The Atlas Asylum of absurd/ignorant posts IX

[OSR stands with Israel]

So, yes, a lot of the time people should not be held accountable because people might be targeted for revenge, and this is true regardless of your ideological position.

When it comes to our foreign policy this is true , otherwise pretty much every president we had since 1945 could be charged .

So Obama made 100% the right decision not to prosecute people from the Bush admin

"Every president was a war criminal. If you want to prosecute Bush, you'll have to prosecute every president."

Is this really the argument you're making?

Every super power has done stuff that have been morally negative at some point including the US. The difference is we have been a greater force for good than any super power in the history of the world and if you prosecuted presidents for the morally negative stuff they did, they would not have been able to do the good that they did as many things are morally grey.

You're not wrong. Presidents are going to be very hesitant to prosecute another President for things done in the course of the office, like Bush and Iraq or Obama and drone strikes. However, Presidents who subvert the office like Trump are a different story. Biden isn't thinking "Well, what if I need to commit treason?".

The only two presidents since 1945 I think should have gone to prison are :

- Nixon for Sabotaging the Vietnam Peace Talks before the 1968 election

- Trump for Jan 6th

Both are pretty similar in the way given that both actions flagrantly violated the basic security interests of our country and were done purely for personal political gain . Both actions were arguably or were seditious as well

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Users got so excited over a poll showing Biden plus 8 over Trump since the documents story and they found more classified documents at Biden residence, polls are for Donations purposes that's why Center Street Pack colored all the polls especially Ryan up 48/39 to get more Donations and Biden kept the Documents scandal from us on Nov 2

Oz and Walker and Laxalt and Lake and Masters would have won

Biden and none of these politicians including Trump has done anything about the 50 M in poverty Minimum wage is still 7.50 but making 30 K a yr doesn't take of a car, kids it's minimum income anyways to live off of even at 15 you and whites are best off because it's called inheritance wealth like Trump

All politicians have done is keep Sports on during post Pandemic that doesn't help 50 M in poverty but enrich the athletes lives that's why BLM didn't last after Floyd and Kobe Bryant funeral, it's still a movement but it was a sixties movement during Floyd and Kobe Bryant but now it's doesn't stand up to QAnon

[Badger]

So, yes, a lot of the time people should not be held accountable because people might be targeted for revenge, and this is true regardless of your ideological position.

When it comes to our foreign policy this is true , otherwise pretty much every president we had since 1945 could be charged .

So Obama made 100% the right decision not to prosecute people from the Bush admin

"Every president was a war criminal. If you want to prosecute Bush, you'll have to prosecute every president."

Is this really the argument you're making?

Every super power has done stuff that have been morally negative at some point including the US. The difference is we have been a greater force for good than any super power in the history of the world and if you prosecuted presidents for the morally negative stuff they did, they would not have been able to do the good that they did as many things are morally grey.

You're failing to distinguish between morally negative and illegal under us law. Obviously both the American people and Congress give presidents great leeway indeed to engage in morally questionable stuff to further our foreign policy goals. History is demonstrated that clearly. But again, one absolutely must distinguish such actions between those which are violative of American law.

If you do something morally questionable to further America's goals, that's between a president, the congress, the voters, and their conscience. If a president violates American law for whatever reason, that should be between them and a judge or jury.

[Kahane's Grave Is A Gender-Neutral Bathroom]

I think Dobbs was worse, because it took away a right that had previously been granted, the first time in our nation's history this happened (though far from the last.)

[AtorBoltox]

Camp 3 still. It's really sad and bizarre how masks have somehow become a crazy radical concept to so many people.

In all seriousness (although my point about mosh pits is not a joke, banning mosh pits like Scarlet wants to effectively do* would be a pretty serious detriment to my life and enjoyment of things in general), the biggest issue I have with continued masking advocates is their main argument seems to be "it's not a big deal" which is not a valid argument. You could use the same logic to argue that mandatory hijabs is also not a big deal since it's almost the exact same thing (if anything a hijab is less invasive for reasons I'll get to in a bit), and thus if some hypothetical Muslim majority municipality or somewhere in Erdogan's Turkey tried to mandate hijabs we should all just shrug and at most say "Well I don't support this but it's really not a big deal, who cares." So if you think mandatory hijabs are never OK, then you can't argue for masks on those grounds.

[John Dule]

Camp 3 still. It's really sad and bizarre how masks have somehow become a crazy radical concept to so many people.

In all seriousness (although my point about mosh pits is not a joke, banning mosh pits like Scarlet wants to effectively do* would be a pretty serious detriment to my life and enjoyment of things in general), the biggest issue I have with continued masking advocates is their main argument seems to be "it's not a big deal" which is not a valid argument. You could use the same logic to argue that mandatory hijabs is also not a big deal since it's almost the exact same thing (if anything a hijab is less invasive for reasons I'll get to in a bit), and thus if some hypothetical Muslim majority municipality or somewhere in Erdogan's Turkey tried to mandate hijabs we should all just shrug and at most say "Well I don't support this but it's really not a big deal, who cares." So if you think mandatory hijabs are never OK, then you can't argue for masks on those grounds.

What’s the problem here?

[AtorBoltox]

Camp 3 still. It's really sad and bizarre how masks have somehow become a crazy radical concept to so many people.

In all seriousness (although my point about mosh pits is not a joke, banning mosh pits like Scarlet wants to effectively do* would be a pretty serious detriment to my life and enjoyment of things in general), the biggest issue I have with continued masking advocates is their main argument seems to be "it's not a big deal" which is not a valid argument. You could use the same logic to argue that mandatory hijabs is also not a big deal since it's almost the exact same thing (if anything a hijab is less invasive for reasons I'll get to in a bit), and thus if some hypothetical Muslim majority municipality or somewhere in Erdogan's Turkey tried to mandate hijabs we should all just shrug and at most say "Well I don't support this but it's really not a big deal, who cares." So if you think mandatory hijabs are never OK, then you can't argue for masks on those grounds.

What’s the problem here?

The comparison of being forced to follow religious precepts to wearing a mask to avoid spreading germs

[Хahar 🤔]

Camp 3 still. It's really sad and bizarre how masks have somehow become a crazy radical concept to so many people.

In all seriousness (although my point about mosh pits is not a joke, banning mosh pits like Scarlet wants to effectively do* would be a pretty serious detriment to my life and enjoyment of things in general), the biggest issue I have with continued masking advocates is their main argument seems to be "it's not a big deal" which is not a valid argument. You could use the same logic to argue that mandatory hijabs is also not a big deal since it's almost the exact same thing (if anything a hijab is less invasive for reasons I'll get to in a bit), and thus if some hypothetical Muslim majority municipality or somewhere in Erdogan's Turkey tried to mandate hijabs we should all just shrug and at most say "Well I don't support this but it's really not a big deal, who cares." So if you think mandatory hijabs are never OK, then you can't argue for masks on those grounds.

What’s the problem here?

The comparison of being forced to follow religious precepts to wearing a mask to avoid spreading germs

The analogy made here is slightly different than the one I made originally, which was to the niqab, but in any case as a Muslim I find mask mandates offensive for the same reason that I find niqabs offensive.

This shows why this thread is such a bad idea. If you disagree with a post, reply and say why instead of putting it in this thread without comment.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Yeah, is the Economy strong yes, are we safe and secure yes, but there is a small amount of Indies that can change a race like we saw in 20/22 when we failed to get the Secular Filibuster proof Trifecta both times the undecided vote, and in 2016, some think that Hillary, Bill Clinton were exhonerated or even Trump they weren't exhonerated they were Reprimanded by FBI or DOJ which is an independent branch of the Executive both are prosecution parties and even lawyers Biden, Hillary, Harris, Obama, Guiliani and Bill Clinton. Except for Trump, and Bush W are license attorneys and Bill Clinton and Giuliani got their Law License suspended not revoked it says when you get a law license you can't have any criminal activity whatsoever

The benefit of Trump is that he doesn't have a law license neither did Bush W but Obama, Harris did that's why they are so careful but Biden has a law license after these documents scandal he can have it not suspended but revoked having Documents for 7 yrs and Covid 19 was used as a cover for both Trump and Biden and Biden has Obamas classified documents and Hillary committed perjury when she said on TV at UN and in front of Trey Goudy she didn't email Any classified documents

Hannity already said by Oct the RS as of now have enough evidence for impeachment inquiry but has to get back with FBI for an Impeachment and Impeachment without Convict is still a REPRIMAND

It's a song on You tube by Socialist mop and it says What difference does it make performance by Comey and Hillary, it's not a good one it's a reprimanded video with Comey on Hillary

Don't forget we had 2T surplus with Obama  35 percent Corporate taxes erased by 1.5 T Tax Cuts now 20 percent Corporate taxes and Labor shortages not enough Fed income tax Biden, Ds and RH are sending our stimulus money to Ukraine that's why they got rid of the stimulus check

They are getting rid of 281 Food stamps in March and with an R H users think they are gonna extend Student loans Forgiveness past June 30 the no they wont, that's why with an RH there is no way except for CA reparations are gonna pass , they say they need the money for Ukraine

Biden said in 2020 stick with me Covid will be under control not only did he hide classified documents during Covid he pulled out of Afghanistan, we won that war but Putin saw that as a weakness and invaded Ukraine no one expects Covid to be eradicate they can't cure HIV or Herpes it's the common cold a virus, that's why have the Flu and pneumonia shot no cure,news flash if you Mishandling Documents in a law firm in any position you are fired or if you are any rank in military and steal classified documents you are Crt Marshall or dishonably discharges

So this blanket position that Biden is fine we have to hear from FBI but now RS have evidence for an Impeachment inquiry but have to wait for Article to hear from FBI

Greene already have Articles of Impeachment filed but it's not gonna be put to the floor until the FBI testify and find corroborate evidence

[John Dule]

Camp 3 still. It's really sad and bizarre how masks have somehow become a crazy radical concept to so many people.

In all seriousness (although my point about mosh pits is not a joke, banning mosh pits like Scarlet wants to effectively do* would be a pretty serious detriment to my life and enjoyment of things in general), the biggest issue I have with continued masking advocates is their main argument seems to be "it's not a big deal" which is not a valid argument. You could use the same logic to argue that mandatory hijabs is also not a big deal since it's almost the exact same thing (if anything a hijab is less invasive for reasons I'll get to in a bit), and thus if some hypothetical Muslim majority municipality or somewhere in Erdogan's Turkey tried to mandate hijabs we should all just shrug and at most say "Well I don't support this but it's really not a big deal, who cares." So if you think mandatory hijabs are never OK, then you can't argue for masks on those grounds.

What’s the problem here?

The comparison of being forced to follow religious precepts to wearing a mask to avoid spreading germs

He wasn't comparing the policies being enforced. He was comparing the reasoning being provided in support of the policies.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

I like how users say Docugate has no effect yeah, there are deeper issues than Docugate with the R party that doesn't Crt Afro Americans it's Insurrection

We have enough candidates in swing states that can beat the RS anyways it's only a 270 not 413 map anyways

But, 2016 is posting all the time when RS are ahead but never post when Ds are ahead he said Cameron was gonna be the next Gov of KY and he is losing by 9

Trump was elected over Hillary in 2016 because he didn't have a scandal yet, now he does

[Meclazine for Israel]

Trump was elected over Hillary in 2016 because he didn't have a scandal yet, now he does

This was released two days before the second debate between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton on October 9, 2016.

Access Hollywood Tapes

https://youtu.be/o21fXqguD7U

[Benjamin Frank]

"You cannot commit violence against a window or a car. Killing a human? Now that, that is violence,"

True.

Violence (N): "Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."

Under your definition, January 6th was "nonviolent." Let's add this to the long (and rapidly growing) list of words that leftists don't understand!

'Approximately 1,000' assaults on law enforcement occurred during Capitol attack, DOJ review finds.'

https://abcnews.go.com/US/approximately-1000-assaults-law-enforcement-occurred-capitol-attack/story?id=79793226

While most of the people who attended the speeches on January 6th were obviously not violent, it seems that around 1/3 to  1/2 of those who actually attacked the capital building and attempted the insurrection were (370 different individuals have been pictured by the police.)  I'm not trying to grandstand here, but it genuinely annoys me the level of ignorance in Dule's post to not be aware of the physical violence leveled against police officers that day, and the violence that they would have perpetrated had they caught politicians or other Congressional staffers.

By any measure, January 6th was an extremely violent event.

[John Dule]

"You cannot commit violence against a window or a car. Killing a human? Now that, that is violence,"

True.

Violence (N): "Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."

Under your definition, January 6th was "nonviolent." Let's add this to the long (and rapidly growing) list of words that leftists don't understand!

'Approximately 1,000' assaults on law enforcement occurred during Capitol attack, DOJ review finds.'

https://abcnews.go.com/US/approximately-1000-assaults-law-enforcement-occurred-capitol-attack/story?id=79793226

While most of the people who attended the speeches on January 6th were obviously not violent, it seems that around 1/3 to  1/2 of those who actually attacked the capital building and attempted the insurrection were (370 different individuals have been pictured by the police.)  I'm not trying to grandstand here, but it genuinely annoys me the level of ignorance in Dule's post to not be aware of the physical violence leveled against police officers that day, and the violence that they would have perpetrated had they caught politicians or other Congressional staffers.

By any measure, January 6th was an extremely violent event.

Lol, when did I ever say that the coup wasn’t violent? My point was that if you redefine violence to exclude property destruction, January 6th suddenly looks like one of those “mostly peaceful” protests we hear so much about. I completely agree it was a violent event from top to bottom.

[Benjamin Frank]

"You cannot commit violence against a window or a car. Killing a human? Now that, that is violence,"

True.

Violence (N): "Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."

Under your definition, January 6th was "nonviolent." Let's add this to the long (and rapidly growing) list of words that leftists don't understand!

'Approximately 1,000' assaults on law enforcement occurred during Capitol attack, DOJ review finds.'

https://abcnews.go.com/US/approximately-1000-assaults-law-enforcement-occurred-capitol-attack/story?id=79793226

While most of the people who attended the speeches on January 6th were obviously not violent, it seems that around 1/3 to  1/2 of those who actually attacked the capital building and attempted the insurrection were (370 different individuals have been pictured by the police.)  I'm not trying to grandstand here, but it genuinely annoys me the level of ignorance in Dule's post to not be aware of the physical violence leveled against police officers that day, and the violence that they would have perpetrated had they caught politicians or other Congressional staffers.

By any measure, January 6th was an extremely violent event.

Lol, when did I ever say that the coup wasn’t violent? My point was that if you redefine violence to exclude property destruction, January 6th suddenly looks like one of those “mostly peaceful” protests we hear so much about. I completely agree it was a violent event from top to bottom.

I'm not going to speak for the OP, but they didn't mention non deadly violence against individuals one way or the other. They were referring to police violence where somebody was killed. So, they were comparing violence in destruction of property to violence where somebody was killed. Since their point deliberately excluded lesser forms of physical violence inflicted on people, at best your reply was smarmy and at worst it was competely illogical (as is common with your posts.)

Edit to add: the 'illogic' involved here is that Dule's sarcastic reply was based on a strawman argument.

Also, even leaving out property destruction, given the level of violence inflicted on the police on January 6th, in no way could it be considered 'mostly peaceful.'

Again, your problem isn't just that you're nowhere near as smart as you obviously think you are, your problem is that you're simply not smart or informed enough to make accurate sarcastic/dark humor comments.

[John Dule]

I'm not going to speak for the OP, but they didn't mention non deadly violence against individuals one way or the other. They were referring to police violence where somebody was killed. So, they were comparing violence in destruction of property to violence where somebody was killed. Since their point deliberately excluded lesser forms of physical violence inflicted on people, at best your reply was smarmy and at worst it was competely illogical (as is common with your posts.)

Also, even leaving out property destruction, given the level of violence inflicted on the police on January 6th, in no way could it be considered 'mostly peaceful.'

Again, your problem isn't just that you're nowhere near as smart as you obviously think you are, your problem is that you're simply not smart or informed enough to make accurate sarcastic/dark humor comments.

The vast majority of Jan. 6th rioters are being charged with breaking/entering, damage to public buildings, and "violent entry and disorderly conduct." Some of them did attack the police, but those were mostly the fat boomers in the vanguard. The rest of the lardbuckets just waddled in after the hard part was over.

You can't just define away acts of violence against property.

[Benjamin Frank]

I'm not going to speak for the OP, but they didn't mention non deadly violence against individuals one way or the other. They were referring to police violence where somebody was killed. So, they were comparing violence in destruction of property to violence where somebody was killed. Since their point deliberately excluded lesser forms of physical violence inflicted on people, at best your reply was smarmy and at worst it was competely illogical (as is common with your posts.)

Also, even leaving out property destruction, given the level of violence inflicted on the police on January 6th, in no way could it be considered 'mostly peaceful.'

Again, your problem isn't just that you're nowhere near as smart as you obviously think you are, your problem is that you're simply not smart or informed enough to make accurate sarcastic/dark humor comments.

The vast majority of Jan. 6th rioters are being charged with breaking/entering, damage to public buildings, and "violent entry and disorderly conduct." Some of them did attack the police, but those were mostly the fat boomers in the vanguard. The rest of the lardbuckets just waddled in after the hard part was over.

You can't just define away acts of violence against property.

That's just not so. The article mentioned that 170 have been charged with assault and that the police were attempting to identify another 200.  This is of the approximately 1,000 people who have been charged with crimes on/at January 6th. So, that's around 37% of all of those charged (unless some of those 200 then not identified haven't been charged yet.)

From the article:
"More than 170 individuals already face charges for assaulting or impeding officers on Jan. 6, and the FBI has said it is still seeking tips on more than 200 still-unidentified suspects believed to have committed violence at the Capitol."

I also disagree with the OP that attacks against property isn't violence, but that doesn't justify an ignorant response.

[John Dule]

I'm not going to speak for the OP, but they didn't mention non deadly violence against individuals one way or the other. They were referring to police violence where somebody was killed. So, they were comparing violence in destruction of property to violence where somebody was killed. Since their point deliberately excluded lesser forms of physical violence inflicted on people, at best your reply was smarmy and at worst it was competely illogical (as is common with your posts.)

Also, even leaving out property destruction, given the level of violence inflicted on the police on January 6th, in no way could it be considered 'mostly peaceful.'

Again, your problem isn't just that you're nowhere near as smart as you obviously think you are, your problem is that you're simply not smart or informed enough to make accurate sarcastic/dark humor comments.

The vast majority of Jan. 6th rioters are being charged with breaking/entering, damage to public buildings, and "violent entry and disorderly conduct." Some of them did attack the police, but those were mostly the fat boomers in the vanguard. The rest of the lardbuckets just waddled in after the hard part was over.

You can't just define away acts of violence against property.

That's just not so. The article mentioned that 170 have been charged with assault and that the police were attempting to identify another 200.  This is of the approximately 1,000 people who have been charged with crimes on/at January 6th. So, that's around 37% of all of those charged (unless some of those 200 then not identified haven't been charged yet.)

From the article:
"More than 170 individuals already face charges for assaulting or impeding officers on Jan. 6, and the FBI has said it is still seeking tips on more than 200 still-unidentified suspects believed to have committed violence at the Capitol."

... And the 1,000 people charged are still just a fraction of those who actually participated in the rally and subsequent riot. Personally I don't limit culpability in the coup just to those who ended up actually being criminally charged.

[Benjamin Frank]

I'm not going to speak for the OP, but they didn't mention non deadly violence against individuals one way or the other. They were referring to police violence where somebody was killed. So, they were comparing violence in destruction of property to violence where somebody was killed. Since their point deliberately excluded lesser forms of physical violence inflicted on people, at best your reply was smarmy and at worst it was competely illogical (as is common with your posts.)

Also, even leaving out property destruction, given the level of violence inflicted on the police on January 6th, in no way could it be considered 'mostly peaceful.'

Again, your problem isn't just that you're nowhere near as smart as you obviously think you are, your problem is that you're simply not smart or informed enough to make accurate sarcastic/dark humor comments.

The vast majority of Jan. 6th rioters are being charged with breaking/entering, damage to public buildings, and "violent entry and disorderly conduct." Some of them did attack the police, but those were mostly the fat boomers in the vanguard. The rest of the lardbuckets just waddled in after the hard part was over.

You can't just define away acts of violence against property.

That's just not so. The article mentioned that 170 have been charged with assault and that the police were attempting to identify another 200.  This is of the approximately 1,000 people who have been charged with crimes on/at January 6th. So, that's around 37% of all of those charged (unless some of those 200 then not identified haven't been charged yet.)

From the article:
"More than 170 individuals already face charges for assaulting or impeding officers on Jan. 6, and the FBI has said it is still seeking tips on more than 200 still-unidentified suspects believed to have committed violence at the Capitol."

... And the 1,000 people charged are still just a fraction of those who actually participated in the rally and subsequent riot. Personally I don't limit culpability in the coup just to those who ended up actually being criminally charged.

Attending the rally itself isn't a crime. Somewhere between 1,000-2,000 actually entered the capital building, so it's a fair point that some still haven't been identified which lowers the percentage of those who committed violence, but there is also evidence that a fair number of those who entered the building but were not charged lacked criminal intent, as they simply moved with the mob unable to do anything else.

[John Dule]

I'm not going to speak for the OP, but they didn't mention non deadly violence against individuals one way or the other. They were referring to police violence where somebody was killed. So, they were comparing violence in destruction of property to violence where somebody was killed. Since their point deliberately excluded lesser forms of physical violence inflicted on people, at best your reply was smarmy and at worst it was competely illogical (as is common with your posts.)

Also, even leaving out property destruction, given the level of violence inflicted on the police on January 6th, in no way could it be considered 'mostly peaceful.'

Again, your problem isn't just that you're nowhere near as smart as you obviously think you are, your problem is that you're simply not smart or informed enough to make accurate sarcastic/dark humor comments.

The vast majority of Jan. 6th rioters are being charged with breaking/entering, damage to public buildings, and "violent entry and disorderly conduct." Some of them did attack the police, but those were mostly the fat boomers in the vanguard. The rest of the lardbuckets just waddled in after the hard part was over.

You can't just define away acts of violence against property.

That's just not so. The article mentioned that 170 have been charged with assault and that the police were attempting to identify another 200.  This is of the approximately 1,000 people who have been charged with crimes on/at January 6th. So, that's around 37% of all of those charged (unless some of those 200 then not identified haven't been charged yet.)

From the article:
"More than 170 individuals already face charges for assaulting or impeding officers on Jan. 6, and the FBI has said it is still seeking tips on more than 200 still-unidentified suspects believed to have committed violence at the Capitol."

... And the 1,000 people charged are still just a fraction of those who actually participated in the rally and subsequent riot. Personally I don't limit culpability in the coup just to those who ended up actually being criminally charged.

Attending the rally itself isn't a crime. Somewhere between 1,000-2,000 actually entered the capital building, so it's a fair point that some still haven't been identified which lowers the percentage of those who committed violence, but there is also evidence that a fair number of those who entered the building but were not charged lacked criminal intent, as they simply moved with the mob unable to do anything else.

All very interesting. Anyway, I think it's clear now that my point was not to defend the coup, so I'm going to move on.

[Benjamin Frank]

I'm not going to speak for the OP, but they didn't mention non deadly violence against individuals one way or the other. They were referring to police violence where somebody was killed. So, they were comparing violence in destruction of property to violence where somebody was killed. Since their point deliberately excluded lesser forms of physical violence inflicted on people, at best your reply was smarmy and at worst it was competely illogical (as is common with your posts.)

Also, even leaving out property destruction, given the level of violence inflicted on the police on January 6th, in no way could it be considered 'mostly peaceful.'

Again, your problem isn't just that you're nowhere near as smart as you obviously think you are, your problem is that you're simply not smart or informed enough to make accurate sarcastic/dark humor comments.

The vast majority of Jan. 6th rioters are being charged with breaking/entering, damage to public buildings, and "violent entry and disorderly conduct." Some of them did attack the police, but those were mostly the fat boomers in the vanguard. The rest of the lardbuckets just waddled in after the hard part was over.

You can't just define away acts of violence against property.

That's just not so. The article mentioned that 170 have been charged with assault and that the police were attempting to identify another 200.  This is of the approximately 1,000 people who have been charged with crimes on/at January 6th. So, that's around 37% of all of those charged (unless some of those 200 then not identified haven't been charged yet.)

From the article:
"More than 170 individuals already face charges for assaulting or impeding officers on Jan. 6, and the FBI has said it is still seeking tips on more than 200 still-unidentified suspects believed to have committed violence at the Capitol."

... And the 1,000 people charged are still just a fraction of those who actually participated in the rally and subsequent riot. Personally I don't limit culpability in the coup just to those who ended up actually being criminally charged.

Attending the rally itself isn't a crime. Somewhere between 1,000-2,000 actually entered the capital building, so it's a fair point that some still haven't been identified which lowers the percentage of those who committed violence, but there is also evidence that a fair number of those who entered the building but were not charged lacked criminal intent, as they simply moved with the mob unable to do anything else.

All very interesting. Anyway, I think it's clear now that my point was not to defend the coup, so I'm going to move on.

I never made any suggestion that you were trying to defend the coup, only that you were ignorantly claiming that there was no physical violence.

[John Dule]

I'm not going to speak for the OP, but they didn't mention non deadly violence against individuals one way or the other. They were referring to police violence where somebody was killed. So, they were comparing violence in destruction of property to violence where somebody was killed. Since their point deliberately excluded lesser forms of physical violence inflicted on people, at best your reply was smarmy and at worst it was competely illogical (as is common with your posts.)

Also, even leaving out property destruction, given the level of violence inflicted on the police on January 6th, in no way could it be considered 'mostly peaceful.'

Again, your problem isn't just that you're nowhere near as smart as you obviously think you are, your problem is that you're simply not smart or informed enough to make accurate sarcastic/dark humor comments.

The vast majority of Jan. 6th rioters are being charged with breaking/entering, damage to public buildings, and "violent entry and disorderly conduct." Some of them did attack the police, but those were mostly the fat boomers in the vanguard. The rest of the lardbuckets just waddled in after the hard part was over.

You can't just define away acts of violence against property.

That's just not so. The article mentioned that 170 have been charged with assault and that the police were attempting to identify another 200.  This is of the approximately 1,000 people who have been charged with crimes on/at January 6th. So, that's around 37% of all of those charged (unless some of those 200 then not identified haven't been charged yet.)

From the article:
"More than 170 individuals already face charges for assaulting or impeding officers on Jan. 6, and the FBI has said it is still seeking tips on more than 200 still-unidentified suspects believed to have committed violence at the Capitol."

... And the 1,000 people charged are still just a fraction of those who actually participated in the rally and subsequent riot. Personally I don't limit culpability in the coup just to those who ended up actually being criminally charged.

Attending the rally itself isn't a crime. Somewhere between 1,000-2,000 actually entered the capital building, so it's a fair point that some still haven't been identified which lowers the percentage of those who committed violence, but there is also evidence that a fair number of those who entered the building but were not charged lacked criminal intent, as they simply moved with the mob unable to do anything else.

All very interesting. Anyway, I think it's clear now that my point was not to defend the coup, so I'm going to move on.

I never made any suggestion that you were trying to defend the coup, only that you were ignorantly claiming that there was no physical violence.

I didn't say that.

[Benjamin Frank]

I'm not going to speak for the OP, but they didn't mention non deadly violence against individuals one way or the other. They were referring to police violence where somebody was killed. So, they were comparing violence in destruction of property to violence where somebody was killed. Since their point deliberately excluded lesser forms of physical violence inflicted on people, at best your reply was smarmy and at worst it was competely illogical (as is common with your posts.)

Also, even leaving out property destruction, given the level of violence inflicted on the police on January 6th, in no way could it be considered 'mostly peaceful.'

Again, your problem isn't just that you're nowhere near as smart as you obviously think you are, your problem is that you're simply not smart or informed enough to make accurate sarcastic/dark humor comments.

The vast majority of Jan. 6th rioters are being charged with breaking/entering, damage to public buildings, and "violent entry and disorderly conduct." Some of them did attack the police, but those were mostly the fat boomers in the vanguard. The rest of the lardbuckets just waddled in after the hard part was over.

You can't just define away acts of violence against property.

That's just not so. The article mentioned that 170 have been charged with assault and that the police were attempting to identify another 200.  This is of the approximately 1,000 people who have been charged with crimes on/at January 6th. So, that's around 37% of all of those charged (unless some of those 200 then not identified haven't been charged yet.)

From the article:
"More than 170 individuals already face charges for assaulting or impeding officers on Jan. 6, and the FBI has said it is still seeking tips on more than 200 still-unidentified suspects believed to have committed violence at the Capitol."

... And the 1,000 people charged are still just a fraction of those who actually participated in the rally and subsequent riot. Personally I don't limit culpability in the coup just to those who ended up actually being criminally charged.

Attending the rally itself isn't a crime. Somewhere between 1,000-2,000 actually entered the capital building, so it's a fair point that some still haven't been identified which lowers the percentage of those who committed violence, but there is also evidence that a fair number of those who entered the building but were not charged lacked criminal intent, as they simply moved with the mob unable to do anything else.

All very interesting. Anyway, I think it's clear now that my point was not to defend the coup, so I'm going to move on.

I never made any suggestion that you were trying to defend the coup, only that you were ignorantly claiming that there was no physical violence.

I didn't say that.

I think you did, but I'm willing to amend it to 'virtually no physical violence.'

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

John McLaughlin has RS 47/42 on Docugate and You tube have Ds up 46/45 and Beshear is up 9 I said Docugate was gonna affect Eday but so did SN and user 2016 they never come down here, SN does but never 2016 due to fact he never admits he is wrong he was wrong about a 230 RH and KY Gov and SN says Docugate

[Ferguson97]

Republicans would, beyond any shadow of a doubt, have done better in 2018 if they had repealed Obamacare.

Genuinely the most unhinged thing I've seen somebody quadruple down on here.