There was no insurrection, you more onz.

[robosmith]

56 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

 

Wrey nor the other guy will answer straight forward questions.  After watching the FBI concoct accusations and lie repeatedly, I think it's safe to conclude the fbi had operatives...like Ray Epps...in the crowd.

You believing "it's safe to conclude," is NOT evidence for your CLAIMS. Duh

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, robosmith said:

You believing "it's safe to conclude," is NOT evidence for your CLAIMS. Duh

Sure it is.  Duh.

[robosmith]

55 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Lol...your lies are pathetic. So are your accusations.

Until you PROVE them FALSE with EVIDENCE they are NOT FALSE, let alone "lies."

You're the one who posted evidence here of your cognitive dissonance and refusal to consider FACTS.

[CdnFox]

Just now, robosmith said:

Until you PROVE them FALSE with EVIDENCE they are NOT FALSE, let alone "lies."

You're the one who posted evidence here of your cognitive dissonance and refusal to consider FACTS.

The onus would be on you to prove them true.  And you have failed to do so.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.     

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

You're no different than Trudeau. You would rather shame those who don't share your ideology. 

You're no different than biden. Half asleep and concussed   I shame those who make bad cases for their arguments. Make better cases.  And go back and look at some of your own 'shaming' efforts.  People in class outhouses.....

Quote

Breaching lawmaker offices threatening the lives of people via hunting them down is different. 

Nope.

Quote

No, one tries to stop a democratic protest using rioters as human shields to do their dirty work. Its not the same as extreme rhetoric, unless the end result is the same.

And which politician has done that?  Nobody you say? Hmm.  Ya got a little confused there i think,

Quote

Did he insist they find lawmakers, or urge them to march down to find some? If no, it is not the same. You're grasping at straws.

Ummmm no he told people to peacefully protest -  did trump tell HIS people to violently protest? No?  did he ask them to PEACEFULLY protest? Yup. Do you think these answers are making you look smarter?

Quote

He fueled the fire and fanned the flames. He didn't need to be there.

Then why didn't we arrest bernie?

Quote

Encouraging the mob to walk down and fight like hell, sounds like encouragement.

Except that's not what he said and you know it.  So - now you're at the point where you have to lie to make your point?  He was very clear that he was talking peaceful protest.

BTW - jagmeet constantly says he's going to fight like hell for people - should we be locking him up?

Quote

There was zero evidence of it. Still isn't evidence of widespread fraud.

Doesn't matter does it.  State of mind doesn't require absolute proof.  THey believed the evidence was significant and convincing

There was no evidence of police wrongding in most of the riots that BLM was behind.

Quote

You're missing the point. Trump made the attempt

In a beutiful case of irony - there's no evidence of that.  There's no evidence that he planned the event or even knew anyone was going to actually try to get inside and find pence.  What were you just saying about forming an opinion with no evidence?

Quote

Oh, they are all wrong. 

You dont seem to believe that.

Quote

What am saying is what Trump did, is different. 

It isn't.  Not at all.

Trump called for protests and demonstrations.    Bernie sanders called for that.  BLM called for that

Trump's people got out of control and threatened lawmakers.  Bernies' shot lawmakers dead.  BLM killed several and threatened lawmakers.

There's no difference other than you don't like trump.  Sorry. And that kind of hypocrisy is a problem today. 

Edited January 7 by CdnFox

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

You're no different than Trudeau. You would rather shame those who don't share your ideology. 

Breaching lawmaker offices threatening the lives of people via hunting them down is different. 

No, one tries to stop a democratic protest using rioters as human shields to do their dirty work. Its not the same as extreme rhetoric, unless the end result is the same.

Did he insist they find lawmakers, or urge them to march down to find some? If no, it is not the same. You're grasping at straws.

He fueled the fire and fanned the flames. He didn't need to be there.

Encouraging the mob to walk down and fight like hell, sounds like encouragement.

There was zero evidence of it. Still isn't evidence of widespread fraud.

You're missing the point. Trump made the attempt. It is irrelevant that it failed. Those who rioted made the documented attempts. Failure doesn't absolve anything.

Oh, they are all wrong. 

What am saying is what Trump did, is different. 

Found this amusing - apparently others think this way too It's not quite perfectly accurate but it does hammer the point home. 

The hypocrisy is pretty real.  People dismissed the major riots driven by the democrats and blm, but one riot from trumps supporters and he's a traitor that should burn.  IT's not ok.

 

 

 

[Perspektiv]

8 hours ago, robosmith said:

she deserved what she got

For a private donation that was hacked into and leaked. It was perfectly legal.

She wasn't on the streets protesting.

You're essentially stating her donation, makes her deserving of the doxxing, and thus all the consequences that go along with it.

The death threats, the vandalism to her businesses, and the threatening of her staff that literally have nothing to do with this.

All of which, you're in agreement with, by supporting her doxxing.

Sounds like a witch hunt, and social shaming to me. 

She literally would have been better off going to jail like those who orchestrated the protests and actually committed the crimes as at least with prison, you serve your time, and are freed afterwards.

You've literally epitomized the hard left. Extreme violence, threats and social shaming are all game, for those you don't agree with voicing their opinions publicly. 

Dissent is just not tolerated from the standard hive mind.

 

 

[Perspektiv]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

but one riot from trumps supporters

I am first in line to denounce BLM's violence. Main reason I never endorsed them.

You are 100% correct on the double standard. 

However, the difference we have here,  is a head of state, initiating the riots based on a refusal to transfer power to a winning candidate.

Whether you believe you won or not, is irrelevant. This is nothing new. Some prior presidents would do petty things like disorganize files on purpose, or call for a recount.

But notice, none called on the population at large, to do so something about it.

You are literally crossing the line of what is best for the country (order during the transfer of power, which means putting the nation before your pride), or bringing the entire system and democratic process into question because your pride can't can't handle that you lost, hurting your country as a result.

While comparing Trump to Hitler or anything of that nature is just fear mongering, you can't forget that these aren't protesters who chose to do what they did.

They were encouraged by a head of state.

If that doesn't scare you, considering you could now effortlessly dismiss election results, and jail opponents (either are wrong), you are essentially accepting of the social stsndard going from setting the standard globally  to being no better than a 3rd world country where this is the norm.

[Perspektiv]

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Ummmm no he told people to peacefully protest

After telling them to fight like hell, riling them up to a frenzy. 

Telling to march peacefully after instructing them to take their country back, will fall on deaf ears.

The evidence is heavy handed. He knows if he loses this election  he is going to jail for this.

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Then why didn't we arrest bernie?

Did Bernie call for tens of thousands of people to march or to do something? If so the act being committed causing the harm to another should definitely be investigated and consequences doled out as the influence you have in a position of power should not be abused.

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

He was very clear

No it wasn't. That's your bias.

Am centrist, I look at all sides. 

He was not clearly on peacefully protesting at all. His words were incendiary, and accused the elections of being fraudulent with no proof. 

People were as a result, outraged. Telling them to be peaceful is irrelevant, once you find out your elections were "illegally stolen".

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Doesn't matter does it. 

Sort of does. They are justified of their anger, if there is proof. In fact the democratic part then look like they caused these riots and have questions to answer.

Without it, all questions should be answered by Trump.

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

There's no evidence that he planned

There is evidence he sent a group of angry people down to the capitol.

Them planning this among themselves is irrelevant. It just looks bad for Trump. His lack of verbally stopping people looking for Pence, and immediately using all media avenues to denounce and stop things.

Taking responsibility, unless he could irrevocably show that fraud was widespread, paint him as guilty as you can get.

Glad you don't work in law. The evidence is overwhelming.

4 hours ago, CdnFox said:

There's no difference

Except one being a head of state  trying to sway an election they lost.

We will never see eye to eye on this.

No use in continuing the circular argument. Feel free to on your end.

[independent thinker]

13 hours ago, robosmith said:

NOT inside the Capitol since it was CLOSED. Duh

Trump is a conman and you've been CONNED. Everyone not in the MAGA CULT knows what happened, including those at the Capitol insurrection.

Have you figured out what a "contingent election" is yet? Trump's lawyers knew, and ILLEGALLY PLANNED that to swing the election to Trump.

GD you Canadians are THICK as a BRICK.

I have to ask why can't Trumpers / MAGA people can't see what Trump is doing.

Trump does lie a lot that is a fact.

do they think he is lying when he says he wants to be a dictator for a day?

They cheer that and IF he does get reelected he will try to go for it, then he will shut down the MSM all except for FOX and he will have one of his most faithful goons run that so they don't say anything against him.

and he will lock up everybody he thinks is against him including some of his MAGA followers.

then seeing he has suspended the Constitution he will then declare himself President for life like his buddy Putin.

and after he does that he will go back to his low  IQ followers and say see I was only a dictator for a day like I said I would and they will cheer and say see he didn't lie Trump isn't a dictator like we said he wouldn't be , Trump is President for life.

it will be the end of the USA as we know it.

GOD BLESS AMERICA

 

[Rebound]

17 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

And because the proud boys bragged, does that mean that Trump is a part of their group? Trump did the right thing, period. And then he stopped talking directly to the proud boys because leftards just take that as being a part of them.

The main takeaways from this story are:

1. Trump was willing to say what needed to be said to stop the Proud Boys from doing whatever it was that they were doing. Did they burn down thousands of businesses, destroy communities, assault thousands of cops, kill a bunch of cops, assault and kill a bunch of civilians? No, they didn't.
2. Biden remained supportive of BLM despite the fact that they were destroying communities, assaulting cops and killing cops and burning down buildings, etc, etc, etc.

Had Biden told BLM to stop that wouldn't be an acknowledgement that he was their leader, it would be an acknowledgement that Biden was the leader of the second largest political party in the USA, and that they were not at all OK with BLM's disinformation, racism, division and destruction. 

Why didn't the Dems call for BLM's destruction and violence to cease? Why did they instead gleefully cheer for it to continue 6 more months? 

Isn't that a much bigger story than "Trump, as President of the United States of America, told the Proud Boys stop doing what they were doing"?

Honestly, how old are you? Are you 21-ish, and never had a real job yet? Even if you're 8, you're old enough to read and write, so you need to expect more from yourself. 

You are so full of sh__
The Proud Boys were very well known as a violent white supremacist threat long before Trump told them to “Stand By.” As President, he had definitely been briefed on the groups who posed domestic terror threats, and Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were at the top of the list.  
 

Trump was telling the Proud Boys to be ready to engage in political violence.  For F’s sake… have you ever seen photos of them at protests? They come dressed in bullet proof tactical vests, like armed soldiers.  Here’s a photo of Enrique Tarrio.  He looks like he’s dressed for combat. Because he is. 

 

[WestCanMan]

16 hours ago, Rebound said:

Did the U.S. Civil War “almost overthrow the U.S. government?”

Why are you talking about the civil war? What does that have to do with this topic? 

During the civil war the Dems' fighters had warships, cavalry, canons and rifles: they were a complete army. 

Are you honestly comparing that to "a guy picked up a fire extinguisher and another guy threw some rocks"? 

Quote

And can you provide a citation of Judge Chutkin stating that?

Chumpkin Quotes:

Quote

Julie Kelly obtained a transcript of another sentencing by the anti-Trump Judge Chutkan where she brazenly lied about the Capitol protest. During that sentencing Chutkan called the January 6 Capitol riot an “armed attempted overthrow of this government.” TGP reports: Judge Chutkan said lawmakers who were inside the Capitol on January 6 looked outside and saw “gallows being erected.”

This never happened. There is no video evidence to back up this absurd claim.

Judge Chutkan also said January 6 protesters tried to violently overthrow the government.

My Bad, it was the current president, Joe Biden, who calls Jan 6th "The day we nearly lost America". 

Quote

Speaking near Valley Forge, Pennsylvania, where George Washington and the Continental Army spent a bleak winter nearly 250 years ago, Biden said that Jan. 6 2021, marked a moment where “we nearly lost America — lost it all.”

Leftards have completely abandoned decency and sanity. The disinformation that's coming from the highest echelons of their elected & unelected officials and from their media sources is atrocious. 

For you to stand by and even to go along with it is a disgrace. 

[WestCanMan]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

You are so full of sh__
The Proud Boys were very well known as a violent white supremacist threat long before Trump told them to “Stand By.” As President, he had definitely been briefed on the groups who posed domestic terror threats, and Proud Boys and Oath Keepers were at the top of the list.  
 

Trump was telling the Proud Boys to be ready to engage in political violence.  For F’s sake… have you ever seen photos of them at protests? They come dressed in bullet proof tactical vests, like armed soldiers.  Here’s a photo of Enrique Tarrio.  He looks like he’s dressed for combat. Because he is. 

 

I don't care what they were accused of by the Dems and their lackeys, Dems run their mouths 24/7 and almost nothing that they say is ever true.

Do you have some examples of the Proud Boys committing crimes, or acts of domestic terrorism, or violent bigotry, or just written/verbal bigotry? 

Do you have some proof that Trump is their leader? If he is, does that make Obama the leader of BLM? Is he responsible for all of their murders, assaults and destruction?

[CdnFox]

7 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I am first in line to denounce BLM's violence. Main reason I never endorsed them.

You are 100% correct on the double standard. 

However, the difference we have here,  is a head of state, initiating the riots based on a refusal to transfer power to a winning candidate.

Whether you believe you won or not, is irrelevant. This is nothing new. Some prior presidents would do petty things like disorganize files on purpose, or call for a recount.

 

First - you're assuming facts not in evidence.  There's little doubt that trump wanted their to be demonstrations and a big fuss and that he used inflammitory rhetoric.  But i have yet to see a single thing that actually shows that he gave instruction or even knew that an attempt to force entry and physically confront mike pence was on the table.  So while i'm quite comfortable saying he initiated the protest - the events that followed may have been as much of a surprise to him as to everyone else.

Second, there's nothing petty about what some previous candidates have done. Lawsuits for example that stretched on for ages.  Refusals to admit defeat for quite some time.  Hell - hillary clinton was still wandering around telling her supporters that trump was an illegitimate president.  And frankly - i don't see much difference between trump contesting the win and the democrats use of fake dossiers and frivolous legal attacks to destroy a political opponent.

All you are doing is making a case that this kind of thing is bad. Well - take the W, i'm 100 percent convinced.

But you are not making any case that one is somehow worse than the others and should be treated differently. Sanders' rhetoric gets lawmakers killed - outright. Not a big deal, sanders is not to blame in your books.  I happen to agree, the guy who did the shooting is to blame for those deaths - but that ALSO means that unless you can prove trump ACTUALLY instructed them to hunt down pence that even if his words were the catalyst (as bernies were) he is not to blame.
 

Quote

 

While comparing Trump to Hitler or anything of that nature is just fear mongering, you can't forget that these aren't protesters who chose to do what they did.

They were encouraged by a head of state.

 

They didn't choose what they did.  They didn't make a choice.  None of this is their responsibility.  That's your argument. These were innocent people who were FORCED to do what they did by trump.

I think we're done here. If you can't think rationally on the topic and have let your hatred of trump blind you THAT much that you honestly beleive the rioters made no choices and were driven to it by trump alone, then we're just not on the same level.

I am very disappointed tho.

[Hodad]

On 1/6/2024 at 6:53 PM, WestCanMan said:

The Dems and CNN rely on people like you being easily duped, and you never disappoint.

FYI Trump was doing something patriotic by asking Biden to denounce all of the rioting, which Biden refused to do because BLM rioting was one of the Dems' main political strategies, and the debate moderator never asked asked him to do it either. Then the moderator challenged trump to deliver that message to white extremists, and Trump asked him exactly what words the moderator wanted him to say and to whom, and when the moderator told Trump what to say, he said it. 

You're confusing "Trump having no qualms about delivering a stern message to people who were accused of being extremists" with "Trump proving that he was somehow involved in that group just by relaying the moderator's message to them".

I know that's probably too much for you to understand, as usual, but whatever. The main point is that you've been corrected now and others will understand that. 

As always, you lie. He was asked to denounce white supremacists and to tell the Proud Boys to "stand down and not add to the violence." 

Trump instead chose told them to "stand back and stand by."  It's on video. Your gaslighting won't work. 

Trump wouldn't condemn or denounce them. Instead he told them to "stand by"! They understood exactly what he meant and celebrated it. 

"Standing down and standing by sir," the account wrote. The account then posted two videos of the answer, including one with the caption "God. Family. Brotherhood," in which a man howled at the TV in response to Trump's response."
...

Proud Boys organizer Joe Biggs also posted after the debate that he was "standing by," and he said the president "basically said to go f--- them up."

"President Trump told the proud boys to stand by because someone needs to deal with ANTIFA... well sir! we're ready!!" Biggs wrote."

[Hodad]

5 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Why are you talking about the civil war? What does that have to do with this topic? 

During the civil war the Dems' fighters had warships, cavalry, canons and rifles: they were a complete army. 

Are you honestly comparing that to "a guy picked up a fire extinguisher and another guy threw some rocks"? 

Chumpkin Quotes:

My Bad, it was the current president, Joe Biden, who calls Jan 6th "The day we nearly lost America". 

Leftards have completely abandoned decency and sanity. The disinformation that's coming from the highest echelons of their elected & unelected officials and from their media sources is atrocious. 

For you to stand by and even to go along with it is a disgrace. 

Sure, nobody erected gallows at the Capitol and nobody chanted to "Hang Mike Pence!"

Except they did, liar.

Edited January 8 by Hodad

[Perspektiv]

7 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

Leftards have completely abandoned decency and sanity.

I think either extreme (left or right), is devoid of intelligence, sanity and decency.

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

There's little doubt that trump wanted their to be demonstrations and a big fuss

Like I said. Its a waste of either of our time to continue. The fact you call your above post logic, when the evidence to the contrary is heavy handed and you argue with what you believe--but can't post equally irrefutable proof, is this debate being done. I appreciate it, nonetheless. 

 

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

As always, you lie. He was asked to denounce white supremacists and to tell the Proud Boys to "stand down and not add to the violence." 

Trump instead chose told them to "stand back and stand by."  It's on video. Your gaslighting won't work. 

Trump wouldn't condemn or denounce them. Instead he told them to "stand by"! They understood exactly what he meant and celebrated it. 

"Standing down and standing by sir," the account wrote. The account then posted two videos of the answer, including one with the caption "God. Family. Brotherhood," in which a man howled at the TV in response to Trump's response."
...

Proud Boys organizer Joe Biggs also posted after the debate that he was "standing by," and he said the president "basically said to go f--- them up."

"President Trump told the proud boys to stand by because someone needs to deal with ANTIFA... well sir! we're ready!!" Biggs wrote."

That literally disproves your point.  They had agreed not to do anything and were 'standing by'.  That literally means they were told not to do anything.

Yeash. 

[CdnFox]

1 minute ago, Perspektiv said:

 

Like I said. Its a waste of either of our time to continue. The fact you call your above post logic, when the evidence to the contrary is heavy handed and you argue with what you believe--but can't post equally irrefutable proof, is this debate being done. I appreciate it, nonetheless.

Lie to yourself if you like.  I get that you are emotionally invested in this and are desperate to defend your obviously hypocrisy. You have not posted a single drop of proof that trump ordered or arranged the attack on pense or anyting other than what should have been a peaceful demonstration on the hill.  Not a drop. Yet you still insist that somehow it's been proven. And others who have done the same thing with equal rhetoric and even WORSE results you consider blameless and innocent.

It's common enough to fib to support one's bias and emotionally-held beliefs i suppose. But as i said, disappointing.

[Perspektiv]

1 minute ago, CdnFox said:

You have not posted a single drop of proof that trump ordered or arranged the attack

He falsely called the elections stolen. He demanded Pence to do the right thing. Lied to the angry mob, that he didn't do what he needed to protect the constitution.

You can't read between the lines and figure why this may anger a few in the crowd, I can't help you. Its also not my job to spell out the obvious for you.

The quotes are there, and irrefutable. The result is blatant. "yeah, but specifically--where does he verbatim tell the crowd to break a window?!"

You know you're smarter than that, hence the debate being a waste of our time. You're essentially telling a police officer that there are no signs on the major boulevard that states not to reverse, so "how am I supposed to know!?" Precisely the logic you're working with right now. Legit trying to fight it in court, because no signs told you what to do.

You've yet to prove the elections were stolen and on a widespread basis, yet accuse me of lying. Hilarious.

This will be my last post on the subject. Enjoy gaslighting yourself.

[robosmith]

15 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

For a private donation that was hacked into and leaked. It was perfectly legal.

She wasn't on the streets protesting.

You're essentially stating her donation, makes her deserving of the doxxing, and thus all the consequences that go along with it.

The death threats, the vandalism to her businesses, and the threatening of her staff that literally have nothing to do with this.

All of which, you're in agreement with, by supporting her doxxing.

Sounds like a witch hunt, and social shaming to me. 

She literally would have been better off going to jail like those who orchestrated the protests and actually committed the crimes as at least with prison, you serve your time, and are freed afterwards.

You've literally epitomized the hard left. Extreme violence, threats and social shaming are all game, for those you don't agree with voicing their opinions publicly. 

Dissent is just not tolerated from the standard hive mind.

She got what she deserved for helping the deprivation of millions of people's freedoms.

I hate being caught in horrendous traffic and anyone who PURPOSELY denies my FREEDOMS by ILLEGALLY creating that. So suck it.

Edited January 8 by robosmith

[Perspektiv]

6 hours ago, robosmith said:

She got what she deserved for helping the deprivation of millions of people's freedoms.

What about the incessant government lock downs, with over 85% of the population fully vaccinated at the time? Governments stating this would be over after 80%, and constantly moving the goal posts, lying about covid almost being over.

Personally, this meant constant police check points for visiting clients outside of my area. 

Being pulled over by police  constantly after clearing checkpoints.

Deliberately divisive wording by Trudeau, causing mass panic. If you saw someone coughing in public they would be shamed. 

Finding out they weren't vaccinated, would have them get shamed, bullied or worse, such as disowned and outlasted.

I had an unvaccinated co-worker, and saw them get alienated by everyone. Mocked. It wasn't only tolerated, it was encouraged. This is the division of Trudeau.

I have a sinus issue which has me sniffling all the time. The dirty looks I would routinely get, and having to state its not covid.

People being on edge and infighting due to this. Massive lineups at alcohol stores, because governments knew this would be how they could avoid full blown rioting. What about the rights of these people?

Trudeau's mocking of the protesters while they were still legally protesting, ratcheting up the temperatures and forcing them to dig in their heels?

What about his freezing of their bank accounts and abusing of emergency powers, to suppress any dissenting voices? This wasn't a national emergency. It became one due to Trudeau's belligerence.

The protesters forced a conversation to be had. Insanely strict covid protocols were immediately relaxed afterwards.

Canadians were fed up. The rapid millions that were raised by this group is proof of this.

Governments were forced to concede that destroying the mental health of a population at the expense of safety, was not a sacrifice for one or the other. It should be a balance.

People who committed crimes, deserve jail. Those who orchestrated this mess, deserve jail.

I just don't understand how you support freedom, but stop this freedom when you're in disagreement with someone.

She was exercising her right. She did nothing illegal.

You're essentially disagreeing with her opinion and feel her having her rights suppressed due to this, is fair game.

I don't know. I see protests I don't agree with, and see freedom of speech.

We're just wired different.

[WestCanMan]

14 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I think either extreme (left or right), is devoid of intelligence, sanity and decency.

For sure there are outliers in both groups, in any large group for that matter, but the vast majority of leftists crossed the Rubicon at some point between Jan 2017 and May 2021. They're either victims of the collusion farce, mostly peaceful protests, vax-Naziism, Jan 6th stooges, or all of the above.

Ideally everyone who is firmly in any one of those camps would be considered an outlier, but somehow their loonie bin is orders of magnitude larger than their 'big tent'. 

With leftists it seems like you have to be all-in on every false narrative or you're excommunicated, so regardless of whether or not they truly believe in all those things, they pay unflinching lip service, which begs the question: is there a difference between believing it all and just going along with all of the hysteria? Is either one any better than the other? 

[robosmith]

8 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

What about the incessant government lock downs, with over 85% of the population fully vaccinated at the time?

We never had "lockdowns." Various businesses considered non-essential were closed, which I found to be unintrusive on my freedoms. Except perhaps for my gym, and esp the basketball court which was closed for over a year, even after the club was opened. I blame that for my gaining 20lbs. LMAO

8 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

 

Governments stating this would be over after 80%, and constantly moving the goal posts, lying about covid almost being over.

Personally, this meant constant police check points for visiting clients outside of my area. 

Being pulled over by police  constantly after clearing checkpoints.

Deliberately divisive wording by Trudeau, causing mass panic. If you saw someone coughing in public they would be shamed. 

Finding out they weren't vaccinated, would have them get shamed, bullied or worse, such as disowned and outlasted.

I had an unvaccinated co-worker, and saw them get alienated by everyone. Mocked. It wasn't only tolerated, it was encouraged. This is the division of Trudeau.

I have a sinus issue which has me sniffling all the time. The dirty looks I would routinely get, and having to state its not covid.

People being on edge and infighting due to this. Massive lineups at alcohol stores, because governments knew this would be how they could avoid full blown rioting. What about the rights of these people?

Trudeau's mocking of the protesters while they were still legally protesting, ratcheting up the temperatures and forcing them to dig in their heels?

What about his freezing of their bank accounts and abusing of emergency powers, to suppress any dissenting voices? This wasn't a national emergency. It became one due to Trudeau's belligerence.

The protesters forced a conversation to be had. Insanely strict covid protocols were immediately relaxed afterwards.

Canadians were fed up. The rapid millions that were raised by this group is proof of this.

Governments were forced to concede that destroying the mental health of a population at the expense of safety, was not a sacrifice for one or the other. It should be a balance.

People who committed crimes, deserve jail. Those who orchestrated this mess, deserve jail.

I just don't understand how you support freedom, but stop this freedom when you're in disagreement with someone.

She was exercising her right. She did nothing illegal.

You're essentially disagreeing with her opinion and feel her having her rights suppressed due to this, is fair game.

I don't know. I see protests I don't agree with, and see freedom of speech.

We're just wired different.

Sounds like Canada was much more strict and had little to show for it.

When someone supports a small group's illegal "freedoms" at the cost of a very LARGE numbers' legal freedoms, that is bass ackwards and she got what she deserved.

[Rebound]

23 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

I don't care what they were accused of by the Dems and their lackeys, Dems run their mouths 24/7 and almost nothing that they say is ever true.

Do you have some examples of the Proud Boys committing crimes, or acts of domestic terrorism, or violent bigotry, or just written/verbal bigotry? 

Do you have some proof that Trump is their leader? If he is, does that make Obama the leader of BLM? Is he responsible for all of their murders, assaults and destruction?

Enrique Tarrio was convicted of seditious conspiracy and sentenced to 22 years in prison. You can go read the court papers if you want. 

1 hour ago, WestCanMan said:

For sure there are outliers in both groups, in any large group for that matter, but the vast majority of leftists crossed the Rubicon at some point between Jan 2017 and May 2021. They're either victims of the collusion farce, mostly peaceful protests, vax-Naziism, Jan 6th stooges, or all of the above.

Ideally everyone who is firmly in any one of those camps would be considered an outlier, but somehow their loonie bin is orders of magnitude larger than their 'big tent'. 

With leftists it seems like you have to be all-in on every false narrative or you're excommunicated, so regardless of whether or not they truly believe in all those things, they pay unflinching lip service, which begs the question: is there a difference between believing it all and just going along with all of the hysteria? Is either one any better than the other? 

Trump is obviously a Putin stooge. That’s why Trump is happy to hand Ukraine over to Putin.