Trump supporters, is it ok to use force against people protesting against trump's actions during his military parade?

[Linuxcooldude]

....and you forgot insurrectionist, which a Colorado court determined also belongs on the Trump rap sheet.

Trump wasn’t charged with or convicted of insurrection. Remember due process you guys keep talking about? Nonsense, also the judge.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Where was the national guard, it was a violent protest.

Now, Democrats are against having the NG in L.A.

 

[dockside]

It was akin to a kegger or toga party that got out of hand. That’s all.

Well, well, well. You ARE capable of sarcasm.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Dude, you got to get with the approved Democrat talking points . Those were “fiery, but mostly peaceful” protests.

Sorry, you are absolutely right, stand corrected…lulz.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Yawn.


You've never been in a riot.


I have.

Good bye

Appeal to authority. We know what a riot is.

 

[TangoNoCash]

MAGA wants peace and adherence to law and order.

Makes sense why they'd elect a convicted felon then. Wait what?

 

[cpwill]

You think a five year old picture has any relevance to today's situation?

If we are discussing a movement that existed and was present and active then, yes. Yes it is indeed relevant, especially given that we then spent years re-litigating that day, with MAGA excusing and defending the actions it claims to decry in others.

MAGA demonstrated the extent to which it actually cared about law and order and peace and not assaulting cops when they were offered an opportunity to demonstrate where they valued it more than they valued tribal partisan loyalty to Trump.

They chose the latter. They don't want to submit to law and order themselves - they just want it to be enforced on others.

 

[bongsaway]

Now, Democrats are against having the NG in L.A.

Well what about blah, blah, blah.

 

[Jagged]

That's not all I said. Memory prob?

Nope, just pointing out the lunacy of your claim.

 

[uptower]

Do you really want us to bring up the 200+ BLM riots?

This isn't pissing contest without context:

Nobody permitted the BLM riots. Perpetrators were arrested. States mobilized an appropriate response.

But for Jan 6 what does Trump do? Not only does he not call in reinforcement, but he let's the rioters riot then ****ing pardons them.

Learn the difference between blindly trying to score points and actively trying to make one.

 

[VySky]

But for Jan 6 what does Trump do? Not only does he not call in reinforcement, but he let's the rioters riot then ****ing pardons them.

Nancy Pelosi says ‘I take responsibility’ for not having National Guard at the Capitol on Jan. 6, video shows​

Nancy Pelosi says ‘I take responsibility’ for not having National Guard at the Capitol on Jan. 6, video shows

Nancy Pelosi says ‘I take responsibility’ for not having National Guard at the Capitol on Jan. 6, video shows

www.yahoo.com

 

[uptower]

​

Nancy Pelosi says ‘I take responsibility’ for not having National Guard at the Capitol on Jan. 6, video shows

Nancy Pelosi says ‘I take responsibility’ for not having National Guard at the Capitol on Jan. 6, video shows

www.yahoo.com

Don’t waste our time with the NYP. They make shit up all the time.

Trump has just shown us he could have ordered the National guard in. If he can do it for California he can do it for The Capitol. Instead he let his follows trash the place and run around with a gallows trying to hang Mike Pence. Why would he do that?

 

[Jagged]

Nancy Pelosi says ‘I take responsibility’ for not having National Guard at the Capitol on Jan. 6, video shows​

Nancy Pelosi says ‘I take responsibility’ for not having National Guard at the Capitol on Jan. 6, video shows

Nancy Pelosi says ‘I take responsibility’ for not having National Guard at the Capitol on Jan. 6, video shows

www.yahoo.com

I can't help but notice that ‘I take responsibility’ is in quotes, while for not having National Guard at the Capitol, is not. Meaning the Post made up the latter part of their salacious headline.

 

[NotreDame]

??? My view? No, that's Trump's view.


Here's a fact for ya:

So, either you support fascism or you have blinders on.

“Here’s a fact for you” your false dilemma kd support fascism or “have blinders is” is only for people with myopia, such as you. Your two option only logic is the flaw but myopia renders many susceptible to such porous logic.

I couldn’t care less for the PSA of what Trump wrote. His PSA isn’t germane so what I’ve written or my position. Regardless, since I neither voted for him in 2020 or 2024, I have no reason or desire to defend his methods.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

It wasn’t an insurrection, that’s why they were procecuted for sedition.

It was an insurrection.

Quite covering for terrorists.

Q2: Is it a federal crime to commit “sedition” and “insurrection”?

A2: It is a serious federal crime to commit seditious conspiracy or to participate in an insurrection against the government.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 2384, “seditious conspiracy” occurs when two or more persons:

conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof.

You are wrong.

Just stop.

Also... turn off the Faux.

It wasn’t an insurrection, that’s why they were procecuted for sedition.

 

[NotreDame]

Thank you for saying you willfully refuse to see any sort of pattern if Trump is involved.

To the contrary, “you refuse to see” there isn’t a parallel to the Nazi’s of Germany. There are conspicuously a lack of sufficient analogous and parallel features between the two.

You will see them because of your dislike for Trump. Me, I lack such bias as I didn’t vote for Trump in 2020 or 2924 but that, unlike you, doesn’t influence rationally analyzing the facts.

 

[NotreDame]

Except 1500 people who tried to change the result of an election by force.

I am sorry you express such disdain for our constitutional republic.

“Except” you conveniently ignore a meaning of insurrection doesn’t include changing an election resul, in fact no one knows what meaning of insurrection or the source you in tacitly invoke and rely upon since you’ve never divulged a meaning or source. Regardless, Hence, many, many, weren’t charged with insurrection but obstructing an official proceeding and other charges.

Indeed, the career prosecutor, Jack Smith, sagaciously didn’t charge Trump with insurrection but a litany of other federal crimes. Such a decision isn’t inexplicable but rationally comprehensible, the facts didn’t support a federal insurrection/sedition charges against Trump.

You mention the constitution but lack any rational comprehension that the Constitutional meaning of sedition/insurrection isn’t applicable to Trump. See https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...pondent Donald J Trumps Motion to Dismiss.pdf

I cannot have “disdain” for refusing to bend the constitution’s meaning of insurrection to apply to Trump. “Disdain for our constitutional republic” is your deplorable method of reconfiguring the constitutional meaning of insurrection to fit Trump’s conduct based upon this far nothing more than your dislike for him as evinced by the conspicuous void of any substance supporting your claim.

Aside from the legal meaning of insurrection, unlike you ostensibly, I sought to avoid interjecting my own subjective view by citing a few dictionary meanings of insurrection. Trump’s actions didn’t fit.

Finally, you ignore your flaw of attributing to Trump the intent and plans of the 1500. Trump did commit federal crimes but not necessarily those of the 1500 you reference, a salient fact you hastily ignore.

 

[NotreDame]

Nah, just the guy most interested in overturning the results of an election and claiming it was stolen from him having a “rally” the morning of the electoral college count and sending his supporters from the Ellipse down to the Capitol, to do what? Well, we know what happened. He used those people to carry out the ensuing violence in ransacking the Capitol, not that any of them are innocent of their own actions, because they aren’t. The pardons granted by Trump pretty much solidifies the idea that they were used.

And never mind the accounts of his pressure on the Vice-President, along with the efforts to take him away from the Capitol (and actually get him on a jet to fly him way away so he would not be there to conduct the electoral vote count) and having White House conversations about having a lackey in Grassley to do the dirty work in place of Pence.

Your first two paragraphs beg the question of whether they establish Trump engaged in insurrection. The first two paragraphs rest upon the assumption that is insurrection by Trump, and that begs the question.

You can give all of the book definitions of insurrection you’d like, but to ignore everything else surrounding January 6, 2021 and why it happened in the first place, is a pretty narrow minded conclusion.

Your error to write “to ignore every else” as I never took any such view, express or implied. You erroneously presumed my view regarding insurrection equated to stating no other crimes are applicable to Trump. You hastily jumped to that conclusion and skipped over the preliminary question of whether I am of the view Trump’s conduct constituted as criminal. Too bad for you, as I do believe Trump committed some federal crimes but not insurrection.

 

[Hamish Howl]

“Except” you conveniently ignore a meaning of insurrection doesn’t include changing an election resul,

It does if you do it by force.

Get all mad about it.

 

[Hamish Howl]

To the contrary, “you refuse to see” there isn’t a parallel to the Nazi’s of Germany.

Yeah, that's horseshit.