Trump v Biden 2020,The insurrection (pt 6) Read OP

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

I knew finally, someone would be along to make this idiotic stance.

"Woah, looting Reeboks & Nikes wasn't domestic terrorism but trying to kidnap the joint session of the United States Congress is suddenly a problem? Jesus Christ this is what is wrong with you liberals."

Sand is trying to claim the insurrection was a peaceful insurrection though... The one with multiple bombs... The fact more deaths didn't happen is incredible. Meanwhile everyone hiding in the Capitol are being described as "cowards" by the likes of Sand. I'm not sure if he thinks they should have been volunteering themselves to the guys with the cable ties...

Overheal

jill_valentine wrote: »

https://twitter.com/SheWho_Resists/status/1348013553245151232

The 3 Percenters are the group who made plans to kidnap and execute the Governor of Michigan.

This needs to be vetted.

namloc1980

Sand wrote: »

How would you describe the death of Ashli Babbet?

I can already guess, but I want you to consider how they differ and who told you to believe that. You might also consider why you so uncritically believe what you're told by perceived authority but that might be a step too far.

She died as an inept traitor trying to break through a door in the US Capitol where she was taking part in a treasonous insurrection.

PhiloCypher

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Ashley Babbitt,

She illegally entered the capitol building.

She tried to climb through a broken window, She was told to get back even while a gun was pointed at her.

She continues to try climb through the window and was shot, she died from her own stupidity.

On the other side of that door was the chamber where most of the government were attempting to certify an election. No one knew if she was armed or not, she was perceived to be a threat and was treated as such.

She no doubt saw that gun toting militia storm the Michigan statehouse with nary a shot being fired , so it probably never entered her head they'd shoot. They were building to this for months, testing boundaries.

Overheal

namloc1980 wrote: »

.

Some Republican Senators looking for a redemption arc.

You know what, for a week, let them.

They'll be treated with suspicion the rest of their lives, but let's see some Howard Bakers right now please finally.

Sand

Overheal wrote: »

Are you really being an apologist for whoever murdered him? Is this a real thing that I am reading.

I know you still think Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer for shooting the 3 guys trying to chase him down and beat him to death. Yet you simultaneously believe the shooting of Babbet is justified because she was a domestic terrorist because she was in a place she shouldn't have been. I'm okay with us having different views. I'd second guess myself if we ever agreed on something.

Overheal

jill_valentine wrote: »

I take it from you having to get personal you can't address anything then.

markodaly

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Hilary got no end of abuse when she called Trump's supporters "deplorables". she wasn't wrong.

That one statement cost her the election and ushered in the last 4 years. How did that go?

Classic Democrat overreach.

everlast75

A little urine escaped when i read this...

https://twitter.com/ShimonPro/status/1348021032951668737?s=19

listermint

It's all still equally as delicious as it was this morning. Just cutting up slivers of the outrage. Dipped in outrage sauce with a side order of whataboutery .

everlast75

https://twitter.com/kylegriffin1/status/1348028043936165888?s=19

Sand

Sand wrote: »

At best, what you are claiming is that the BLM/Antifa riots never threatened the interests of the establishment so never justified violent defense of those interests. So we agree on that.

They were trying to overrule an election result in an effort to enable a tyrant, that's most definitely terrorism... BLM had violent elements but was primarily peaceful protest as a result of police killings, it had an actual thing to protest. I know you're in denial about that fact but it is.

It was an incredibly large movement btw meanwhile a reasonably small group took the Capitol in an effort to either kill or take politicians hostage to undermine an election. I think it says more about you than anything else that you tried to downplay the murder of a police officer and think politicians are cowards for not offering themselves up to be tied up or killed.

listermint

markodaly wrote: »

That one statement cost her the election and ushered in the last 4 years. How did that go?

Classic Democrat overreach.

Her loss brought back the senate the house and the presidency to the Dems.

I'd say she's pretty ok with it. Deplorables on full display now to tear apart the GOP for years.


Just top top work.

everlast75

Quick question.

How are Trump's chances for that Nobel prize doing?

listermint

[Deleted User] wrote: »

They were trying to overrule an election result in an effort to enable a tyrant, that's most definitely terrorism... BLM had violent elements but was primarily peaceful protest as a result of police killings, it had an actual thing to protest. I know you're in denial about that fact but it is.

It was an incredibly large movement btw meanwhile a reasonably small group took the Capitol in an effort to either kill or take politicians hostage to undermine an election. I think it says more about you than anything else that you tried to downplay the murder of a police officer and think politicians are cowards for not offering themselves up to be tied up or killed.

Huh?

The guys with the cable ties, the screams of shoot pence and hang pelosi and who built a guillotine ...

They just wanted to talk.

Sure it's all free speech.... Or something.

Harmless.

Overheal

Sand wrote: »

I know you still think Kyle Rittenhouse is a murderer for shooting the 3 guys trying to chase him down and beat him to death.

Baseless deflection. This is not a self defense/vigilantism case. This was a coup d'etat. Ad hominem to boot.

Yet you simultaneously believe the shooting of Babbet is justified because she was a domestic terrorist because she was in a place she shouldn't have been. I'm okay with us having different views. I'd second guess myself if we ever agreed on something.

Tell me if this definition doesn't fit the terrorist and why:

18 U.S. Code § 2331 - Definitions

(5)the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that—
(A)involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B)appear to be intended—
(i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping

everlast75

everlast75 wrote: »

Quick question.

How are Trump's chances for that Nobel prize doing?

His chances of winning a darwin award are through the roof, he might get a razzie for some his speeches as of late too.

Professor Moriarty

everlast75 wrote: »

Quick question.

How are Trump's chances for that Nobel prize doing?

Did you mean Knob prize?

LessOutragePlz

What are the chances that they'll get the required majority to find him guilty of the charges after the trial in the senate?

markodaly

jill_valentine wrote: »

Parler was offered a chance to put some kind of effective moderation policy in place, and was permanently taken down when it did not.

It may not always feel like it given how long it took for them to kick in in Trump's case, but both Twitter and Facebook spend an enormous amount of money moderating their content. Facebook's staff here is probably mostly dedicated to that, in fact.

Ah, yea, Facebook are sooooo good at it, they allow live streaming of murder, rape and terrorist incidents, like the Christchurch massacre.
They are so good at it, they outsource moderation and are being brought to court due to damage sustained by the people working there.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/12/facebook-settlement-mental-health-moderators

They are so good at their business model, that the ECB is in the process of getting them to spin out Instagram and WhatApp as separate businesses due to Anti-Trust issues, with the Americans not far behind.

Facebook are angels.

Again, I love self-identifying left-wingers espouse the virtues of some of the most powerful, rich an influential capitalist corporations the world has ever known.
It just goes to show, this is not about right or wrong, its about power and having it in your pocket.

jill_valentine

markodaly wrote: »

Ah, yea, Facebook are sooooo good at it, they allow live streaming of murder, rape and terrorist incidents, like the Christchurch massacre.
They are so good at it, they outsource moderation and are being brought to court due to damage sustained by the people working there.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/12/facebook-settlement-mental-health-moderators

They are so good at their business model, that the ECB is in the process of getting them to spin out Instagram and WhatApp as separate businesses due to Anti-Trust issues, with the Americans not far behind.

Facebook are angels.

Again, I love self-identifying left-wingers espouse the virtues of some of the most powerful, rich an influential capitalist corporations the world has ever known.
It just goes to show, this is not about right or wrong, its about power and having it in your pocket.

Grand, none of this has anything to do with the point of my post though. Feel free to scroll back to remind yourself of what ye were pretending to ask about.

listermint

markodaly wrote: »

Ah, yea, Facebook are sooooo good at it, they allow live streaming of murder, rape and terrorist incidents, like the Christchurch massacre.
They are so good at it, they outsource moderation and are being brought to court due to damage sustained by the people working there.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/may/12/facebook-settlement-mental-health-moderators

They are so good at their business model, that the ECB is in the process of getting them to spin out Instagram and WhatApp as separate businesses due to Anti-Trust issues, with the Americans not far behind.

Facebook are angels.

Again, I love self-identifying left-wingers espouse the virtues of some of the most powerful, rich an influential capitalist corporations the world has ever known.
It just goes to show, this is not about right or wrong, its about power and having it in your pocket.

Think you might have over reached there. She merely made the point they spend alot of money doing it. In fact theres an entire building in Dublin with hundreds of staff working all the time doing it.


You can hold that factual information and still think Facebook needs to be broke up for disrupting impressionable people's with lies fed via AI.

Sand

Overheal wrote: »

Baseless deflection.

Acknowledgement of my point.

I'm not trying to point score of you. You don't need to defend it to me. Just take it away and think about why you believe Rittenhouse (in justifiable fear of his life while being chased by a mob) is a murderer and that guy who gunned down an unarmed protestor is not. Are you suddenly the guy who defends the temples of the establishment? Is invading a police station now justifiable for being killed in your view?

Maybe link the dissonance back to what your social media, mainstream media and corporations are telling you to think. I predicted what you would think because of what they think. Your argument is not with me.

markodaly

listermint wrote: »

Her loss brought back the senate the house and the presidency to the Dems.

I'd say she's pretty ok with it. Deplorables on full display now to tear apart the GOP for years.


Just top top work.

Really? You mean to say, the last 4 years was worth it, because now the Democrats are in the seat of power (with a razor-thin margin in the Senate).
It was all worth it, for what?

A very very odd comment tbh.

History is not kind to parties who hold all levels of power in the US. Odds on that the midterms in 2022 will see the Democrats given a kicking because the Democrats will overreach.

Overheal

LessOutragePlz wrote: »

What are the chances that they'll get the required majority to find him guilty of the charges after the trial in the senate?

Less for removal however I was reading something somewhere, about congressional impeachment rules (I havent look it up yet or anything, maybe a coffee read for tomorrow) which were probably last updated in 2019 for the first impeachment. I believe what they'd be able to do is, by majority, at least permanently disbar him from holding any "office of honor, trust, or profit" in the United States ever again. Nobody could appoint him to a government position and he'd never be elected to one, or eligible to race. I think that option is more palatable to Republicans that removal. The worst thing he can do now is pardons, and if either a combination of the articles or 'defacto 25th ammendment' treatment from the WH administration have put a damper on him attempting to do corrupt pardons, then I think that sum outcome would be swell; then, the criminal indictments for the entire Trump syndicate.

everlast75

everlast75 wrote: »

Quick question.

How are Trump's chances for that Nobel prize doing?

Not that good, but on the plus side a few of his supporters are good candidates for the Darwin awards.

listermint

Sand wrote: »

Acknowledgement of my point.

I'm not trying to point score of you. You don't need to defend it to me. Just take it away and think about why you believe Rittenhouse (in justifiable fear of his life while being chased by a mob) is a murderer and that guy who gunned down an unarmed protestor is not. Are you suddenly the guy who defends the temples of the establishment? Is invading a police station now justifiable for being killed in your view?

Maybe link the dissonance back to what your social media, mainstream media and corporations are telling you to think. I predicted what you would think because of what they think. Your argument is not with me.

I think anyone that goes out armed with a weapon to intimidate or harm others is in for trouble. Both yer mate Reese and what's her face fit into that category.

Sand

Deleted User wrote: »

They were trying to overrule an election result in an effort to enable a tyrant, that's most definitely terrorism... BLM had violent elements but was primarily peaceful protest as a result of police killings, it had an actual thing to protest. I know you're in denial about that fact but it is.

It was an incredibly large movement btw meanwhile a reasonably small group took the Capitol in an effort to either kill or take politicians hostage to undermine an election. I think it says more about you than anything else that you tried to downplay the murder of a police officer and think politicians are cowards for not offering themselves up to be tied up or killed.

I think it says more about your anti-establishment views that you think anything which actually discomforts the establishment is out of bounds.

Christ, the USA emerged from the Boston Tea Party - a violent mob refusing to pay taxes to the legitimate government.

markodaly

Sand wrote: »

I knew the American guy who always shows up to demonize police officers shooting unarmed Americans would be conjured too. And I predicted your stance too.

It's all so tiresome.

Blue Lives Matter all of a sudden.
Defund the police can hold off now, since Biden is about to be sworn in.

That is how logic works around here.

Overheal

Sand wrote: »

Acknowledgement of my point.

Literally any response to your post would be acknowledging that you spoke, it is not an affirmation of your allegation. You claim to possibly still know what I believe, today, about the case, when I have literally not thought about the boy in months. If you hadn't noticed, there's been a contest election eating up the vast majority of that headspace.

So, as I said, it's entirely baseless, I don't even know my own position because I don't know what else has developed in the case in the last 3-4 months.

I'm not trying to point score of you....

In my hole. Everything you said is argumentum ad hominem and none of it relates to the siege of the US capitol.