• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

Sen. Johnson on others getting shots: ‘What do you care?’

It absolutely was insurrection.

And it wasn't civil disobedience, as it was a violent attack.

Nice try, no cigar. Your heroes are still traitors.
It wasn't civil disobedience? Seriously? What gives you the impression that they are my heroes? Just a stupid assumption on your part?
 
The bigger nutters are certainly for it, approve of it. I think many of the Trumpeteers, though, just want to forget that it happened and pretend that it didn't happen. I think most are actually ashamed of the act, though they'd still support Trump who incited it. So, I'm never going to let them forget that it was their side that turned coat and attacked American Democracy.

The people on the right that say "that was a really bad thing" get some slack from me.

The people who say it never happened, or was just "an out of control kegger" or - even more hilariously - call it "civil disobedience" are letting their Benedict Arnold hang out.
 
It wasn't civil disobedience? Seriously? What gives you the impression that they are my heroes? Just a stupid assumption on your part?

1. Civil disobedience rules out violence. Your heroes were violent as hell.

2. The fact that you are here defending them by trying to pretend that this was some sort of virtuous act.
 
Oh that's right. One dude was wearing a weird costume with a souvenir type spear.

And that cop that was beaten with a flag pole? And the bear spray?

And yeah, A spear. In this state, the clubs and the spear are classified as deadly weapons.
 
1. Civil disobedience rules out violence. Your heroes were violent as hell.

2. The fact that you are here defending them by trying to pretend that this was some sort of virtuous act.
So, were the violent attacks on federal courthouses and other government facilities last year armed insurrections too? Think about exposing a double standard before you answer that
 
So, were the violent attacks on federal courthouses and other government facilities last year armed insurrections too? Think about exposing a double standard before you answer that


No, they were mob actions. Riots. Also criminal acts, but the did not attempt to overthrow the US political system. That's all on your pals.
 
And that cop that was beaten with a flag pole? And the bear spray?

And yeah, A spear. In this state, the clubs and the spear are classified as deadly weapons.
The point is, there was no armed insurrection at the Capitol building. There was no attempt to overthrow government. There was however a protest which turned into a frenzied and somewhat destructive act of civil disobedience.
 
No, they were mob actions. Riots. Also criminal acts, but the did not attempt to overthrow the US political system. That's all on your pals.
There was no attempt to overthrow anything in the Capitol riot. Yiour double standard has been noted.
 
The point is, there was no armed insurrection at the Capitol building. There was no attempt to overthrow government. There was however a protest which turned into a frenzied and somewhat destructive act of civil disobedience.


There was. Arms can include things other than firearms. There was an attempt to stop the election from being finalized.

It was insurrection. And you approve of it.
 
1619548143488.webp

Peaceful.

Your fellow travelers were not engaging in civil disobedience.
 
There was. Arms can include things other than firearms. There was an attempt to stop the election from being finalized.

It was insurrection. And you approve of it.
No. The election had been finalized. How do you figure I approve of it? Just by being factual?
 
There was no attempt to overthrow anything in the Capitol riot. Yiour double standard has been noted.

They were attempting to stop the election from being completed.

There is no double standard involved. Your friends are traitors to the American republic, and here you are making excuses for it.
 
No. The election had been finalized. How do you figure I approve of it? Just by being factual?

It had not. Pence was there to count the votes for certification.
 




Ron Johnson shames himself forever. AGAIN.

Remember the time we freedom-robbed people from getting polio and smallpox?

Sounds exactly like the average right wing chatter here in DP. I wonder what his handle is?
 
There was no Capitol insurrection. Had that been the case, the Quick Reaction Force of the 82d Airborne would have been deployed within minutes.
Are you by any chance one of the branches on Ron Johnson's family tree???
 
They were attempting to stop the election from being completed.

There is no double standard involved. Your friends are traitors to the American republic, and here you are making excuses for it.
The election was already completed. How am I making excuses? I'm just portraying it factually. What makes you think that they are my friends? What's with you?
 
The election was already completed. How am I making excuses? I'm just portraying it factually. What makes you think that they are my friends? What's with you?

1. It was not.

2. Already answered.

3. No, you've told some lies and deliberately misused some terms.
 
Yes. Conservatives have no problem with facing disagreement and trying to reach a compromise.

If you were discussing the British Conservative Party or the Canadian Conservative Party, I would completely agree with you on that. The American Republican Party, no, not at all. In fact, rather than moderate their positions to appeal to a larger and more diverse percentage of Americans, they just want to make it harder for those outside of their base to vote. You take a moderate, center-right Republican like Charlie Baker, governor of Mass, if the GOP base nominated him in 2024, he would win in a landslide, and probably have Eisenhower approval ratings the entire time he was in office. However, they would never in a million years nominate a moderate Republican like him. They would rather continue to try to win with a minority of American votes, and this true true across the board, than nominate candidates that would appeal to the majority of Americans - which would not be that difficult considering it is a center to center right country.

I mean hell, in 2012, had Romney been able to run as the pragmatic center-right Romney that was governor of Mass, he would have easily won, but instead the base demanded him to run as "severely conservative", and he lost (though he did have a higher percentage of the vote than what Trump won with in 2012).
 
1. It was not.

2. Already answered.

3. No, you've told some lies and deliberately misused some terms.
The election was over. All that was left was a symbolic ceremonial act. I just portrayed the event factually.
 
Back
Top Bottom