protests at U.S. Capitol

The claim that a viral photo depicts Democrats storming the U.S. Capitol to protest Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation in 2018 is false.

www.usatoday.com

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Total dishonesty! Your narratives only work if people don't fact check you. Of course, you'll then say the fact checkers are corrupt. No one is honest except Republicans LMAO

Ummmm....your 'fact check' proved I was telling the truth. Protestors that entered the capitol illegally broke the law. Same way any protestors that entered the capitol illegally on Jan6 broke the law,

So you lied about me lying. As I said, libs are simply horrible people.

PS: Notice he still won't call them out for breaking the law and trying to overthrow the government.

 

[dpic73]

Ummmm....your 'fact check' proved I was telling the truth.

So you lied about me lying. As I said, libs simply are horrible people.

On the other hand, I have NEVER heard a SINGLE dem say a SINGLE dem that broke the law in storming the capitol in 2018 should be held accountable.

While some demonstrators protested outside, others waited in line for tickets to the confirmation hearing where they gathered to disrupt senators questioning Kavanaugh

Roughly 300 people were arrested in October 2018 for protesting Kavanaugh's nomination

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

While some demonstrators protested outside, others waited in line for tickets to the confirmation hearing where they gathered to disrupt senators questioning Kavanaugh

Roughly 300 people were arrested in October 2018 for protesting Kavanaugh's nomination

And others stormed the capitol. They tried to overthrow the US government, and they were breaking the law.

Thanks for once again proving that I told the truth, and again proving that you lied.

 

[dpic73]

And others stormed the capitol. They tried to overthrow the US government, and they were breaking the law.

Thanks for once again proving that I told the truth, and again proving that you lied.

There's no difference between lies and truth in your mind, outside of who speaks the words. If a Republican says it, it's true. If a Dem says it, it's a lie. SMFH

If they were ARRESTED doesn't that mean they were held accountable???

Have you seen Dems protesting their treatment after they were arrested, like you protest the treatment of actual insurrectionists?

 

[CUT93]

"characterize it as a peaceful protest or tourist visit. Can you give me an example of that?"
Like this?

J6

What is the title of the thread? J6. You don’t see how discussing the Jan 6 events in a thread about Jan 6 is relevant? You must be new to this board. We have had this democracy vs republic discussion a number of times already over the past 6 months. Every time the argument came from...

clemson.forums.rivals.com

Jan 6th was nothing more than a Peaceful protest.

J6

What is the title of the thread? J6. You don’t see how discussing the Jan 6 events in a thread about Jan 6 is relevant? You must be new to this board. We have had this democracy vs republic discussion a number of times already over the past 6 months. Every time the argument came from...

clemson.forums.rivals.com

I fail to see where the narrative changed. It was a peaceful protest.

These comments were then lauded by other posters and there's variations of it.

Second of all, I didn't answer your questions, I addressed them instead:
" First, you do not need to have actual results to be convicted of a crime. You need two components: intent and some action even if it's ineffectual. If you plan on murdering your ex-wife (intent) and show up at her house, even if it's with a plastic spoon (action of going there and bringing something to cause injury), you are considered a criminal. The fact that some of these idiots were (thankfully) ineffective absolutely doesn't absolve them of a crime"

You are asking questions like why didn't shoot at Pence or why didn't they head directly for the right room as if this somehow diminished the severity of the situation. I will repeat again, if there is intent + action, there's a crime. That's the law, not my opinion. That day, there were a combinations of intent + actions:
- A few wanted to overthrow the government, planned it, went there, fought LE officers and broke into the building. They are being convicted of seditious conspiracy and will spend 20 years in prison. Intent + action = consequences
- A few stated by their own admission they wanted to kill Pence or Pelosi and broke into the building / some fought and hurt LE offices, they looked for these two. Intent + action = being detained and on trial
- A certain number wanted to disrupt the transition of power. They broke into the building, fought and hurt LE officers, caused a lockdown, evacuation of the elected officials, and delay of the electoral college vote count. Intent + action = being charged and on trial
- a larger number (there's 880 defendants) wanted to cause a disruption, had some levels of violence with LE officers (272 charged with assaulting an office), broke into the building, damaged property. Intent + action = being charged / convicted
- a large number tagged along, that's the people you guys are using as defense for the whole thing, the people just taking pictures inside, that is being used as a narrative shield and saying "see, they weren't dangerous people".

At the end of the day, you are asking questions that seem to be an attempt to try to disprove the severity of the intent and actions of a lot of people that day. Like I said, they could have protested anywhere, been heard, even the "peaceful protesters" had no business getting into this building.

You just completely ignore what I say so you can avoid answering the questions I asked. YOU are the one moving the goal posts, not me. I have said repeatedly said that everyone in that building was committing a crime. No matter what their intentions wee when they got there and no matter what else they did- if they entered that building they were committing a crime and should be charged.
Not that it matters, but your definition of intent+action=crime is absolutely false. If this is the extent of your understanding of law, you need to quit talking about it bc it is completely ignorant. There does not have to be intent to commit a crime.

You parse your words and use phrases like "wanted to cause disruption" and "had some levels of violence" that are blanket statements. Everyone that has ever been at any protest anywhere for any reason "wanted to cause a disruption". "some level of violence" can be extrapolated to include everyone there entering the building as the group as a whole had to use force to enter the building.

My point, and the issue you refuse to address is the overall characterization of the intent of the people there and what actually happened(and just as importantly, did not happen). You continually ramble on about intent+action=crime. While that can be true, if there is in fact intent, what the intent was and what the actions were taken determines the crime. You point out 880 defendants. Are they all being charged with treason, or even seditious conspiracy?
I have not looked at the charges, but I am going to go out on a limb and say the VAST majority of those people will be charged with something much closer to trespassing or illegal entry than treason or seditious conspiracy. Do you know why? It is bc of one of your favorite words- INTENT. They had no INTENT to overthrow the govt or kill the vp or anyone else.

Your own words should tell you how idiotic the stance that this was some large scale attempt to take over the govt/kill the vp/ blah, blah ,blah. You repeatedly sate "a few wanted......, a few wanted......" which is absolutely correct. There were a few nut jobs thee who probably wanted to kill everyone and blow up the entire govt. there are crazy people in every crowd. My point, is/was/will be that those were a tiny percentage of the people there. You and others contend/imply it was the goal or INTENT of the whole group - which is completely and undeniably not supported by the facts.

Just as you pointed out in those articles, there was without question a large cache of guns available. Given the limited number of LE officers initially there to protect the capitol, If there had actually been a large contingent of people who wanted to do what you and many other detached from reality claim was the goal of the majority, or even a large minority, of the crowd, they had the means(weapons) to do exactly that. The FACT that this did not happen it undeniable proof that what you claim is just not true. What other explanation can you possibly give?

There were evidently thousands of guns available to a group who wanted to overthrow the govt, kill the vp(and maybe Pelosi). How is it even possible that not one shot was fired and thee was not even one account of anyone i the capitol even having a gun? PLEASE explain how this is possible if your narrative is correct.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

There's no difference between lies and truth in your mind, outside of who speaks the words. If a Republican says it, it's true. If a Dem says it, it's a lie. SMFH

If they were ARRESTED doesn't that mean they were held accountable???

Have you seen Dems protesting their treatment after they were arrested, like you protest the treatment of actual insurrectionists?

I never said no one was arrested in 2018. I said I had never heard a single lib say they SHOULD have been arrested for breaking the law. Every lib that says Jan6 was an 'attempt to overthrow the US government' never applies the same standard to dems doing THE SAME THING in 2018.

Notice you have had multiple chances to call out the dems as seditious criminals. You fail.

And then you do what the libs here do best: Argue points that no one raised. I never said no one was arrested in 2018. This is the same ploy @nytigerfan tries to use.

Why is it so hard for libs to be honest and apply the same standard to all?

Be a decent person. If you don't like it, you can go back to being who you are now.