So you’ve shifted to claiming they didn’t burn it enough? Predictable. Here’s what they did as soon as the fence came down.
You’re not really looking for sources, just dithering and lying, but anyways
2 Likes
At the risk of feeding a troll, your appear to be attempting to exaggerate in order to inflame others of your ilk.
I think we all recognize the technique, it smacks of your cult leaders and convinces no one other than the brain dead and brainwashed.
It is equally obvious that this thread has degenerated beyond any rational point. The old saying about wrestlng with pigs comes to mind.
You requested sources and I provided them. As predicted you’ll now slink away and interject some other falsehoods in another thread.
2 Likes
I don’t think anyone is claiming these to be an insurrection akin to jan 6. The claim is, for months these ‘race riots’ were going on and left wing media/politicians were doing nothing to stop it. Their indifference was just short of openly supporting it.
This is why when we hear people bloviating their outrage at the ‘insurrection’ on Jan 6 we laugh. Where was the outrage when portland was burning for over 90 days?
No matter what my beliefs are or where my political ideology lies, i’m outraged with both. I don’t pick and choose.
3 Likes
Isn’t resorting to whataboutism the equivalent of defending insurrection and an attempted coup?
I think there were a lot of Russians and Germans who wished they gave more thought to what they wished for in 1918 and 1933.
I’m defending it? I have said multiple times i condemn all violence. I don’t pick and choose or justify any of it, and to me its hypocritical for anyone to pick one to get behind and ignore the other.
I will say i wasn’t surprised. Who in their right mind would be surprised over what happened jan 6th, considering all the chaos that happened in 2020? No one saw it coming? Really?
3 Likes
A word here about riots and insurrection.
It’s possible that members of the riot at the Capitol will be tried for insurrection. To be tried, a case has to be made that the accused were in…
the act or an instance of revolting esp. violently against civil or political authority or against an established government., or,
the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt [whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or against the authority of the United States…
The defendants’ lawyers will argue their clients were no more guilty of insurrection than the rioters of 2020.
The prosecutors will counter that not all riots are insurrections. Riots are common, yet very few people have been tried for insurrection. In the law, insurrection is different than rioting.
Damage to federal property, by itself, doesn’t mean insurrection, otherwise every person who burned a draft card in 1960s, or damaged a wildlife center, or blew up a federal building, would have been charged with insurrection.
To prove guilt of insurrection, there must be an intention to usurp the established government, as opposed to demonstrating against it, or simply causing destruction. The burden of proof is high, otherwise most rioters since 1776 would have been tried for insurrection.
Many of the rioters at the Capitol left an evidentiary trail before, during and after the riot, specifically stating they intended to stop the process of a U.S. election, and to install as president someone who had lost the election; proof of their intention to usurp the legally constituted government. There is also evidence that some of the rioters voiced their intention to kill the Vice President and speaker of the house, as they searched for these people. Further proof of insurrection.
It’s no longer a matter of outrage, debate, etc. It’s simply a matter of law, which will take its course.
As to the popular use of the term “insurrection”:
What if the former president had won re-election, and people on the Left had rioted at the Capitol to “stop the steal”. If they had broken into the Capitol intending to overturn the election, yelling, "Kill the president, kill the VP”, would those on the Right be calling it an insurrection, or a riot?
1 Like
I propose that we disenfranchise those in elected office who propose, support, or in any way voice support for public laws such as the latest Georgia obscenity.
They should be banned from holding office, voting, receiving any and all government benefits or working in any form for any politicial purpose. That is what and who I believe should be the subjects of American denazification.
Watch this, it’s only 5 minutes but start at 2:25 for the point of his lead-in.
So in other words, yes, you do support putting those that disagree with you in re-education camps.
After reading several articles from various outlets (NPR, NYT, WSJ) I’m not seeing any red flags. Would you care to point them out?
Positive ID, requiring absentee ballots be requested, requiring election returns to be processed until finished, and requiring absentee ballots be clearly labeled do not seem far fetched to me. It also looks like they are increasing early voting windows and codifying the absentee ballot drop boxes.
1 Like
Ahem, I suggest that the only person in this conversation who has mentioned camps is yourself. Please try to avoid the cult mind trap of attributing your own fantasies and thoughts to those whose ideas are contrary to yours.
Your response to my last post indicates you did not listen to or view the list of newly defined as election crimes in Georgia.
Did you watch the video I posted way up above?
Nor do I have any fantasies of putting people in camps like democrats have done in the past (WWII Japanese relocation camps). I just want to be left alone.
You mean that 40 minutes of a guy trying to redefine fascism? I put that in the same light as the religious whackjobs who have 36 bizarre names for their senior deity.
Denazification is not “putting people in camps.” Since comprehension is apparently not among your better skills, here is the Wikepedia definition:
" Denazification (German: Entnazifizierung) was an Allied initiative to rid German and Austrian society, culture, press, economy, judiciary, and politics of the Nazi ideology following the Second World War."
It is used in this context as a simple one-word means to convey a larger context, a way to suggest that society might be well served by removing a well defined group of individuals from positions of influence for reasons that are abundantly clear to all but members of the Republican cult.
Ok I got it now. You don’t want to put republicans in camps you just want to strip them of their rights and voice.
Sounds very totarian to me.
Strangely enough when I looked up Totalitarianism to make sure I had the correct definition some of histories most infamous dictators popped up next to it: Stalin, Mao, Hitler, and Mussolini.
1 Like
I want to remove those who fomented an armed insurrection and those who voted to suppress free and fair voting from public office.
There is no gray area surrounding who and what those people are and what they are trying to do.
Is that clear enough for you yet?
And get over the camps bullshit it is a low rent attempt at diversion and fools no one except a few other cultist whackjobs.
1 Like
Very nice. But that’s for the population in general.
For the top ranks, like IG Farben and the engineers and scientists who worked on nuclear (and other weapons), the denazification was a little different.
1 Like
Ghengis Khan was pretty totalitarian. So where the European monarchs of the 16th, 17th and 18th centuries. And so was Ashurbanipal, Assyrian ruler.
No one was armed.
Which is kind of weird when you think about it…A group of far right nutjobs, famous for Gasdsen flags, Punisher stickers on their vehicle, and fervent support of the 2A were unarmed.
Unless you count Pelosi’s lectern. And I guess you could say that mace (or was it anti-bear spray?) is armed? Sort of?
1 Like
Of course they were armed. You’ve been conned into thinking only firearms count. The weapons used resulted in death and injury.
What were the demographics of those committing sedition on Jan. 6?