Nm
- Thread starter KNIGHTTIME^
- Start date
Republicans do that. But let’s not pretend the party of women becoming birthing people, men becoming women, rednecks taking selfies in the Capital building is insurrection, all white people are parasitically racist, giving people free money won’t change their want to work, etc, etc,...is somehow a bastion of rationality.
The “my party is sane and your party is evil” mindset is not some accident of history. It’s no accident at all.
So your response is....(drumroll)....whaddabout those Democrats?
Instead of simply admitting that Republicans in Congress are acting batshit crazy like Trump, there's always got to be a "well whaddabout?" qualifier.
FWIW, as a former-Republican, I have no problem whatsoever pointing out Democrat stuff I disagree with.
I think the Biden Administration has done an incredible job of rolling out the vaccines across the nation. But, if they'd have asked me, I think it was stupid to extend unemployment insurance until September.
I realize they were trying to help out-of-work Americans get by -- and, at the time, it needed to be extended a bit longer. But through September? I think most folks could have predicted that would be too long.
But you're still in the camp of people arguing an insurrection was just "a Capitol photo op" and the Democrat Party is for the transgendered crowd. (Pssst, you MIGHT want to check out the politics of America's most famous transgendered female.)
You pushed a partisan response and I responded with the idea that both parties are deeply ideological and problematic. Your response to that is more partisan quackery.So your response is....(drumroll)....whaddabout those Democrats?
Instead of simply admitting that Republicans in Congress are acting batshit crazy like Trump, there's always got to be a "well whaddabout?" qualifier.
FWIW, as a former-Republican, I have no problem whatsoever pointing out Democrat stuff I disagree with.
I think the Biden Administration has done an incredible job of rolling out the vaccines across the nation. But, if they'd have asked me, I think it was stupid to extend unemployment insurance until September.
I realize they were trying to help out-of-work Americans get by -- and, at the time, it needed to be extended a bit longer. But through September? I think most folks could have predicted that would be too long.
But you're still in the camp of people arguing an insurrection was just "a Capitol photo op" and the Democrat Party is for the transgendered crowd. (Pssst, you MIGHT want to check out the politics of America's most famous transgendered female.)
I don’t even know how to address the thought that what happened on Jan 6th was an insurrection. The pure amount of trust you have to have in your party’s official political narrative to believe that is astounding. No guns, no violence once inside, no attempt to control the building, but it was an insurrection.
You’re a true believer.
So, do you have any problem with what they did? With the people who died?
Do you think that if they had the chance to do something to Pence and Pelosi that they would have?
Or was this entire thing AOK for you?
I think the issue is the idea of using the term "insurrection". By definition, any attack on any government building to make a change would be an insurrection, and that would include a lot of things that happened last year.. Nobody would have a problem calling it a riot, but its all just about the rhetoric at this point.
Ok, I get the semantics. I've also heard plenty of folks around here call it a photo/selfie tour and that it wasn't a big deal at all. The question was for Happy so let's see how he responds.
The dictionary definition of insurrection is: "a violent uprising against an authority or government."
On January 6th, following a Trump "Stop the Steal" rally, a group of his supporters broke into the Capitol building with the intention of disrupting the House and Senate's symbolic blessing of the Electoral College vote (which they did, if only temporarily).
If Republicans feel that having people call what happened 'an insurrection' is too harsh, I get it. But what's with the refusal to even acknowledge it? What's with the silliness of calling it nothing more than a blown-out-of-proportion 'photo-op'? If we can't recognize a threat to our democracy that January 6th's riot represented, this country's political future looks pretty damn shakey.
On January 6th, following a Trump "Stop the Steal" rally, a group of his supporters broke into the Capitol building with the intention of disrupting the House and Senate's symbolic blessing of the Electoral College vote (which they did, if only temporarily).
If Republicans feel that having people call what happened 'an insurrection' is too harsh, I get it. But what's with the refusal to even acknowledge it? What's with the silliness of calling it nothing more than a blown-out-of-proportion 'photo-op'? If we can't recognize a threat to our democracy that January 6th's riot represented, this country's political future looks pretty damn shakey.
Are attacks on government buildings in Portland and Seattle considered insurrections in your opinion?
Classic whaddaboutism. Ignore the January 6th Capitol riot and play the 'everybody does it' game.
To answer your question, any attack on government buildings (or property like Cowboy Bundy and his Posse's occupation of a National Wildlife refuge) would be considered insurrections. Does that somehow make January 6th's Capitol riot not as bad?
You accuse me of whattaboutism and then do that exact same thing by bringing up the Bundys.Classic whaddaboutism. Ignore the January 6th Capitol riot and play the 'everybody does it' game.
To answer your question, any attack on government buildings (or property like Cowboy Bundy and his Posse's occupation of a National Wildlife refuge) would be considered insurrections. Does that somehow make January 6th's Capitol riot not as bad?
The January 6 riot was bad, and its no different than the other examples.
The Clintons are offing reporters. You never know when they are going to get you. Could be today. Could be 5 years after a story that everyone already forgot about. Who knows.
You made a specific point of asking me if attacks on government buildings in Portland and Seattle were considered insurrections. I answered your question and added that all government property (even a Wildlife refuge) qualified in my book. I'm sorry your eagerness to get me to call the Portland and Seattle riots 'insurrections' pulled in Cowboy Bundy's shenanigans too.
It was a insurrection. It may have started as Peace full. But it was pushed as a takeover of Government. Many people that went didn't know. Others were pushing for a revolution. If u can't see this then you are drinking the koolaid your party is pushing Yet u say Democrats are pushing a one sided agenda Hate to break it to you Republicans are covering up as well. Anyone who tries to hide lives lost is either blind or belongs to a party who can do no wrong. Look inside and evaluate what happened logically and without bias.
Okay. What does that accomplish? Does this make what happened at our nation's Capitol on January 6th better? Something no better or worse than Portland?
Better or worse doesn't really matter, I was talking about how the term is used. I think all of them are equally reprehensible.
We both know where that BS started and --- low and behold -- it's more fake news.
Did Kamala Harris Bail Out 'Violent Rioters' During George Floyd Protests?
The claim appeared to stem from a June 2020 tweet from Harris.
www.snopes.com
What the hell? I said it wasn’t an insurrection, I didn’t say this shit should follow Happy hour every Wednesday. I’m philosophically an anarchist. I don’t support politicians. Our government is crappy, crooked and manipulative. The agencies and bureaus probably had a larger role in planning this than the people that participated. It’s what they wanted in any case.
The Capital police knew weeks ahead that this was going to happen and did nothing. The mayor refused extra bodies to help out. Barriers were moved to allow people in to the building. This is political theater. This is how bad people manipulate the believers. It’s just a different way to tell you that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction.
Given your earlier comment, we view what happened on January 6th from polar opposite perspectives. That said, there’s nothing in your quote above that I disagree with.
If he turned up dead in 2016, I would take it seriously, but 5 years later doubtful.
Lol… that “fact check” just says…We both know where that BS started and --- low and behold -- it's more fake news.
Did Kamala Harris Bail Out 'Violent Rioters' During George Floyd Protests?
The claim appeared to stem from a June 2020 tweet from Harris.
‘Weeeeelllllll, she tweeted a link and encouraged people to donate, but we don’t have any proof sheeeee actually donated herself… soooo… FALSE!!!!1’
It says more than that. It rates the claim as false for that reason but also because the claim that the MFF bails out violent offenders to commit more crimes was also false as there is no evidence of MFF recipients committing crimes after benefiting from the bail fund.
By the way the MFF and other bail assistance funds have existed long before George Floyd and prior to becoming political were pretty much universally supported for bridging the gap between the current inequitable cash bail system in place and it’s (hopefully) future elimination.
There are already states that have eliminated cash bail. Look what Chris Christie did in NJ. If it is a violent crime you shouldn’t be released on bail anyway. Brief summary is a court determines your likelihood to appear and based on those circumstances you are either held or released and told to appear. It has nothing to do with how much is in your bank account. They also ensure a relatively speedy trial (defendant must be tried within 180 days). So they can’t just run the clock on those that they keep detained without trying them.
Basically, your financial situation shouldn’t be a driver on if you remain incarcerated or are free while awaiting trial.
I don’t see how that’s an improvement for low income people. It’s far worse, if you ask me.
If you’re held, you’re definitely losing your job.
Let’s be honest, if the DoJ was as aggressive with the other insurrectionists as they have been with the January 6th suspects, there would be a bunch of repeat offenders.
It’s not “repeat offenders” that are referenced. It’s people committing crimes while out on bail from the fund. There is no evidence of it occurring. If people are upset that someone is released on bail and they obtained bail through a charitable bail fund, it’s not the fault of the bail fund, it’s the fault of the judge who allows them to be released.
You can read up on how it has been better if you like. They only hold people who are a risk to release. The people they should always be holding. On the flip side they no longer hold non violent offenders who are awaiting trials.
It goes something like this. Person A is charged with murder. Released on 1 million bail. Person 2 is charged with a misdemeanor or lesser felony and held for a much smaller amount that they cannot pay. In the NJ system the person charged with murder is simply held and the person charged with the lesser crime is simply released if they are not a risk.
Last edited:
You honestly believe that there weren’t at least a small set of people going from city to city stirring up the pot at most of those insurrections from last year? That the right has the only group of people that traveled to this one event and were so sophisticated that they did it totally unmasked?
The funny thing about evidence is that you have to be looking for it to find it. Hundreds of federal agents are pouring over videos and social media to try to identify every single person that was even close to the Capitol Building on January 6th. In Portland, and most of the other sites, they caught and released almost everyone and dismissed whatever charges were initially brought. Now they aren’t even bothering charging anyone. It’s a stark contrast.
Jan 6, just like all the riots had 2 groups involved, a smaller group stirring things up, and a bigger group that got caught up in the emotions of the moment. People in the rally of Jan 6 that didn't get involved have said they saw 2 very different groups of 10 to 20 in each that were stirring the pot. One group was dressed mostly in black military garb, which were most likely the right wing militia groups, that planned ahead, the second some what smaller group, I heard at least 2 witnesses saying about 10 or 12, were wearing black t shirts, and wore their MAGA hats backwards, Those who watched that group all thought they were Antifa.
The vast majority 98% who were at the rally and the riots were simply voicing their opinions, as is their right. Whether you or I agree with that opinion doesn't matter, and their character should not be questioned. Those who got caught up in the moment, should be charged for what they did, and those who instigated it should have the book thrown at them.
The vast majority 98% who were at the rally and the riots were simply voicing their opinions, as is their right. Whether you or I agree with that opinion doesn't matter, and their character should not be questioned. Those who got caught up in the moment, should be charged for what they did, and those who instigated it should have the book thrown at them.
Hmmmmm. Sounds like we need a public Congressional hearing on the matter so we can once and for get all them Antifa and BLM monsters to tell us how they were behind all of this...
What does that have to do with the bail fund? If the alleged “crimes” aren’t even being charged then why are you bent out of shape that people are helping with their bail?
Who said I'm all bent out of shape. I'd just like to see some equity in the way the DoJ is handling the many insurrections. The DoJ is choosing to make a political spectacle of investigating and charging the January 6 suspects so I'd like to see the same thing with the Portland insurrection and occupation, the Seattle insurrection and occupation, the Minnesota insurrections and occupation, etc. If the department is actually full of non-partisan professionals, then let's see them act the same with the groups.
I guess I misunderstood. Since the whole chain of discussion was over the claim that Kamala Harris was allowing violent criminals out to commit more crimes since she voiced support for the bail fund. If you are saying charges shouldn’t be dropped or should be harsher for protestors then that is a different discussion than the one I was having. And without knowing details of the charges, evidence, etc. I can neither agree or disagree with that sentiment.
Similar threads
