- Joined
- Sep 27, 2020
- Messages
- 21,426
- Reaction score
- 17,757
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Someone who attempted a coup and fomented an insurrection
should not be allowed to run for public office.
I don't know exactly how to respond because our views of Jan 6th are so different.No more walking back. Conservatives need to just be conservatives, libs need to be libs....and TOGETHER in bipartisan fashion we both MUST lay down the LAW and deliver a harsh lesson on why
the democratic process MUST BE respected at all costs.
We can go back to fighting like cats and dogs over the issues, we SHOULD go back to fighting like cats and dogs over the issues.
Thing is, we also have to go back to LIVING together as cats and dogs, and if you've owned them, you know that a cat and dog may tussle here and there but at the end of the day, Dog will most likely defend Cat to the death and vice versa. Most of us have seen at least a partial demonstration of this in real life.
I guarantee you my little tuxedo fluffball would mourn the loss of our dog, and vice versa, and either of them would fight any outside threat to the best of their ability.
I VIEW the insurrection AS an outside threat because I VIEW the entire foundation OF the insurrectionists as being largely a product from The Kremlin and their chief client.
And it is sedition, not conservatism.
I don't know exactly how to respond because our views of Jan 6th are so different.
In my view...
Some of those people got out of hand and the ones being destructive I agree with charging. However I don't think the majority of them were committing any crimes. They were frustrated and angry. They felt ignored and they wanted an audit before the election was certified.
No it wouldn'tThe Republican Party does give a shit what he says.
You can’t ignore the person GOP voters most support.
Watching Newsmax would help you.
The legal aspect of re-sharing a 'tweet'? As much as I can't stand the guy, the law doesn't change just because it's Trump.Doesn't change the legal aspects of it.
I do know about the guns. The language you choose strikes me as incendiary. They traveled with guns but did not bring them to the protest.This is why I urge you to look over what the committee has found.
For instance, did you already know about the guns stashed in the safe house across the river?
I 100% agree with people who vandalized the Capitol and/or assaulted the police.Anyway, this is not about "charging the maximum number of Capitol attendees possible"....it's not Guiness Book.
This is about employing the rule of law to send a clear message that this shall not be attempted again.
I would hope not but according to news reports they were using bank card transactions and cell phone data to round people up. Neither of those things are evidence of a crime being committed.People who just milled about aren't being charged with anything. It's not possible TO CHARGE them with anything.
I have no disagreement with charging anyone guilty of those things. I will say I don't think everyone inside the capitol building were guilty of those things. Many were oblivious that they were breaking any laws. They were following the crowd. We have even seen leaked footage of the crowd being directed by the police. Signaling what they were doing was permissible.It's the ones who forced their way in, did damage, threatened or injured people working there, those who made plans in concert with others, and those who actively engaged in efforts to stop
certification, and last but not least, all their helpmates IN government, at any level.
On this point I am sympathetic to what you are saying. Angry Mobs are intimidating and that should not be tolerated. The thing about that is the gov has a tradition of tolerating angry mobs and just letting them burn themselves out without police intervention. What they did this time is more the exception to the rule rather than the standard which they operate by. That's a problem for me.This is not about you and I having different views because my view is about the letter and spirit of the law.
The laws say you can't try to halt an election certification, threaten to hang people, do damage to the Capitol and conspire to conduct paramilitary operations for the purpose of inciting riot and instilling fear.
He doesn't want to know. He wants to live in his fantasy.This is why I urge you to look over what the committee has found.
For instance, did you already know about the guns stashed in the safe house across the river?
Anyway, this is not about "charging the maximum number of Capitol attendees possible"....it's not Guiness Book.
This is about employing the rule of law to send a clear message that this shall not be attempted again.
People who just milled about aren't being charged with anything. It's not possible TO CHARGE them with anything.
It's the ones who forced their way in, did damage, threatened or injured people working there, those who made plans in concert with others, and those who actively engaged in efforts to stop
certification, and last but not least, all their helpmates IN government, at any level.
This is not about you and I having different views because my view is about the letter and spirit of the law.
The laws say you can't try to halt an election certification, threaten to hang people, do damage to the Capitol and conspire to conduct paramilitary operations for the purpose of inciting riot and instilling fear.
I do know about the guns. The language you choose strikes me as incendiary. They traveled with guns but did not bring them to the protest.
You claim this isn't about ideological differences but it's hard to believe that when you look at how aggressively the prosecution attacks these protesters and how gently the addressed left wing aggressions.
I don't want to get into a whole whataboutism match because honestly two wrongs do not make a right and saying the other side does it to isn't a defense.Maybe that's not a big deal to you but it is to me.
Pretend we're Ukraine and they are Russians and this is the first week in February.
Yeah, like that...it's WAR plans, and whether or not they brought them is irrelevant because the committee has found messages that prove that they were just waiting for the go ahead.
Okay? The. GO. AHEAD. the GREEN LIGHT.
And? If this was under Obama and Democrats pulled a stunt like this?
Sorry but this is not partisan.
You
don't
invade
the
Capitol
and
try
to
stop
an
election
You just don't do that...not ever.
And if the Democrats were to have pulled a stunt like that, you would see the Republican reaction, guaranteed.
Trump Shares Post Suggesting 'Civil War'
"Any of my fellow Republicans wanna speak out now?" GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger said of the incendiary post.www.huffpost.com
"Any of my fellow Republicans wanna speak out now?" GOP Rep. Adam Kinzinger said of the incendiary post.
Former President Donald Trump shared a post on his social media platform that appeared to propose or predict a civil war in the U.S.
A Truth Social user suggested “civil war” in response to a March 19 tweet from El Salvador’s president, Nayib Bukele, which was screengrabbed and posted to Truth Social by former Fox Nation host Lara Logan. Trump “retruthed” the comment about civil war.
“The most powerful country in the world is falling so fast, that it makes you rethink what are the real reasons,” Bukele’s tweet read. “Something so big and powerful can’t be destroyed so quickly, unless the enemy comes from within.”
snip
Why aren't Republicans speaking out against this?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?