There was no insurrection, you more onz.

[Nationalist]

4 minutes ago, robosmith said:

I'll just keep FIXING your MORONIC posts.

Lol...

[WestCanMan]

21 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Am not your buddy o_O

I think an entire thread is thinking the same thing, but aren't looking at me. 

Unfortunately I married a narssissist. Gaslighting, is ineffective on me.

You can't gaslight your way from facing consequences for your well documented crimes, just like you can't for dancing around facts and evidence because you don't agree with them.

Calling it leftard evidence doesn't dispute the evidence.

Just like if my wife was pregnant  me telling her so you're "pregnant" doesn't make her any less pregnant.

If anything, it only makes me likelier to sleep in a different bed that looks like sofa.

You suck at debating, is the long winded point am making.

This is the only "leftard evidence" on this page: https://youtu.be/DXnHIJkZZAs?si=mzuCqy-ZqCrhKZuH, and as I mentioned it falls way short of providing 'evidence' of an insurrection.

Aside from that there's just your uninformed opinions and your comical attempts at using big words. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

That's the thing, though. It wasn't only pushing. Pushing only, would not have us debating this. Thats a fine line, but still freedom of speech and lethal force would have been utterly unnacceptable. 

Several police officers sustained serious injuries based on being assaulted. Not while trying to stop a protest, trying to stop a breach at a lawmakers office.
 

Mmmm.  I think you're spitting the hair mighty thin there. 

Violence is one of those words that's been stretched over many decades and is a little to 'elastic' to easily use these days.  "assaulted' is bordering on being another one. Is this really any MORE violent than many of the other protests we've seen in the last few years? It's arguably far LESS violent than a number of them.

As to the'stop a breech' - yeah, in pretty much every other instance the cops don't try to stop them. A NUMBER of gov't offices have been 'breeched' in the last few years -  MANY.  But the police didn't try to stop the protesters much, and this time they did.  I'm not saying they shoudn't have - but if we're saying this is more than a run of them mill protest that was agressive then you'd have to address that point,

And entering the lawmakers office WAS the protest so lets not claim that it's two seperate things.

 

Quote

That would be considered a violent demonstration.

Cops have claimed that at MANY demonstrations over the last few years and it's been described as 'not violent' and 'mostly peaceful'.

Quote

Imagine protesters entering the parliament in Canada (or any other lawmaker offices in the world), and assaulting several RCMP officers on their way in.

we declared the emergency act when they put up a bouncey castle when it was protesters the gov't didn't like. we're a little different  .  On the other hand protesters have stormed MANY of our gov't and civil buildings and disrupted proceedings. No charges, no issues nothing.

Quote

This becomes a threat to your democratic process. Lethal force would be put on the table. Rightfully so.

No it doesn't.  Lets keep it real

 

Quote

The logic of "none of them had guns" ignores what they did. They could have kept their protest lawful and stayed out of government buildings. 

The logic of 'none of them had guns'  acknowledges what they didn't do.  And you need to as well.

 

Lets be clear. I have limtied patience for protests of any kind.  I think for the most part they are childish and unnecessary and unproductive.  But i get it's people's rights, 

But wherever the line gets drawn for one group - that's where it should be for all groups.  And that's not happening here.  Its pretty obvious this was not going to result in democracy falling by any possible means.  IT obviously was not an actual attempt to overthrow a gov't. Insurrection is probably too far.

Violent protest that went too far? Sure.  But - then so were the BLM and other riots and that was characterized as NOT violent and NOT too far - after all protest is SUPPOSED to make people uncomfortable.  Right?

Hell a group of protesters took over a whole section of portland  (seattle?) and the gov't buildings there and everyone blew that off as being perfectly acceptable.

Either those riots AND this one were horrible or neither really were.  The dems want to portray this as a serious attempted coup to overthrow a lawful gov't by a hostile force  - and it's really not. It's a protest that in my books went too far and broke laws. That's it No threat to democracy, no insurrection,  just the last in a long line of increasingly destructive protests  that the dems were HAPPY to support when it was done by people they liked.

[WestCanMan]

12 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

we declared the emergency act when they put up a bouncey castle when it was protesters the gov't didn't like.

🤣

I'm stealing that

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Mmmm.  I think you're spitting the hair mighty thin there. 

Violence is one of those words that's been stretched over many decades and is a little to 'elastic' to easily use these days.  "assaulted' is bordering on being another one. Is this really any MORE violent than many of the other protests we've seen in the last few years? It's arguably far LESS violent than a number of them.

As to the'stop a breech' - yeah, in pretty much every other instance the cops don't try to stop them. A NUMBER of gov't offices have been 'breeched' in the last few years -  MANY.  But the police didn't try to stop the protesters much, and this time they did.  I'm not saying they shoudn't have - but if we're saying this is more than a run of them mill protest that was agressive then you'd have to address that point,

And entering the lawmakers office WAS the protest so lets not claim that it's two seperate things.

 

Cops have claimed that at MANY demonstrations over the last few years and it's been described as 'not violent' and 'mostly peaceful'.

we declared the emergency act when they put up a bouncey castle when it was protesters the gov't didn't like. we're a little different  .  On the other hand protesters have stormed MANY of our gov't and civil buildings and disrupted proceedings. No charges, no issues nothing.

No it doesn't.  Lets keep it real

 

The logic of 'none of them had guns'  acknowledges what they didn't do.  And you need to as well.

 

Lets be clear. I have limtied patience for protests of any kind.  I think for the most part they are childish and unnecessary and unproductive.  But i get it's people's rights, 

But wherever the line gets drawn for one group - that's where it should be for all groups.  And that's not happening here.  Its pretty obvious this was not going to result in democracy falling by any possible means.  IT obviously was not an actual attempt to overthrow a gov't. Insurrection is probably too far.

Violent protest that went too far? Sure.  But - then so were the BLM and other riots and that was characterized as NOT violent and NOT too far - after all protest is SUPPOSED to make people uncomfortable.  Right?

Hell a group of protesters took over a whole section of portland  (seattle?) and the gov't buildings there and everyone blew that off as being perfectly acceptable.

Either those riots AND this one were horrible or neither really were.  The dems want to portray this as a serious attempted coup to overthrow a lawful gov't by a hostile force  - and it's really not. It's a protest that in my books went too far and broke laws. That's it No threat to democracy, no insurrection,  just the last in a long line of increasingly destructive protests  that the dems were HAPPY to support when it was done by people they liked.

The Jan 6 videos show that police fought with all their might to keep the rioters out of the U.S. Capitol building.  

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

This is the only "leftard evidence" on this page: https://youtu.be/DXnHIJkZZAs?si=mzuCqy-ZqCrhKZuH, and as I mentioned it falls way short of providing 'evidence' of an insurrection.

Aside from that there's just your uninformed opinions and your comical attempts at using big words. 

And a ton of evidence you've not even examined.

[WestCanMan]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

The Jan 6 videos show that police fought with all their might to keep the rioters out of the U.S. Capitol building.  

It was a 'pushing fight'. A shoving insurrection lol. 

Your own video - which you though was absolute proof of an 'insurrection' - proved that, and I thank you for it. 

The police did their job, as they should have, and one of them horribly overreacted. 

On the whole it wasn't that bad of a day, the worst part of the whole thing is the clown show that the Dems have been running ever since. 

I think that Americans need to speak out loud and clear with their votes in 2024. The Dems' hate-mongering needs to end and the MSM isn't going to do anything about it so it has to be the voters. 

[CdnFox]

2 hours ago, Rebound said:

The Jan 6 videos show that police fought with all their might to keep the rioters out of the U.S. Capitol building.  

And?

That happens frequently.

Here's some vids  of the floyd blm police clashes

 

Or this recent gem where police officers were attacked "violently" by people the democrats like and who tried to get into the democratic national commitee meetings - that's the main caucus of the current in power gov't.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/capitol-police-working-back-150-people-protesting-dnc/story?id=104930336

Violence - trying to storm a national government office and distrupt democracy -  several police injured -

Insurrection? Meets all your criteria, so there you go. But - the dems and their media buddies don't want to offend that group.  So - not insurrection.

Rashida and friends have certainly been talking more trash to these groups than trump did - why no charges?

Do you see how this looks like insane levels of double standards and hypocrisy?  Can  you see how a rational person might well arrive at the conclusion that the capital riots are being grossly amplified in rhetoric compared to very similar protests which are happening even today?

 

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

It was a 'pushing fight'. A shoving insurrection lol. 

Your own video - which you though was absolute proof of an 'insurrection' - proved that, and I thank you for it. 

The police did their job, as they should have, and one of them horribly overreacted. 

On the whole it wasn't that bad of a day, the worst part of the whole thing is the clown show that the Dems have been running ever since. 

I think that Americans need to speak out loud and clear with their votes in 2024. The Dems' hate-mongering needs to end and the MSM isn't going to do anything about it so it has to be the voters. 

The Dems assembled a cadre of WH INSIDERS who gave their SWORN TESTIMONY AGAINST Trump's crimes.

And Jack Smith has ALL OF THAT before his Grand Jury. That's why YOUR HERO is facing 91 felonies. LMAO

And you keep defending a man indicted for felonies cause apparently you identify with criminal defendants.

[Guest]

5 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Here's some vids  of the floyd blm police clashes

I don't think I need to get into my dislike for the BLM movement as a black male.

If you show footage of them breaching and vandalizing lawmaker offices, threatening those who run the country (I.E To hang Mike Pence for his "cowardice")--your point is very strong. You're otherwise comparing a person threatening me for terminating them as an employee vs a person threatening a judge and their family, demanding their criminal record be wiped clean. A road rage incident where you flash a gun at another -- vs a bomb threat made to a pilot in an aircraft that is loaded with 300+ souls mid-flight.

All dangerous scenarios, all very illegal, but treated vastly different from one another legally for a reason. They can't have the same standards applied, because they aren't the same.

This is where we will fundamentally always disagree on.

Am Canadian. I can't stand Justin Trudeau. I think he overstepped his boundaries for what he did to convoy protesters.

I will be quick to vote against him at the next federal election, but nowhere in any way shape or form, would I condone or stand for people feel they could storm the parliament and threaten to hang the guy because they don't agree with him, attacking dozens of police officers along the way.

Am all about strong laws and law and order, and vote accordingly.

100% in agreement the laws were soft for the cases you bring to the table. Why you should vote accordingly, to restore law and order. I just find it insanely ironic in Trump being the law and order guy be radio silent while a mob of rioters were searching the capitol for Mike Pence, with makeshift noose and ropes being seen within the crowd. He narrowly escaped the mob. What do you think will happen? They'll talk to him, and scold him to his face? Just push him?

Am a strong believer that silence is acceptance, and that speaks for itself.

Trump has only shown that his interests come before the country.

I love my family, so I destroy it when I don't agree with it? Or am willing to die for it? Not just leftists, not just right winged supporters--all of them.

We just have very different views of what loving one's country truly looks like. Leadership. Being a servant of the people.

 

[Nationalist]

11 hours ago, Rebound said:

The Jan 6 videos show that police fought with all their might to keep the rioters out of the U.S. Capitol building.  

Except for the police who ushered them in, in several instances.

[Nationalist]

3 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I don't think I need to get into my dislike for the BLM movement as a black male.

If you show footage of them breaching and vandalizing lawmaker offices, threatening those who run the country (I.E To hang Mike Pence for his "cowardice")--your point is very strong. You're otherwise comparing a person threatening me for terminating them as an employee vs a person threatening a judge and their family, demanding their criminal record be wiped clean. A road rage incident where you flash a gun at another -- vs a bomb threat made to a pilot in an aircraft that is loaded with 300+ souls mid-flight.

All dangerous scenarios, all very illegal, but treated vastly different from one another legally for a reason. They can't have the same standards applied, because they aren't the same.

This is where we will fundamentally always disagree on.

Am Canadian. I can't stand Justin Trudeau. I think he overstepped his boundaries for what he did to convoy protesters.

I will be quick to vote against him at the next federal election, but nowhere in any way shape or form, would I condone or stand for people feel they could storm the parliament and threaten to hang the guy because they don't agree with him, attacking dozens of police officers along the way.

Am all about strong laws and law and order, and vote accordingly.

100% in agreement the laws were soft for the cases you bring to the table. Why you should vote accordingly, to restore law and order. I just find it insanely ironic in Trump being the law and order guy be radio silent while a mob of rioters were searching the capitol for Mike Pence, with makeshift noose and ropes being seen within the crowd. He narrowly escaped the mob. What do you think will happen? They'll talk to him, and scold him to his face? Just push him?

Am a strong believer that silence is acceptance, and that speaks for itself.

Trump has only shown that his interests come before the country.

I love my family, so I destroy it when I don't agree with it? Or am willing to die for it? Not just leftists, not just right winged supporters--all of them.

We just have very different views of what loving one's country truly looks like. Leadership. Being a servant of the people.

 

I understand your position even though I disagree. Here's why.

First, the evidence shows that capital police were using weapons against the protesters and that the FBI had operatives in the crowd, encouraging them to attack. 

Second, nobody laid a hand on Pence or any of the congressional reps.

Third, the evidence shows a break in then a peaceful walk about the building for the most part.

And forth, Trump did not tell anyone to engage in violence, let alone to break in to the capital.

Thus ends the accusation of "insurrection" and it all becomes what it really was...

A protest.

[Rebound]

14 hours ago, WestCanMan said:

This is the only "leftard evidence" on this page: https://youtu.be/DXnHIJkZZAs?si=mzuCqy-ZqCrhKZuH, and as I mentioned it falls way short of providing 'evidence' of an insurrection.

Aside from that there's just your uninformed opinions and your comical attempts at using big words. 

Question:

If this entire crowd was Iranians who were trying to stop election certification to install a different person for President, would that be equally ok with you? 

[robosmith]

6 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Am Canadian. I can't stand Justin Trudeau. I think he overstepped his boundaries for what he did to convoy protesters.

What was done to to convoy protesters? I heard their trucks were towed off the bridge for illegal parking? Something else?

Here vehicles are towed for illegal parking all the time; it's SOP, esp for those who are ordered to move and refuse.

3 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Except for the police who ushered them in, in several instances.

Those Capitol cops are under investigation for their cooperation with Trump's goons.

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

I understand your position even though I disagree. Here's why.

First, the evidence shows that capital police were using weapons against the protesters

Of course the police were using weapons to defend the people working in the Capitol. That's their job. Duh.

The rioters were attacking the cops with whatever weapons they brought or could get their hands on.

Flag poles (spears)  and fire extinguishers were being used to beat cops. One cop was beaten with his own shield.

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

and that the FBI had operatives in the crowd, encouraging them to attack. 

What "evidence"? Post it here.

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Second, nobody laid a hand on Pence or any of the congressional reps.

Because they were chased into secure locations, instead of doing their jobs, which is what Trump wanted to get a "contingent election." Have you figured out what that is yet?

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Third, the evidence shows a break in then a peaceful walk about the building for the most part.

You mean most invaders? Probably. Doesn't excuse those who were clearly VIOLENT and crapping on the floor.

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

And forth, Trump did not tell anyone to engage in violence, let alone to break in to the capital.

He told them to "stop the steal" during the EC vote certification. You need that spelled out for you, AGAIN?

The MOB knew what he meant even though YOU DON'T. If you direct someone toward a specific goal which requires violence and they do it, that is ILLEGAL.

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Thus ends the accusation of "insurrection" and it all becomes what it really was...

A protest.

You either have a vivid imagination or are TROLLING.

[Deluge]

10 hours ago, robosmith said:

The Dems assembled a cadre of WH INSIDERS who gave their SWORN TESTIMONY AGAINST Trump's crimes.

And Jack Smith has ALL OF THAT before his Grand Jury. That's why YOUR HERO is facing 91 felonies. LMAO

And you keep defending a man indicted for felonies cause apparently you identify with criminal defendants.

Woke lunatics testifying against Donald Trump. Yeah, that's convincing. lol

 

[CdnFox]

6 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I don't think I need to get into my dislike for the BLM movement as a black male.

 

Well it's not about them specifically  or anything -  the point is if not that then why this.  If their activities or the palestinian protesters activites do not rise to that level, why the capitol protesters?

Quote

If you show footage of them breaching and vandalizing lawmaker offices, threatening those who run the country (I.E To hang Mike Pence for his "cowardice")--your point is very strong.

That was literally the second example i showed you.

And as to blm - they called for 'burning the pigs" and killing cops, and called for other violence as well.  They did take over plenty of gov't offices including a small section of a city as i noted.

Sooooo....   Can we agree my point is strong? Or are you going to try to change the definitions and requirements again  

 

Quote

All dangerous scenarios, all very illegal, but treated vastly different from one another legally for a reason. They can't have the same standards applied, because they aren't the same.

That is a steaming pile of circular logic and sophistry. Assault is assault. Riot is riot. Gov't reps are gov't reps.  The ONLY radical difference here is your perception of the two groups and if you can't make a better argument than that then you invite others to completely dismiss your concerns about what they did as 'partisan hackery' whcih is pretty much exactly what's beginning to happen in the us.

Quote

 

Am Canadian. I can't stand Justin Trudeau. I think he overstepped his boundaries for what he did to convoy protesters.

I will be quick to vote against him at the next federal election, but nowhere in any way shape or form, would I condone or stand for people feel they could storm the parliament and threaten to hang the guy because they don't agree with him, attacking dozens of police officers along the way.

 

I wouldn't either - but if the stormed it unarmed and all there was was some fighting with the police i wouldn't call it an insurrection. I would say it was an unacceptable illegal protest and everyone who was there and participated should be punished.

Now - i'd like to remind you that Trudeau AND the cbc and others DID IN FACT CLAIM IT WAS AN ATTEMPTED INSURRECTION AND THEY WANTED TO OVERTHROW THE GOV"T!!!!!  This was part of their reasoning for the Emergency measure's act.

And that was just when they put up a bouncy castle, never mind storming anything.

do you SEE how dangerous it is to allow double standards to be applied to different groups for what is essentially the same thing?

 

1

Quote

00% in agreement the laws were soft for the cases you bring to the table. Why you should vote accordingly, to restore law and order.

well - you know i'm canadian too right? I think they have some issues with me voting

Quote

I just find it insanely ironic in Trump being the law and order guy be radio silent while a mob of rioters were searching the capitol for Mike Pence, with makeshift noose and ropes being seen within the crowd. He narrowly escaped the mob. What do you think will happen? They'll talk to him, and scold him to his face? Just push him?

 

Yep.  Nobody was getting hanged. If they really wanted to hurt people they'd have brought guns.  or at least knives. Or even their own rope instead of 'make shifting' something.    I mean lets get real.

Trump's silence was inappropriate but its' hard to know what motivated it.  Given his clearly disturbed personality it could be he didn't know how to cope - he could have hated what they were doing but still been insanely flattered by it and not wanted to stop them. he could have sympathized or thought they could win, he could have just been paralized with not knowing the best way to handle it (do i call the cops and then if my people are killed i'm the traitor? Will they REALLY hurt anyone or is this just a demonstration? etc)

the possibilities run from the simply incompetent to seriously criminal.  But - netiher here nor there.

 

Quote

Trump has only shown that his interests come before the country.

Yeah - that's pretty much all politicians.

 

Quote

We just have very different views of what loving one's country truly looks like. Leadership. Being a servant of the people.

Don't give me that shit.  what a self serving load of complete steaming crap THAT was.  We can disagree on things without you being THAT dense surely.

We likely have very very similar idas about what's appropriate.  At no point anywhere along the way have i suggeested that EITHER the blm or capital people are in the right or good people.

My problem is with your hypocrisy.  I say both are bad and both are similar and whatever we call them it should probably be the same thing because they're very very very similar.  You want to have one definition for one group but a completely and entirely different definition for another group even tho they did THE SAME THINGS.

BLM? Protesters!  Gaza demonstratorts beating up cops and breaking into gov't offices? Protesters!!!!  Small mob pushing it's way into capital ....  INSURRECTIONISTS BENT ON THE DESTRUCTION OF THE COUNTRY.

Donald trump - egged protesters on and did nothing to stop them.  Criminal

Rashida talib and friends - egged protesters on and did nothing to stop them.  Oh well, no big deal

That's what i have a problem with - you want to call them ALL insurrectionists then fine, that argument can be made, You want to call them all "violeent or criminal protesters who went too far", then fine I'm good with that too.  But - ya can't go one way for one and another for another,

[robosmith]

11 minutes ago, Deluge said:

Woke lunatics testifying against Donald Trump. Yeah, that's convincing. lol

 

Nope. Hired by Trump, working IN THE WH. Why did Trump hire "woke lunatics" who claimed to be Republicans?

No vetting?

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Nope. Hired by Trump, working IN THE WH. Why did Trump hire "woke lunatics" who claimed to be Republicans?

No vetting?

Thought they could do the job without letting politics get involved.  NOPE!!

[Deluge]

9 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Nope. Hired by Trump, working IN THE WH. Why did Trump hire "woke lunatics" who claimed to be Republicans?

No vetting?

Nope, selling out because they lack moral courage. It's a hostile world right now, robohater, and cultists like you are right in the middle of it, stirring shit up, and that's why I'm here; to help you perverts understand how woke you really are.

[Guest]

40 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

why the capitol protesters?

This is where we fundamentally disagree. Its not the same.

You threaten lawmakers, and you don't just threaten the lives of civilians. A pilot shouldn't have the same protections as a civilian on the ground, while in the air.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

I would say it was an unacceptable illegal protest and everyone who was there and participated should be punished

What if Pierre Poilievre ignited it all, by dismissing Trudeau's election win and calling the results illegal. Same difference?

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Trump's silence was inappropriate

And also indicative of guilt, for trying to change the election results by force.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

INSURRECTIONISTS

Call then protesters or rioters. Irrelevant. What they were trying to do is overturn election results. Its not the same.

1 hour ago, CdnFox said:

Oh well, no big deal

During an election?

You're comparing apples to oranges.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, Deluge said:

Nope, selling out because they lack moral courage. It's a hostile world right now, robohater, and cultists like you are right in the middle of it, stirring shit up, and that's why I'm here; to help you perverts understand how woke you really are.

You're wrong AGAIN. I am nowhere close to the middle like you are the center of MAGA CULT. Just doing my part.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

What was done to to convoy protesters? I heard their trucks were towed off the bridge for illegal parking? Something else?

Many had their bank accounts frozen, and many faced jail for their role(s) in the illegal occupation. There were mass arrests, and dispersing of the crowds after the police gave a final warning.

The protesters lost the crowd early, as footage showing one with a swastika on a flag and Trudeau the master of the media that he is, labeled the entire group as racists, Nazi supporters and alt-right extremists vs taking the temperature down.

Those words didn't age well, as his government didn't vet a veteran who got a standing ovation when Ukraine's president came to the country. The veteran turned out to have fought on the side of Nazi's.

I mean, the donation websites were pressured to refuse to accept donations to the convoy. One which was used as a last resort, wound up getting hacked, and Canadians who made donations, were for many, humiliated and doxxed in devastating fashion for some.

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Here vehicles are towed for illegal parking all the time; it's SOP, esp for those who are ordered to move and refuse.

Towing companies were inundated with threatening calls, so very few wanted to risk being the name associated with breaking up this protest fearing reprisals. So these truckers had the initial leverage, as nobody was going to dare tow them.

2 hours ago, robosmith said:

Those Capitol cops are under investigation for their cooperation with Trump's goons.

Similar situations occurred during the convoy in Canada. The police didn't realize the nature of the threat, so didn't take it seriously. Police officers were extremely soft on this, and as a result, a police chief had to step down, due to his mishandling of the situation.

Everyone took the fall it seems, except for Trudeau.

I'm seeing Trump in a similar light. He literally used his supporters as human shields. Told them he would be walking alongside them, and left them to figure things out on their own while he watched from afar.

The fact a woman who died was totally enamored by him didn't make him retract statements and apologize for her death and take some responsibility for it, is pathetic.

Edited January 6, 2024 by Perspektiv

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

the FBI had operatives in the crowd, encouraging them to attack. 

Cite?

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Second, nobody laid a hand on Pence or any of the congressional reps.

That's irrelevant. They chanted to hang Pence, and had makeshift nooses and ropes in the crowd. You're essentially saying if I say "I have a BOMB!" on an aircraft, that me having nothing on me, totally absolves me of a crime. The threat of me being able to explode an aircraft, having it land via emergency is just fine.

Uh, no. They marched there (that's intent). Threaten to hang him (the threat couldn't be any more blatant). Trump demanded he do the right thing. The crowd was looking for him, because he didn't. Nobody will ever know what they would have done to him--the threat was very real, nonetheless.

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

And forth, Trump did not tell anyone to engage in violence, let alone to break in to the capital.

His exact words:

"And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore.

Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country.

And I say this despite all that's happened. The best is yet to come.

So we're going to, we're going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we're going to the Capitol, and we're going to try and give.

The Democrats are hopeless — they never vote for anything. Not even one vote. But we're going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don't need any of our help. We're going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.

So let's walk down Pennsylvania Avenue."

I want to kick Mike Pence in the teeth after hearing that. I don't think anyone will care if he said to do it peacefully afterwards.

[robosmith]

11 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Many had their bank accounts frozen, and many faced jail for their role(s) in the illegal occupation. There were mass arrests, and dispersing of the crowds after the police gave a final warning.

The protesters lost the crowd early, as footage showing one with a swastika on a flag and Trudeau the master of the media that he is, labeled the entire group as racists, Nazi supporters and alt-right extremists vs taking the temperature down.

Those words didn't age well, as his government didn't vet a veteran who got a standing ovation when Ukraine's president came to the country. The veteran turned out to have fought on the side of Nazi's.

I mean, the donation websites were pressured to refuse to accept donations to the convoy. One which was used as a last resort, wound up getting hacked, and Canadians who made donations, were for many, humiliated and doxxed in devastating fashion for some.

 

"All because she showed her support freedom"  is ridiculous tripe. No one has the the "freedom" to block traffic and trade for hours or days, cause it's ILLEGAL and dangerous to park dozens of big trucks on a bridge.

Protesting on the roadside is fine.