• 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!

[W:#442]Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes arrested, charged in Jan. 6 conspiracy

Good citation. It contains a major blow to those claiming Trump incited the riot.
Trump complained about the election results for weeks. Trump used the word fight over twenty times in his 1/6 "rally" speech. In a completely unrelated matter, the Capitol was violently breached ON THE SAME DAY!

No relationship, at all. /s

 
It seems Rodger Stone has ties to the Oath Keepers, and Stone is a Trump confident & operative.

Could these indictments lead further up, into the GOP, or Trump? Absolutely. No guarantees, obviously, but it is indeed possible. Stone? Bannon? Other Trump confidents? Who knows their connections to the radical groups? And as we saw, Trump won't let his confidents fall - and the GOP do Trump's bidding. If Trump pardons these guys, which he did, the GOP support him in it. If he says they should be released, the GOP says they should be released.

So yeah, I think Trump & the GOP have great reason to end the indictments and investigation, just as they vowed to end the entire 1/6 House investigation. Just as they refuse to show for subpoena, and as Trump did to Mueller & the DOJ. They are protecting themselves, and will continue to do so.
See my post here.


Trying to tie Trump to the Oath Keepers most likely won't gain traction when you have the leader of organization complaining about Trump not saying anything to support them requiring them as "patriots" to take matters into their own hands.
 
Trump used the word fight over twenty times in his 1/6 "rally" speech.
This figure of speech has been explained so many times I'm surprised you're still clinging to it.

In a completely unrelated matter, the Capitol was violently breached ON THE SAME DAY!

No relationship, at all. /s

 
This figure of speech has been explained so many times I'm surprised you're still clinging to it.
Please, explain it again. Or link to another post explaining the meaning of the word "fight". I'd love to read it.
 
Would they be useful idiots in that case?

Of course. Taht was the role that they had been recruited for, using a massive social media and right wing media campaign.

Once they had the crowd, they knew how to turn it into a mob. It doesn’t take a lot of people to do it, either.
 
They are investigating the Loudon School board that WaPo spoke so eloquently of because they were just teaching inclusion.

You made that up.

No mysterious “they” are investigating the Loudoun County BoE.

The right wing astroturf attack was first publicized in Loudoun County because Loudoun County would be a swing county in the upcoming gubernatorial election.

The GOP knew Youngkin needed to avoid falling into the trap of being forced to grovel to Trump.

But he needed Trump’s voters.

So, they needed to push the bigotry button without tying it to Trump.

The campaign triggered the trump base. That’s for sure.
 
Then why not charge EVERYONE who entered the building that day with seditious conspiracy?
The answer should be obvious. Motive-- they would have to prove motive.
......because , unlike the Oath Keepers , there is no evidence they conspired
 
This figure of speech has been explained so many times I'm surprised you're still clinging to it.
Respectfully, they did specifically go to the Capitol and violently break into the building, violently attack police and attempt to stop government process. That did not happen in other cases of people using the word fight in speeches and comments.
 
......because , unlike the Oath Keepers , there is no evidence they conspired
Which only goes to show how a mob can be incited to do something without knowing what they are doing.
 
Respectfully, they did specifically go to the Capitol and violently break into the building, violently attack police and attempt to stop government process. That did not happen in other cases of people using the word fight in speeches and comments.
See my post here.

Post in thread '[W:#442]Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes arrested, charged in Jan. 6 conspiracy' https://debatepolitics.com/threads/...ed-in-jan-6-conspiracy.469974/post-1075265615

There are examples where individuals have resorted to violence for a cause. Tying those acts to the metaphorical words of politicians would be foolish, knowing how the phrase is widely used. Doing so in this example is purely bias driven.
 
See my post here.

Post in thread '[W:#442]Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes arrested, charged in Jan. 6 conspiracy' https://debatepolitics.com/threads/...ed-in-jan-6-conspiracy.469974/post-1075265615

There are examples where individuals have resorted to violence for a cause. Tying those acts to the metaphorical words of politicians would be foolish, knowing how the phrase is widely used. Doing so in this example is purely bias driven.
I know this thread is about the Oath Keepers, but my previous comment wasn't just about them. There were hundreds of others there acting out violently after hearing Trump's comments. To dismiss that would also be bias driven. Trump certainly took his time doing anything to reclaim the peace. Why is that?
 
I know this thread is about the Oath Keepers, but my previous comment wasn't just about them. There were hundreds of others there acting out violently after hearing Trump's comments. To dismiss that would also be bias driven. Trump certainly took his time doing anything to reclaim the peace. Why is that?
No one here is dismissing the idiocy of the rioters of 1/6. Where do you perceive that was something I did?
 
Which only goes to show how a mob can be incited to do something without knowing what they are doing.
However, it does not necessarily follow that an individual or individuals doing the inciting don't know exactly what they are doing.
 
However, it does not necessarily follow that an individual or individuals doing the inviting don't know exactly what they are doing.
Agreed.
 
Interesting that he's charged under 2384 instead of 2385. 2384 is kind of a "catch all" whereas 2385 is more in line with what the media has alleged.

Anyway, unless he takes a plea I suspect we'll get a trial in late September or early October. This has to be used for the most political benefit it can be.
I fully expect that timing.
Great point. It will drive the MSM frenzy towards supporting their Democratic masters. Covid is a wash for taking advantage of since their dear leader is making a mess of that crisis advantage.
I also expect yet another 'dangerous' COVID variant just before the elections, with the Democrats deploying Marc Elias to change the election rules and regulations yet again, as they did in 2020.
 
No one here is dismissing the idiocy of the rioters of 1/6. Where do you perceive that was something I did?
I didn't. But I do see a looking-for-a-way-out for Trump in your comments. It's quite apparent that none of the violent events of January 6th would have happened if it wasn't for Trump, his rally and his rhetoric.
 
Back
Top Bottom