One freaking guy with a megaphone and an unenthusiastic bunch of listeners.
We can condemn that one guy. Fine.
But honestly it's one guy and who the heck cares what one guy says. Your blowing it up and suggesting that some material number of seattleites were asking for heads to roll (literally) is just not great conversation or of any use whatsover and diminishes your authority.
Especially in the bigger context, with thousands of mag'as chanting regularly to hang the veep, and they even brought a gallows to DC to do it with.
or maybe you'd rather talk about how the far right often chanted to chop the head off the Vice President.
Or maybe you think since they couldn't *actually* chop that head off, it's meaningless.
Once again you misrepresent my position.
I think the far left AND the far right go too far, and I also think that those who riot should be charged for their crimes.
I just don't call a riot an insurrection when the rioters are not capable of attempting an insurrection.
well ok but if you repeat yourself I'll repeat yourself.
there was an organized movement to throw out the electoral votes and the election. The plot was led by all kinds of Republicans, from the White House to the Senate to the House to media people and the grass roots. This was a literal insurrection.
One of the plans was to actually invade the capitol building to physically stop the counting of electoral ballots. This was an organized plot. This happened to plan.
When the Republicans succeeded in stopping the count of electoral votes, the election would go to the House and the House would overthrow the election and democracy. This failed, thank goodness, but probably over 50% of Republicans would have been fine with it had it happened.
In other words. there was a plot involving all levels of the R party and it worked to stop the electoral count. Yet you refuse to call this plot an insurrection.
You are either unaware of this plot, agree with it, are willing to look the other way, or think it somehow failed despite its many successes. I think your position is reprehensible.
One freaking guy with a megaphone and an unenthusiastic bunch of listeners.
We can condemn that one guy. Fine.
But honestly it's one guy and who the heck cares what one guy says. Your blowing it up and suggesting that some material number of seattleites were asking for heads to roll (literally) is just not great conversation or of any use whatsover and diminishes your authority.
Especially in the bigger context, with thousands of mag'as chanting regularly to hang the veep, and they even brought a gallows to DC to do it with.
It wasn't just one guy with that sentiment. There were hundreds with that sentiment in Seattle and Portland throughout the summer of 2020.
I'm sorry if you don't think it's relevant in the context of what some on the far left want, and how those on the left tend to stand by and ignore it when it comes up. But in the context of what was just being talked about (protesters showing up at houses of Supreme Court justices due to their disagreeing with what the Justices seem to believe) it seems relevant to talk about: the left has a recent history of not protecting people who they disagree with (see: the story about the protest that ended up at the Seattle's Mayor house, led by the most radical Seattle city council member).
One freaking guy with a megaphone and an unenthusiastic bunch of listeners.
We can condemn that one guy. Fine.
But honestly it's one guy and who the heck cares what one guy says. Your blowing it up and suggesting that some material number of seattleites were asking for heads to roll (literally) is just not great conversation or of any use whatsover and diminishes your authority.
Especially in the bigger context, with thousands of mag'as chanting regularly to hang the veep, and they even brought a gallows to DC to do it with.
It wasn't just one guy with that sentiment. There were hundreds with that sentiment in Seattle and Portland throughout the summer of 2020.
I'm sorry if you don't think it's relevant in the context of what some on the far left want, and how those on the left tend to stand by and ignore it when it comes up. But in the context of what was just being talked about (protesters showing up at houses of Supreme Court justices due to their disagreeing with what the Justices seem to believe) it seems relevant to talk about: the left has a recent history of not protecting people who they disagree with (see: the story about the protest that ended up at the Seattle's Mayor house, led by the most radical Seattle city council member).
well you have not proven anything near your assertion of there being a mass will to start a reign of terror in Seattle. It's not your job to educate me, but if you want to be trusted as a source of information, you should be able to document your claims with links showing more than one guy with a megaphone and a bunch of non-energetic listeners.
I think the far left AND the far right go too far, and I also think that those who riot should be charged for their crimes.
I just don't call a riot an insurrection when the rioters are not capable of attempting an insurrection.
well ok but if you repeat yourself I'll repeat yourself.
there was an organized movement to throw out the electoral votes and the election. The plot was led by all kinds of Republicans, from the White House to the Senate to the House to media people and the grass roots. This was a literal insurrection.
One of the plans was to actually invade the capitol building to physically stop the counting of electoral ballots. This was an organized plot. This happened to plan.
When the Republicans succeeded in stopping the count of electoral votes, the election would go to the House and the House would overthrow the election and democracy. This failed, thank goodness, but probably over 50% of Republicans would have been fine with it had it happened.
In other words. there was a plot involving all levels of the R party and it worked to stop the electoral count. Yet you refuse to call this plot an insurrection.
You are either unaware of this plot, agree with it, are willing to look the other way, or think it somehow failed despite its many successes. I think your position is reprehensible.
I offered you the chance to show me where I was wrong, where the rioters were actually capable of attempting the insurrection. You never came up with any support to your claim. If they couldn't get to the point of even attempting an insurrection, it doesn't matter what was intended or what was planned: it never got past the point of a riot. It was a dark day in our history, and I'm glad they weren't able to accomplish anything that day. They should all be charged with everything the government can throw at them, but it doesn't make it an insurrection.
There are extremists on both sides of the political spectrum. Both sides are capable of terrible things. We should do all we can to protect our democracy and our rights as civilians. Ignoring what one side did, or the dangers they pose through their actions, does not help.
It wasn't just one guy with that sentiment. There were hundreds with that sentiment in Seattle and Portland throughout the summer of 2020.
I'm sorry if you don't think it's relevant in the context of what some on the far left want, and how those on the left tend to stand by and ignore it when it comes up. But in the context of what was just being talked about (protesters showing up at houses of Supreme Court justices due to their disagreeing with what the Justices seem to believe) it seems relevant to talk about: the left has a recent history of not protecting people who they disagree with (see: the story about the protest that ended up at the Seattle's Mayor house, led by the most radical Seattle city council member).
well you have not proven anything near your assertion of there being a mass will to start a reign of terror in Seattle. It's not your job to educate me, but if you want to be trusted as a source of information, you should be able to document your claims with links showing more than one guy with a megaphone and a bunch of non-energetic listeners.
I could point to right wing news articles, but you'd just dismiss them because they are from the right leaning media sources you will (rightfully) claim isn't particularly trustworthy. The mainstream and left leaning media never covered it (presumably because it would have put a further negative light to what they had long been trying to claim were peaceful protests, such as even the Democratic Mayor of Seattle calling it a Summer of Love and mainstream media only reporting on what happens during the day at those protests rather than the violence that occurred every night). A lot of the information that was more free flowing at that time is unfortunately no longer easily available.
And I never claimed there was a "mass will", I said there were those (hundreds) on the far left that wanted it.
well ok but if you repeat yourself I'll repeat yourself.
there was an organized movement to throw out the electoral votes and the election. The plot was led by all kinds of Republicans, from the White House to the Senate to the House to media people and the grass roots. This was a literal insurrection.
One of the plans was to actually invade the capitol building to physically stop the counting of electoral ballots. This was an organized plot. This happened to plan.
When the Republicans succeeded in stopping the count of electoral votes, the election would go to the House and the House would overthrow the election and democracy. This failed, thank goodness, but probably over 50% of Republicans would have been fine with it had it happened.
In other words. there was a plot involving all levels of the R party and it worked to stop the electoral count. Yet you refuse to call this plot an insurrection.
You are either unaware of this plot, agree with it, are willing to look the other way, or think it somehow failed despite its many successes. I think your position is reprehensible.
I offered you the chance to show me where I was wrong, where the rioters were actually capable of attempting the insurrection. You never came up with any support to your claim. If they couldn't get to the point of even attempting an insurrection, it doesn't matter what was intended or what was planned: it never got past the point of a riot. It was a dark day in our history, and I'm glad they weren't able to accomplish anything that day. They should all be charged with everything the government can throw at them, but it doesn't make it an insurrection.
There are extremists on both sides of the political spectrum. Both sides are capable of terrible things. We should do all we can to protect our democracy and our rights as civilians. Ignoring what one side did, or the dangers they pose through their actions, does not help.
it did get past the point of a riot.
It was organized, it was a plot, *it stopped the electoral count.*
If Pence had followed orders to leave the capitol, or if the rioters had gotten their hands on the electoral ballots, or if the rioters had bombed the building (remember bombs were found) or if rioters had held senators hostage, or any number of successes, Trump would likely be our president today.
I have no idea how you think it had no chance to succeed. It had a clear path.
The statute of limitations on these felonies will not run before the next Republican takes office, and his DOJ should prosecute all of them, including refusing to give them bail.
well ok but if you repeat yourself I'll repeat yourself.
there was an organized movement to throw out the electoral votes and the election. The plot was led by all kinds of Republicans, from the White House to the Senate to the House to media people and the grass roots. This was a literal insurrection.
One of the plans was to actually invade the capitol building to physically stop the counting of electoral ballots. This was an organized plot. This happened to plan.
When the Republicans succeeded in stopping the count of electoral votes, the election would go to the House and the House would overthrow the election and democracy. This failed, thank goodness, but probably over 50% of Republicans would have been fine with it had it happened.
In other words. there was a plot involving all levels of the R party and it worked to stop the electoral count. Yet you refuse to call this plot an insurrection.
You are either unaware of this plot, agree with it, are willing to look the other way, or think it somehow failed despite its many successes. I think your position is reprehensible.
I offered you the chance to show me where I was wrong, where the rioters were actually capable of attempting the insurrection. You never came up with any support to your claim. If they couldn't get to the point of even attempting an insurrection, it doesn't matter what was intended or what was planned: it never got past the point of a riot. It was a dark day in our history, and I'm glad they weren't able to accomplish anything that day. They should all be charged with everything the government can throw at them, but it doesn't make it an insurrection.
There are extremists on both sides of the political spectrum. Both sides are capable of terrible things. We should do all we can to protect our democracy and our rights as civilians. Ignoring what one side did, or the dangers they pose through their actions, does not help.
Why do you keep ignoring the facts?
1. January 6th fits the definition of insurrection perfectly. insurrection: a violent uprising against an authority or government.
2. The insurrection worked for a short time. The electoral count was delayed by several hours.
3. If Pence got into the car like the secret service begged him to do, the insurrection would have lasted for a much longer time. And perhaps, Biden would have never been certified as president.
Face it. The insurrection happened. You are going to gargantuan lengths to deny it.
Anyway, the insurrectionists only have to spend a couple years in jail, then trump will pardon them and hold a parade to celebrate them. Will give them medals and cheeseburgers.
Anyway, the insurrectionists only have to spend a couple years in jail, then trump will pardon them and hold a parade to celebrate them. Will give them medals and cheeseburgers.
You guys can't seem to agree what to call what happened on Jan. 6. Why not just agree to disagree, compromise and both agree to call it the "Jan. 6 incident?"
Anyway, the insurrectionists only have to spend a couple years in jail, then trump will pardon them and hold a parade to celebrate them. Will give them medals and cheeseburgers.
You guys can't seem to agree what to call what happened on Jan. 6. Why not just agree to disagree, compromise and both agree to call it the "Jan. 6 incident?"
It's because words have actual meanings. To call January 6th anything but an insurrection, you would have to change the meaning of the word "insurrection".
You guys can't seem to agree what to call what happened on Jan. 6. Why not just agree to disagree, compromise and both agree to call it the "Jan. 6 incident?"
It's because words have actual meanings. To call January 6th anything but an insurrection, you would have to change the meaning of the word "insurrection".
'Oh' seems to be making some weird definition of 'attempted' or something like that. I haven't quite been able to understand his semantics. He vigorously says the Republicans never attempted an insurrection, despite the actual violent attempt and all that evidence. he doesn't deny the evidence, but he seems to have a weird definition of the word 'attempt.'
I would say that you can't possibly be that stupid. But you have proven repeatedly that you are indeed that stupid.
Fat Hurts already address your very cute rhetorical "Where were the guns?" If you paid attention, you'd know they were present.
"The government in waiting ready to be installed?" Ummm . . . maybe Trump & Co.? Just a wild guess.
Now, I know you are being paid to splatter your stupidity as widely as possible. But the sheer magnitude of the stupidity of your posts makes it completely obvious that no matter what you are being paid, you are clearly being overpaid - even while they are paying you in rubles. Don't you guys have anyone better?
It's an awfully high bar, but "(missing) government in waiting?" when the people trying to steal the election are the incumbents COULD be a winner for dumbest ever.
Oh, and newsflash, Sally: EVERYONE who defends Jan 6 as being less than it was IS the Trumper you so heartily deny being.
Now, I know you are being paid to splatter your stupidity as widely as possible. But the sheer magnitude of the stupidity of your posts makes it completely obvious that no matter what you are being paid, you are clearly being overpaid - even while they are paying you in rubles. Don't you guys have anyone better?
If you look at how incompetent their mercenary soldiers are, it's not a big surprise they cannot hire better trolls.
While I have no idea how many Russian trolls are out there, including on this thread, the obvious bad news is that there are PLENTY of excuse-everything-Republican Americans out there. Sally could be Igor, or your next door neighbor, or your average R Congressman.
'Oh' seems to be making some weird definition of 'attempted' or something like that. I haven't quite been able to understand his semantics. He vigorously says the Republicans never attempted an insurrection, despite the actual violent attempt and all that evidence. he doesn't deny the evidence, but he seems to have a weird definition of the word 'attempt.'
I can't get my head around his argument, sadly.
If the attempt did not succeed, then the attempt itself did not exist in the first place. That's his definition.
