• 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!

Reuters: It Wasn't an Insurrection After All- Just a "Mostly Peaceful Protest (1 Viewer)

The fact that someone in a state legislature introduces a bill makes you think its a real issue that must be addressed? Have you seen some of the crazy shit that regularly gets introduced in bills at the state level?

28 of the states have actually passed the laws changing what they consider to be abuses and that will be govern the election practices observed in 2022.

Without revision, they will also be observed in 2024.

Leftists say that the new laws promote restrictive voting laws. Sane people say that the attempt by Nancy and her gang of thugs to hijack the states rights' to run elections is un-Constitutional.

2022 will be interesting.

 
Actually, I admire the symmetry of the two bookends of Trump's time in office, chaos at airports January 2017; chaos at the Capitol January 2021. The man is impressive. But as to me, maybe my TDS is brought on by the fact that he referred to my immigrant father and relatives as poisonous snakes. Or it could be remembering my wife on election night 2016 saying, "does this mean men can grab my *****?" Perhaps it was suggesting that my Muslim friends should be banned or their mosques placed under surveillance. I dunno, it could be that I worked with victims of torture and Trump praised the practice, that I worked with survivors of massacres by other countries' military and Trump suggested that OUR military commit similar war crimes. It even might be that he suggested breaking the law and ignoring US treaty obligations with respect to asylum seekers with whom I worked for years, or that he made up shit about Syrian refugee processing. Or his casual racism in saying that Judge Curiel couldn't be objective in weighing a completely different legal issue, because after all, the judge is of Mexican descent and no doubt lost any objectivity due to resentment over the wall. This syndrome is puzzling. Maybe you can dispel my concerns listed above. Meanwhile I have memories of dancing in the streets at his defeat, and look towards the up coming civil and perhaps criminal court cases concerning our departed Dear Leader.

As to Trump being my main bogeyman, it's that he's a bogeyman to many GOP politicians so afraid of him that they can't bring themselves to call him out for what he is. They perhaps could apply for a scholarship grant from the Trump Foundation to take a course on all this at Trump University. One could argue that the "deranged" are those who can't see through an obvious crook. What's the latest total of documented Trump lies?
 
What will be interesting is that when the GOP does well, there is no fraud. When the GOP does poorly...there is massive fraud. Like, somehow, the Democrats forget how to rig an election every other cycle.

You guys are unbelievable.
 
So don't believe the NY Times, I also posted a link from the Wall Street Journal. Fair and balanced am I. And of course I am sure you could find some links from diverse outlets yourself.

I suppose you could ask for the medical records of the cops who were injured, tho there may be some ethical questions. A news article from the suspect NY Times said injuries included concussions, rib fractures and burns. Police union says one officer lost an eye.
 
You certainly are eloquent and thorough in your denunciation of Trump.
I hope Trump does not run again.
What is more interesting than Trump is the way Republican hopefuls will work toward attracting Trump supporter in 2024.
DeSantis, Abbott, and Noems (SD) all have a shot at winning over Trump followers.
Politics can be fun. But I never wanted Trump to be president and still don't.
And don't think I voted for Senile Joe and his Check-all-the-boxes running mate.
Joe and Kamala do not have a reasonable chance in 2024.
 
Trump's continuous babble of "we won, we won big" These comments on social media is what caused some of America's underbelly to react to Trump's lies that he won. HE did NOT! He told his base to meet him Jan. 6th in D.C. "It's gonna be wild". In Trump's speech, he said "You have fight, fight like hell, or you won't get you country back" Peaceful? The Republicans have constantly tried to make the insurrection as a "walk in the Park" Bullshit!
 
The thing is, I believe that Trump tapped into some valid concerns of parts of the electorate who may have felt left behind or disparaged by the civil rights movement and the women’s movement. But I think that Biden’s policies are a better fix for those issues, and his proposed legislation may have a beneficial effect in a couple years if passed. In addition, it may be that recent fires and weather events may serve as a national wake up call on the climate. I wouldn’t count Biden out just yet.
 
The Right do love them some Russian news sources, don't they. It's almost as though they really wish we were more like Russia - like we used to be when Putin's stooge President Pumpkin Head was in the White House. Keep drinking the Kool Aid, folks. And keep taking that Horse De-worming medicine. And whatever you do, don't get vaccinated. Nothing owns the libs more than dying from Covid.
 
There is no doubt that Trump had a massive appeal to the Racists, the Misogynists, the Neo-Fascists, and all of the other losers in the country. And we've always had a lot of these folks. Hell, there are a lot of them on this forum.
 
There is no doubt that Trump had a massive appeal to the Racists, the Misogynists, the Neo-Fascists, and all of the other losers in the country. And we've always had a lot of these folks. Hell, there are a lot of them on this forum.
I wouldn’t be so extreme in defining Trump’s support. His MAGA motto was a call for a return to sepia-hued times in the memories of his supporters, to their sense that something good in the US had been lost, to those who saw and were offended by, for example, Hollywood’s portrayal of working class whites as Archie Bunker types. But Trump took a legitimate notion of past “greatness,” never specifying when or how America stopped being great, and made his message “Make America Hate Again,” resurrecting and taking to a new, higher level Joe McCarthy’s demagoguery, George Wallace’s message of white resentment, and Richard Nixon’s paranoia. His style was fascistic, creating enemies and the notion of himself as a Superman, insulting just about every group in the US but white males. His supporters chose to ignore the divisive ugliness of his message and focus on their grievances and sense of loss which he promised to address.
 


Mostly peaceful protest?

Let's see now .... 5 dead, 144 police injured, $1.5 million in Capitol damages, and 540 arrests (more to come).

Your view of "peaceful" is very different than the view of most Americans.

Come on comrade. It was just a bit if fun.
Checking the temperature of future fascist control. Didn't work. Lol
 

Sorry. My mistake. I guess even an amateur Debate Politics poster can be as wrong as the New York Times. I did it without an editorial board. I'll try not to be as unprofessional in the future.

I feel that in the cases of both Brown and Brooks, the shooting victims posed a direct threat to the officers.

In the case of Babbitt's death, she happened to be the one that was hit, but did not pose a direct and immediate threat to the officer. That said, though, she should not have been there.

The first two seem to be roughly comparable as the officers in both cases were being directly attacked.

The Babbitt shooting seems different from them as the officer was not attacked directly and the deceased was not near a weapon or armed.

<snip>
On August 9, 2014, Michael Brown Jr., an 18-year-old black man, was fatally shot by 28-year-old white Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson in the city of Ferguson, Missouri, a suburb of St. Louis.[2] Brown was accompanied by his 22-year-old friend Dorian Johnson.[3] Wilson said that an altercation ensued when Brown attacked Wilson in his police vehicle for control of Wilson's gun until it was fired.[4]
<snip>

<snip>
APD officer Devin Brosnan was responding to a complaint that a man (Brooks) was asleep in a car blocking a Wendy's restaurant drive-through lane. At the scene, Brosnan radioed for assistance, and Rolfe arrived some minutes later. Rolfe conducted a breathalyzer exam which indicated that Brooks's blood-alcohol content was above the legal limit for driving.

Rolfe and Brosnan began to handcuff Brooks, and Brooks grabbed Brosnan's taser and attempted to run away. Rolfe pursued Brooks on foot, and Brooks turned and fired the taser toward Rolfe's head. Rolfe then fired his weapon three times at Brooks, hitting him twice. A third shot struck an occupied car. Brooks died after surgery.
<snip>
 

You are arguing with the thoughts echoing around in your own head, not with anything I posted.

Why are you quoting my posts while you're doing this?
 

This is what being victimized by propagandists produces.

Can you link to and then cut and paste the quote from Trump referring to your "immigrant father and relatives as poisonous snakes"?
 
What will be interesting is that when the GOP does well, there is no fraud. When the GOP does poorly...there is massive fraud. Like, somehow, the Democrats forget how to rig an election every other cycle.

You guys are unbelievable.

You really are simply engaged in a fantasy fest of hate and deception in your own head, aren't you.

Can you reel yourself back in and engage in a reasonable exchange of ideas?

Is there a quote from me that indicates that I believe the Republican Party is any less dishonest than the Democrats?

Why do you quote my posts and then drift away into your bile and deceit?
 

Medical reports would be good.

Vague and general inclusions of broad and indistinct "reports" are, I have found, usually useless in establishing facts. Especially useless when reported by America's Media regardless of political lean.

I can find references saying that a cop will lose an eye. Did the cop lose his eye? I can't find that reporting.
 

So, to you, there is no such thing as an uncoordinated attack? Uncoordinated violence? You think most mob violence is coordinated?
 
What do last summers riots have to do with crazy Trumpers on Jan 6?

They are linked in various ways. Among those ways they are linked are these three:

1. Real world damages were committed to life and property by actual people.
2. The actions were reported and characterized by our media.
3. The legal and political systems reacted to and responded to the persons who committed the actions.

Comparing the reactions from the media and the legal folks and the political folks speaks volumes in revealing the lies and deceit to which we are subjected daily.

As such, these are very useful tools to exploit to to understand the motivations of those that lie to deceive and mislead on a daily basis.

There are many who STILL think that there are good guys and bad guys in political parties. Can you imagine the level of gullibility required for this belief to exist?
 
Bullshit.

Nancy has impeached a President...twice...over a "report of a report".

We literally have the audio of Trump abusing his position as president to strongarm dirt from foreigners on his political rival. That is as good of an impeachable act as any I've seen in American history. Definitely more so than lying about a blowjob.
 
You would only think that's what happened if you believe Nancy's twisted spin. If you actually read the transcript, you'll see that's not what he did at all.

And it's not like he ever went to events and gloated about telling Ukraine, You do what I say or you can kiss that money goodbye.
 
Sorry. My mistake. I guess even an amateur Debate Politics poster can be as wrong as the New York Times.
Its okay...you haven't known what you're talking about since the word "go".... Unlike the NYT.
I did it without an editorial board. I'll try not to be as unprofessional in the future.
You should also research the topics you're trying desperately to debate.
I feel that in the cases of both Brown and Brooks, the shooting victims posed a direct threat to the officers.
Of course you do. They're black men.
In the case of Babbitt's death, she happened to be the one that was hit, but did not pose a direct and immediate threat to the officer. That said, though, she should not have been there.
Of course you do. She's a white woman.
The first two seem to be roughly comparable as the officers in both cases were being directly attacked.
All 3 people who got shot and killed...deserved to get shot and killed.
The Babbitt shooting seems different from them as the officer was not attacked directly and the deceased was not near a weapon or armed.
140 cops had been injured...nobody can blame Mr. Byrd for not wanting to become number 141.
 
You are arguing with the thoughts echoing around in your own head, not with anything I posted.

Why are you quoting my posts while you're doing this?

Why are you denying that you only think Ms. Babbitt shouldn't have been shot because you agree with her politics?
 
You would only think that's what happened if you believe Nancy's twisted spin. If you actually read the transcript, you'll see that's not what he did at all.

I listened to the tape myself. Nancy has nothing to do with it.

And it's not like he ever went to events and gloated about telling Ukraine, You do what I say or you can kiss that money goodbye.

Right, because mobsters and other criminals are always that direct with their threats. Get real.
 
You may be right. A lot of Americans think this is a racist and oppressive society.
But, at the same time, every American knows a Black American (not a descendant of slaves) WAS ELECTED TWICE! How did that ever happen when so many believe this is such a racist country?
People don't want to think about $4.5 trillion of social programs as being harmful for our national economy. And idiots want to believe Bernie Sanders when he says "the rich must pay their fair share". There aren't enough billionaires to go around to pay for all of those social programs the Democrats are proposing. I only hope Joe Manchin and Kirsten Sinema don't lose their courage or their Senate seats.
So, your comments above when it comes to those who are eating up all of the spun cotton candy coming out of Biden about the ignominious pull-out from Afghanistan will be accepted by the devoted Biden lovers. Why? Because they want to and there is no one else except Conservative pundits telling the other side of the story.
Biden has the major news channels on his side. The NY Times and the Washington Post are still his friends. And the narrative about Fox News lying is still very much alive on the 'woke' side of our society.
 
Well...how about this then:

Myself (and likely everyone reading this) pays a % of our paycheck into Social Security from January 1 every year to December 31 of the same year. We never get a break. IF you make over something like $170,000 a year, once you've made $170,000, you stop paying into Social Security. So if you make $340,000 a year (170 X 2) you don't pay into SS for 1/2 of the year.

Lets change that to where, just like nearly every one else, those making $170 pay a % into SS on every dollar they earn.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…