Chansley

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Jim you still can’t separate a BLM protest from a Riot you talk as if they are one in the same . And this country has see civil unrest long before BLM protest turned violent. but we never saw a storming of the capital at the direction of the POTUS a to stop the certification of the election . You have made your position clear BLM and Antifa are a bigger threat to American then those who supported and stormed the capital on Jan 6th


So we’re the capital riots armed and dangerous ? Or not Because that’s my point you and others claim they weren’t

But we have the Truth problem ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you said the worst BLM did was have incorrect spelling on signs. I will never live long enough to say something that stupid or demonstrably false. your credibility is zilch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

No plan
No radios
No coordination
No weapons
No bombs
No objective

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

you said the worst BLM did was have incorrect spelling on signs. I will never live long enough to say something that stupid or demonstrably false. your credibility is zilch.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You have no concept of sarcasm!!
Yet once again you conflate BLM protesters and Rioters as some how organized . To do both

You already said a stupid demonstrably false statement

The Jan6 rioters were just cry babies. Or something to that effect
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Tourists visiting

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

The plan was to interrupt the certification in congress and continue to push the state lawsuits to throw the election results into jeopardy. It never really had a chance of working but you can't say they didn't try like hell. The message to the insurrectionists was simple, stop the steal.

"Interrupting" the certification in Congress is not an insurrection. It is not a revolt against an established government. The established government at the time was the Trump administration. The Biden administration was not yet established. There was no attempt to overthrow the Trump administration. No attempt or plan to overthrow the constitutional system of government, but, instead, somehow to preserve it from being "stolen." Nor were the rioters a single organized group with a coherent unitary plan on how to revolt against the established government. Nor were the vast majority of disparate rioters armed.

From Merriam Webster:
Insurrection--an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government . . . When is uprising a more appropriate choice than insurrection? The meanings of uprising and insurrection largely overlap; however, uprising implies a brief, limited, and often immediately ineffective rebellion . . . REVOLT and INSURRECTION imply an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds.

From Dictionary.com (British): the act or an instance of rebelling against a government in power or the civil authorities.

[wdmso]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"Interrupting" the certification in Congress is not an insurrection. It is not a revolt against an established government. The established government at the time was the Trump administration. The Biden administration was not yet established. There was no attempt to overthrow the Trump administration. No attempt or plan to overthrow the constitutional system of government, but, instead, somehow to preserve it from being "stolen." Nor were the rioters a single organized group with a coherent unitary plan on how to revolt against the established government. Nor were the vast majority of disparate rioters armed.

From Merriam Webster:
Insurrection--an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government . . . When is uprising a more appropriate choice than insurrection? The meanings of uprising and insurrection largely overlap; however, uprising implies a brief, limited, and often immediately ineffective rebellion . . . REVOLT and INSURRECTION imply an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds.

From Dictionary.com (British): the act or an instance of rebelling against a government in power or the civil authorities.

Seems your trying to use some linguistic gymnastics to cloud what American saw on TV Jan 6..

They were some how Trying to preserve it!

Definition of preserve (Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1 : to keep safe from injury, harm, or destruction : PROTECT
2a : to keep alive, intact, or free from decay

Via insurrection because they lost at the ballot box .. don’t be mistaken their actions had nothing to do with the love of American or the constitution.. it was for the love of Trump


Essential Meaning of insurrection
: a usually violent attempt to take control of a government
He led an armed insurrection [=rebellion, uprising] against the elected government.

Even Webster sees rebellion and uprising has the same meaning

And seeing you put Armed in Bold your suggestion they weren’t?

Webster Definition of armed (Entry 1 of 2)
1a : furnished with weapons

Definition of weapon (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : something (such as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by wdmso

And seeing you put Armed in Bold your suggestion they weren’t?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

definitely....."armed" robbery typically refers to robbery with guns...no?

an "armed" suspect typically means a suspect with a gun....no?

an well "armed" militia...is not referring to clubs and knives

suggesting that this was an armed insurrection intended to overthrow the US government is a little ridiculous but keep up the good work

[spence]

Originally Posted by scottw

definitely....."armed" robbery typically refers to robbery with guns...no?

an "armed" suspect typically means a suspect with a gun....no?

an well "armed" militia...is not referring to clubs and knives

suggesting that this was an armed insurrection intended to overthrow the US government is a little ridiculous but keep up the good work

Well, at least you got it all wrong.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, at least you got it all wrong.

4 for 4 ...those cellphones are deadly weapons in the wrong hands...especially when used for cellassination attempts

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by scottw

an "armed" suspect typically means a suspect with a gun....no?

Wow did you seriously type and believe that, go rob a convenience store with your hunting knife and see what they charge you with, pretty sure you will be described as doing so armed with a dangerous weapon. Only someone desperately trying to make that narrative work would suggest many of these individuals were not armed if they were attempting bodily harm or death on those they beat on because they didn’t do it with a gun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Wow did you seriously type and believe that, go rob a convenience store with your hunting knife and see what they charge you with, pretty sure you will be described as doing so armed with a dangerous weapon. Only someone desperately trying to make that narrative work would suggest many of these individuals were not armed if they were attempting bodily harm or death on those they beat on because they didn’t do it with a gun.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“Typically”


When I hear or read “armed” robber or suspect I think gun….google armed robber or armed suspect and see how many instances of robberies or crimes with clubs and knives pop up

Did they confiscate many knives at the armed insurrection?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"Interrupting" the certification in Congress is not an insurrection. It is not a revolt against an established government. The established government at the time was the Trump administration. The Biden administration was not yet established. There was no attempt to overthrow the Trump administration. No attempt or plan to overthrow the constitutional system of government, but, instead, somehow to preserve it from being "stolen." Nor were the rioters a single organized group with a coherent unitary plan on how to revolt against the established government. Nor were the vast majority of disparate rioters armed.

From Merriam Webster:
Insurrection--an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government . . . When is uprising a more appropriate choice than insurrection? The meanings of uprising and insurrection largely overlap; however, uprising implies a brief, limited, and often immediately ineffective rebellion . . . REVOLT and INSURRECTION imply an armed uprising that quickly fails or succeeds.

From Dictionary.com (British): the act or an instance of rebelling against a government in power or the civil authorities.

You can play the semantic game all you want, there are federal laws people are charged with. It’s a matter of public record.

The number of federal cases against individuals involved in the Capitol Hill Siege stands at 602. According to the latest analysis of the cases:

The average age of individuals was 39-years-old.
Individuals came from 44 states and the District of Columbia.
Cases have been brought against 523 men (87%) and 79 women (13%).
The largest numbers came from Florida (64), Texas (58), and Pennsylvania (53).
The majority (>85%) were charged in part using evidence from their personal social media accounts, others' accounts, or both
70 (12%) have military experience (65 Veterans, 2 National Guard, 2 Reserve, 1 Active Duty)

What lead these people to believe the election was stolen?

Lawsuits?

The "Kraken" lawsuits failed before every judge that heard their cases: Trump appointees, before Bush appointees (both), and Obama appointees alike.

Every single one rebuked them.

"This lawsuit represents a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process."

A federal judge in Michigan orders sanctions for Sidney Powell, Lin Wood and seven other pro-Trump lawyers for their election fraud lawsuit based on conspiracy theories.

So who and how did some group of people convince these largely middle aged, middle class Americans that the election was stolen?

Who were the proponents and funders of the stop the steal groups, how was this information disseminated?
What would someone gain from this movement and how would it work?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by wdmso

Seems your trying to use some linguistic gymnastics to cloud what American saw on TV Jan 6..

If using dictionary definitions is linguistic gymnastics, I guess that's what you do.

They were some how Trying to preserve it!

Definition of preserve (Entry 1 of 2)
transitive verb
1 : to keep safe from injury, harm, or destruction : PROTECT
2a : to keep alive, intact, or free from decay

If you're trying to "stop the steal," it would seem that you're trying to keep something safe.

Via insurrection because they lost at the ballot box .. don’t be mistaken their actions had nothing to do with the love of American or the constitution.. it was for the love of Trump

They didn't believe they lost at the ballot box.
They believed that the ballot box was "harmed." That it was "injured."
That it was not "intact." That the election was stolen. That the Constitution suffered a basic "destruction."

it was for the love of Trump

Another mind reader. Why should we even be having these discussions. Just ask you. You have the power to just know things, even what people really think when they say otherwise.

Essential Meaning of insurrection
: a usually violent attempt to take control of a government
He led an armed insurrection [=rebellion, uprising] against the elected government.

Here's another one for you from Cambridge: "an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government or ruler and take control of the country"

The elected executive branch of the government at the time was the Trump administration. There was no attempt to overthrow that duly elected and incumbent government.

Nor was there any proven overall organization of the rioters. There may have been some inconsequential and unrealistic planning by a few groups within the mass of rioters, but there was no overall organization. It seemed to be an incoherent mess. There was no coherent, organized claim to defeat the government and control the country. It is inconceivable how that could have been achieved, especially without some overall plan including a massive force of guns, ammo, and personnel.

If they had breached the congressional chamber, what then? They were going to tell Congress to surrender and that they were going to run the country?


Even Webster sees rebellion and uprising has the same meaning

You're using that sloppy technique of misusing language in order to persuade for a political purpose. The two words do not have "the same" meaning. Synonymity is a similarity or close relationship, not an exact sameness. Webster distinguishes the difference. The same goes for your above equation "an armed insurrection [=rebellion, uprising]" They are not equal. They have their own shade of meanings and connotations.

It is propagandistic technique to make words fluid in meaning in order to use the more inflamatory word that sort of sounds about right.

And seeing you put Armed in Bold your suggestion they weren’t?

Webster Definition of armed (Entry 1 of 2)
1a : furnished with weapons

Definition of weapon (Entry 1 of 2)
1 : something (such as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

From Factcheck.org: "a wide array of lethal weapons — including a firearm — were found on protesters at the Capitol" In addition . . . "According to a database compiled by NPR, of the people charged with violent offenses, including assault on police officers, 15 were armed with deadly or dangerous weapons during the riot at the Capitol."

"Eight others facing civil disorder or property destruction charges also were charged with possessing weapons, according to the database."

"Those weapons included baseball bats, chemical sprays, a captured police officer’s riot shield, a crowbar, fire extinguishers and a metal flagpole."

So, out of the over 600 that have been charged, one had a firearm and 23 others had other "lethal weapons" such as baseball bats, chemical sprays, a captured police officer’s riot shield, a crowbar, fire extinguishers and a metal flagpole."

There's you're armed "insurrection, uprising, rebellion, revolution, etc., and riot."

[spence]

We don’t know the extent of arms present as so many arrests were made after the insurrection. Playing with some stats doesn’t change anything. We know that guns, a lot of pepper spray and blunt objects were there as well as police batons and shields that were used to attack officers.

Lots of verbal run around.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

We don’t know the extent of arms present as so many arrests were made after the insurrection. Playing with some stats doesn’t change anything. We know that guns, a lot of pepper spray and blunt objects were there as well as police batons and shields that were used to attack officers.

Lots of verbal run around.

"We don't know . . ." So let us conjecture and definitively accuse . . . call it an armed insurrection . . . that sounds about right . . . for our purposes.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

We don’t know the extent of arms present as so many arrests were made after the insurrection.

let's assume they were all very heavily armed....just couldn't hold the Capitol no matter how many shots they fired....

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

You can play the semantic game all you want, there are federal laws people are charged with. It’s a matter of public record.

Actually, I've been responding to the semantic "game" that you and others play of labeling something as an insurrection for political effect.

The number of federal cases against individuals involved in the Capitol Hill Siege stands at 602. According to the latest analysis of the cases:

The average age of individuals was 39-years-old.
Individuals came from 44 states and the District of Columbia.
Cases have been brought against 523 men (87%) and 79 women (13%).
The largest numbers came from Florida (64), Texas (58), and Pennsylvania (53).
The majority (>85%) were charged in part using evidence from their personal social media accounts, others' accounts, or both
70 (12%) have military experience (65 Veterans, 2 National Guard, 2 Reserve, 1 Active Duty)

What lead these people to believe the election was stolen?

Lawsuits?

The "Kraken" lawsuits failed before every judge that heard their cases: Trump appointees, before Bush appointees (both), and Obama appointees alike.

Every single one rebuked them.

"This lawsuit represents a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process."

A federal judge in Michigan orders sanctions for Sidney Powell, Lin Wood and seven other pro-Trump lawyers for their election fraud lawsuit based on conspiracy theories.

So who and how did some group of people convince these largely middle aged, middle class Americans that the election was stolen?

Who were the proponents and funders of the stop the steal groups, how was this information disseminated?
What would someone gain from this movement and how would it work?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't "know" (a semantic possibility that those who play the semantic game of calling something an armed insurrection without proving that label yet "knowing" it is the correct one) if an actual, semantically correct "insurrection" took place.

And none of your above pieces of information even begins to illustrate that such a thing did take place. On the contrary, you referred to it as a "siege".

The semantic game changes from day to day.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't "know" (a semantic possibility that those who play the semantic game of calling something an armed insurrection without proving that label yet "knowing" it is the correct one) if an actual, semantically correct "insurrection" took place.

And none of your above pieces of information even begins to illustrate that such a thing did take place. On the contrary, you referred to it as a "siege".

The semantic game changes from day to day.

There’s no need to guess what the StopTheSteal crew intended to do. They did it. They breached the Capitol. They might even have posted to Facebook a video of themselves doing so: “We’re in! We’re in! Derrick Evans is in the Capitol!” The “strong anti-government views” of those who stormed the Capitol left the realm of merely words and became actual violence.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

There’s no need to guess what the StopTheSteal crew intended to do. They did it. They breached the Capitol. They might even have posted to Facebook a video of themselves doing so: “We’re in! We’re in! Derrick Evans is in the Capitol!” The “strong anti-government views” of those who stormed the Capitol left the realm of merely words and became actual violence.

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; July 24, 1956, ch. 678, § 1, 70 Stat. 623; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(N), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2148.)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Aha! Now it's seditious conspiracy. Will all 600+ be charged and convicted of this? Will the whole thing be an armed insurrection?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Aha! Now it's seditious conspiracy. Will all 600+ be charged and convicted of this? Will the whole thing be an armed insurrection?

We will see, do you think the DOJ is just playing?

Virtually every federal criminal statute has a hidden feature; primary offenders and even their
most casual accomplices face equal punishment. This is the work of 18 U.S.C. § 2, which visits
the same consequences on anyone who orders or intentionally assists in the commission of a
federal crime.
Aiding and abetting means assisting in the commission of someone else’s crime. Section 2(a)
demands that the defendant embrace the crime of another and consciously do something to
contribute to its success. An accomplice must know the offense is afoot if he is to intentionally
contribute to its success. While a completed offense is a prerequisite to conviction for aiding and
abetting, the hands-on offender need be neither named nor convicted.
On occasion, an accomplice will escape liability, either by judicial construction or administrative
grace. This happens most often when there is a perceived culpability gap between accomplice and
primary offender. Such accomplices are usually victims, customers, or subordinates of a primary
offender. On other occasions, an accomplice will be charged as a co-conspirator because the facts
that will support accomplice liability will ordinarily support conspirator liability and conspiracy is
a separate offense.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

We will see, do you think the DOJ is just playing?

Waiting and seeing is what I've done throughout all the attempts to bring Trump down. Unlike others
who made confidant predictions which often proved wrong.

And I don't think the DOJ is just playing. Don't know if it ever does.
And this DOJ may well prosecute to the hilt, and more, anything associated with Trump.

[Pete F.]

Just keep waiting and seeing, the same guy who refused to honor fallen American soldiers at Bois Belleau because of the rain actually commentated on a boxing match AND addressed the Moonies on 9/11 and you along with the rest of the Trumplicans still support him?
The same guy who without a lick of evidence has convinced the majority of his supporters that lost elections must be rigged
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Just keep waiting and seeing, the same guy who refused to honor fallen American soldiers at Bois Belleau because of the rain actually commentated on a boxing match AND addressed the Moonies on 9/11 and you along with the rest of the Trumplicans still support him?
The same guy who without a lick of evidence has convinced the majority of his supporters that lost elections must be rigged
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your depictions belong in another thread and the first has been hashed over. Old news and has nothing to do with what I support. What I support has also been hashed over in other threads. Trump is not who nor what I support. I support the opposition to Progressive government. I am becoming increasingly confident that what I support is a losing cause.

But I can still comment on what I see as lies and deceptions. For whatever good that may or may not be of use.

[Pete F.]

Does it strike anyone else as illuminating that President George W. Bush criticized “violent extremists” and Donald Trump took this to be an attack on himself?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Does it strike anyone else as illuminating that President George W. Bush criticized “violent extremists” and Donald Trump took this to be an attack on himself?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

funny how smart leftists think Bush is now that he's not president anymore...when he was president he was an idiot and cheney was probably actually running the country....maybe they were misunderestimating him or something?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

funny how smart leftists think Bush is now that he's not president anymore...when he was president he was an idiot and cheney was probably actually running the country....maybe they were misunderestimating him or something?

Silly troll, the difference is Trump never fulfilled the office of President. He couldn't take in the data, do the analysis, or lean on the experience & expertise around him to make the decisions required by the office.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Silly troll, the difference is Trump never fulfilled the office of President. He couldn't take in the data, do the analysis, or lean on the experience & expertise around him to make the decisions required by the office.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yet pre-covid...things were pretty good

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by scottw

yet pre-covid...things were pretty good

Till his first problem
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

yet pre-covid...things were pretty good

post covid, things were also pretty good. Gallup does a poll every 4 years during presidential election years, asking people if they’re better off than 4 years ago.

When Gallup did that poll late in 2020, a record number of americans said they were better off than 4 years ago. Even during a pandemic, a record number of americans said they were better off than under Obama.

Have fun asking a liberal to comment on that. i’ve tried.

America liked his policies, but more than that, they disliked his disgusting antics.

That’s why Desantis terrifies them. He’s Trump without the easily attack-able moral flaws.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usa...amp/4747228002

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

Silly troll,

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

it's amusing when you refer to others as trolls