• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Capitol riots: Dozens of arrests as police find molotov cocktails, pipe bombs and guns at pro-Trump siege



Then why did they break down doors and smash windows? Why did they steal papers from Pelosi's office? Why did they steal podiums? The only patriots involved here were the Capitol police.
 
And why did they smear their own shit on the walls?
 
Of all the cockeyed attempts to deflect from the outrageous actions by the alt.right and the Trump cult at the Capitol, this is the most common, probably because it's the most simple-minded. It pops immediately into otherwise empty heads.

So, then, it's not the crime you detest. It is the people with whom you disagree that you detest.

To me, folks committing crimes are criminals. It seems likely that frustrations they felt, in all cases, were the cause. There is no difference in the frustrations felt. Only in the factors causing the frustrations.

Are you seriously excusing all of the various crimes committed BEFORE Tuesday, but suddenly condemning the same crimes now? The crimes and causes are identical. Only the actors have changed.

Why do you excuse the crime if committed by one but not if the same crime was committed by another? Seems odd.
 
Actually, it looks to me like this was just like some BLM protest.

Mostly peaceful, with a few acting out. Vandalism, looting.

Don't be mad at the left because they are reluctant to let y'all take this out when you steadfastly refused to allow it when it was someone you didn't like protesting.

I feel the criminals are those that commit crimes.

I don't see a difference whether they're leaving the roped off walkways and vandalizing the Capital or looting and burning businesses or fire bombing churches.

The mostly peaceful protests are what they are. There is no difference in the criminality of the violence whether it's committed by folks on one end of the political spectrum or the other.
 
That thing they called the Civil Rights Movement is quite popular. There were hundreds of riots.

The label, "mostly peaceful protests" seems to have been coined over the last several months.

Are "mostly peaceful protests" approvable only in consideration of the actors in the "mostly peaceful protests"?

I know that one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist, but political frustrations that boil over in "mostly peaceful protests" seem to be too similar to not recognize the similarity.
 
Protests of police brutality
Vs.
Literal attempt to take members of congress hostage to overthrow an election.

Yeah, totally can’t see the difference.

So, fire bombing a Federal Court House and scattering papers around inside the Federal Capital are completely different?

They seem to me to be very similar.

Were any legislators or staff members taken hostage?
 
Nothing of what you imagine (doubke standards).

The socialist Democrats at the time were defeding the BLM message of the vast majority of the peaceful protesters aftert Trumpist assholes tried to use the violence of few to discredit it. . The message of "the elections are stolen" has been discredited by an indepedent branch of the goverment (judiciary) and no social Democrat is using the storming of the Capitol as an excuse th discredit this message. This is STRICTLY about the violence of the mob.

If there are any double standards, it is coming from your side which continues to support the same message despite the fact that there was violence.

So stop making stupid comments!

You seem to be saying that if one group is frustrated by what they perceive to be injustice, no action they perform can be illegal.

However, if another group is frustrated by what they perceive to be injustice, that IS a criminal departure from civil behavior.

Is a person a criminal only because pemak disagrees with that person's political position?

Pemak disagreeing with the political position of any person seems to be the ONLY consideration pemak makes in determining criminality.

To me, a person who commits a crime is a criminal. Political position is irrelevant.

Kind of like calling a guy who drives a truck a "Truck Driver". Doesn't matter what belief he holds dear. Driving a truck is only identifier important in applying that label.
 
Off to jail you go!!

Thirteen Charged in Federal Court Following Riot at the United States Capitol

Approximately 40 charged in Superior Court

 
So, fire bombing a Federal Court House and scattering papers around inside the Federal Capital are completely different?

They seem to me to be very similar.

Were any legislators or staff members taken hostage?

You think just because they failed, hostage taking is acceptable?
 
And why did they smear their own shit on the walls?
well Trump is nothing but a little crybaby and don't little crybaby's do that some time when they are mad?
That is what the Republican party has become the party of CRYBABIES
Have a nice day
 
Mostly peaceful protests are still popular. And I suspect had nothing more happened than the rabid trump fans dislodging the barriers and trespassing onto the perimeter of the Capitol, there likely would have been no arrests.
But hundreds of Trumpers crashing through windows, doors, looting, pilfering and injuring Capitol police does not fit into any definition of "mostly peaceful." So give up on that one.

And yet "mostly peaceful protest" was the label applied to the "mostly peaceful protests" that produced assault, looting, arson, vandalism and murder starting in Minneapolis and running throughout the Summer.

Reporting on the previous "mostly peaceful protests" seemed to excuse the various crimes committed because they were a part of protests that were "mostly peaceful".

In this case, though, condemnation of all of the crimes seems to have been amplified and the label "mostly peaceful protest" discarded.

Makes a thinking person wonder what caused the change.
 
And yet "mostly peaceful protest" was the label applied to the "mostly peaceful protests" that produced assault, looting, arson, vandalism and murder starting in Minneapolis and running throughout the Summer.

Reporting on the previous "mostly peaceful protests" seemed to excuse the various crimes committed because they were a part of protests that were "mostly peaceful".

In this case, though, condemnation of all of the crimes seems to have been amplified and the label "mostly peaceful protest" discarded.

Makes a thinking person wonder what caused the change.

All summer you were all "LAW AND ORDER" now you love it.

Makes a person wonder what caused the change.
 
So, then, it's not the crime you detest. It is the people with whom you disagree that you detest.

To me, folks committing crimes are criminals. It seems likely that frustrations they felt, in all cases, were the cause. There is no difference in the frustrations felt. Only in the factors causing the frustrations.

Are you seriously excusing all of the various crimes committed BEFORE Tuesday, but suddenly condemning the same crimes now? The crimes and causes are identical. Only the actors have changed.

Why do you excuse the crime if committed by one but not if the same crime was committed by another? Seems odd.
Listen carefully. I will not argue with words you put in my mouth. I don't play stupid games.
 
You seem to be saying that if one group is frustrated by what they perceive to be injustice, no action they perform can be illegal.

However, if another group is frustrated by what they perceive to be injustice, that IS a criminal departure from civil behavior.

Is a person a criminal only because pemak disagrees with that person's political position?

Pemak disagreeing with the political position of any person seems to be the ONLY consideration pemak makes in determining criminality.

To me, a person who commits a crime is a criminal. Political position is irrelevant.

Kind of like calling a guy who drives a truck a "Truck Driver". Doesn't matter what belief he holds dear. Driving a truck is only identifier important in applying that label.

If that is what you you think I said, it seems that you never went to school to develop reading comprehension skills

I was saying clearly that the message of a group cannot be discredited simply because some militant people within that group chose to cross the line and initiate violence. If you knew history you would have known that even during the civil rights era, opportunistic Blacks were part of the civil rights movement, and some of them often broke the law even during protests where the peaceful MLK was present


segctitle.gif



King was at the head of the column. Then, a number of young African Americans began breaking storefront windows. James Lawson was leading the march with King. When they turned onto Main, Lawson says, they saw "lengths of police in riot gear across the street."

One can still condemn violence but defend the message from the people who want to use violence as an excuse to discredit the message. That was the case in the summer during the Floyd protests. Today, the message of "the elections are stolen" has been discredited by even conservative judges. Violence is THE ONLY issue today for any reasonable person who does not swallow conspiracy BS
 
Then why did they break down doors and smash windows? Why did they steal papers from Pelosi's office? Why did they steal podiums? The only patriots involved here were the Capitol police.

Russian trolls isolate specific moment and ignore others. In some cases, police stood down after it became clear that they were not equipped to resist physically the mob and that only the use of lethal force could prevent the mob from entering certain prohibited ground.
 
How to turn from a powerful political movement into an invisible and inaudible force in a democracy, with the help of private social networks, in a day.
 
The one dude alone was carrying at least 10 wire ties. I would argue that they were going to kidnap and/or kill as many as they could.
And he brought his mother along.

 

And if you look at the faces of most of the officers, they look pissed, as if they were just ordered by someone or a few of them made that decision for them to open those doors. There absolutely needs to be an investigation into that, but those people knew they were not supposed to be inside. This is like claiming that if you work out a deal with a security guard to let you into a bank to rob it, that means you can't get charged with illegally breaking into the bank because someone of authority let you in.
 
So, then, it's not the crime you detest. It is the people with whom you disagree that you detest.

Seems like a clear case of hypocrisy here. It's conservatives who have proven that they don't care about the act and more about who is doing it.

- Democrats did condemn the BLM riots. The record is clear on this.

- Democrats are condemning the Trump Nation riots in D.C. The record is clear ion this.

So, no hypocrisy there. In the meantime, it was conservatives who chose to pretend that there was no message when black people simply knelt. They then chose to pretend that there was no message when BLM demonstrated. And when some broke into riots, conservatives felt vindicated in ignoring that message as they focused on only condemning BLM as a whole. Always, they merely condemned blacks for opening their mouths. They even created "all lives matter" or "blue lives matter" as means to belittle the message.

Now, conservatives rush to defend Trump nation even after it tried to terrorize American senators into destroying American democracy on their behalf in the very heart of our democracy. Did you notice how quiet all of them were on this site as that was happening? This is because they haven't the ability to think for themselves apart from the mob that right-wing propaganda and the GOP created to serve their right-wing purposes. Faced with an in-the-moment event of their making, they didn't know how to react. As Republicans in Congress flipped and immediately began condemning it (with plenty still playing their partisan game about debunked fraud), conservatives everywhere still remained silent. But as soon as FOX News began peddling their nonsense to help conservatives cope and distract from what they just watched, they all defaulted to typical lies and a re-focus on BLM. Conservatives in airports harassed and terrorized even Lindsey Graham for daring to be disloyal to their would-be-emperor (FOX steered clear of this and continued to push the lie about Democrat hypocrisy). Conservatives on this site, after receiving their right-wing dose of delusion, began launching into attacks on BLM and how a cop in D.C. "murdered" a white woman storming Congress.

So, what we have is a Democrat record condemning riots and violence of both, while clearly understanding the issues; and a Republican record of attacking protestors in one and defending protestors in the other, while playing obtuse for political purposes. Why conservatives continue to choose to pretend that the GOP is a conservative party, and not a treacherous right-wing party, is beyond me.

To me, folks committing crimes are criminals. It seems likely that frustrations they felt, in all cases, were the cause. There is no difference in the frustrations felt. Only in the factors causing the frustrations.

Are you seriously excusing all of the various crimes committed BEFORE Tuesday, but suddenly condemning the same crimes now? The crimes and causes are identical. Only the actors have changed.

Why do you excuse the crime if committed by one but not if the same crime was committed by another? Seems odd.

And this is that right-wing propaganda belittling what you witnessed. You are absolutely wrong.

There is a grave difference between BLM rioters protesting police brutality and tearing down a Confederate statue for slavery in dipshit, Nebraska; and rioter's in D.C. who's sole purpose is to tear down democracy in an act of sedition and national treason for an autocrat wannabe. The crimes are different. The causes are definitely different. You choose to pretend that these are the same things, because right-wing propaganda told you to obey the garbage that they peddle. For that matter:

- BLM also demonstrated in D.C. .....Did they seek to tear down democracy?
- Anti-Vietnam War protestors demonstrated in D.C. ....Did even they seek to destroy American democracy?

No, only Trump followers and supporters did this. That's how different they are and their cause. And this trivial, nonchalant attitude about "all crime is just crime" is part of that belittling about what you witnessed. The same belittling that "all lives matter" was ever meant to do.
 
Last edited:
One officer is being hailed as a life-saver. The original video was too fast to catch the nuance.....Capitol Police Officer Eugene Goodman.

 
Back
Top Bottom