Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
This is probably the best question of this thread. I'm still reading through, but I'm willing to bet it goes unanswered after it being asked a few times. I'll check back when I get to the end of the thread.
It would be useful to understand why they were so unprepared, no?
Or Congressional hearings where they interviewed all the heads and they testified back on May 10th.
I think I'd settle for another hearing where they actually have to answer the questions in a meaningful way. That might be asking a bit much in today's political landscape, but it's pretty clear what people say when they know a TV camera is pointed at them is usually different than if there are no TV cameras.
Did this answer your questions as to why they were unprepared?jon_mx said:
Probably some cockamamie idea that someone in his orbit put in his ear. Thankfully, he never made good on any of those ideas.
That's a negative. We've seen the results of Socialist/Marxist/Communist "equality". The entirety of the 20th century has shown us.
Anything on this BR or are we good that these would be viewed the same way thus treated the same way?
when you take it as fact(which it is) that government can't stop robo calls you get closer to the answer.
I would view the military members having a slight more seriousness. I mean, 500 people storming the capitol regardless of background is not good.
There was some questioning in May that Jon referred to I had missed. I don’t think this answered why the Capitol Police were so unprepared though.
1. They were not armed. There is not one charge of a single person of a gun inside the Capitol. The only shots fired were by the police at unarmed civilians.
You can fish elsewhere. I presented a hypothetical to try and understand where people are drawing the line. I made no mention of anything you said here. I alleged nothing and would love you to point out the "lie" in this hypothetical....that should be a good one.
Your hypothetical is loaded with a bunch of presumptions starting out with 'would it be the same'....the answer is, no it is not even remotely close to the same since how you framed it was based on lies. Who is the one fishing here? I would suggest you since you are claiming there is something even remotely identical with 500 armed people storming the white house to overthrow the government. Take your BS narrative elsewhere.
Again, I asked a question. I didn't say they were the same or even that they were similar in my view. I didn't even HINT at it. I asked others if they saw them the same. I ask this question because there have been actual assertions in this thread that the individuals involved don't matter all that much meaning if a President is doing it, it's generally the same thing as Joe Blow off the street doing it. I find it hard to believe that people actually think that, but it appears they do.
The whole premise of that type of question presumes similarities. So pretending like it is just a question is very disingenuous. Sorry, but that is on you.
It doesn't...but now I have a better understanding of why you struggle so much with people here. BR had no problem answering the question and didn't lump all the garbage on my question that you did. Weird how that works.
LOL...love the "it's not me, but you" shtick. A large parentage of the population struggles with the braindead leftwing divisive rhetoric which dominates this subforum. And the the obliviousness to it and the denial just makes it so much better.
Yeah we know, we see it all the time from you, but that's not what I'm doing here. Maybe that's what you want it to be.....I have no problem admitting when I don't communicate things correctly and I always try to be clear especially if a bunch of different people take it the same way and it's not the way I intended. That's a sign to me that I didn't say things correctly. Of course, when I have a situation where I am interacting with multiple people on a comment and I have a problem with one of those people and none of the others, it seems pretty safe to assume it's not me. Throw on top of that KNOWING that the person I am having a problem with constantly and consistently doesn't really care what I'm saying and is only here to push an agenda they've created, it makes me do even less self reflection. I'm flawed that way.
1. "armed" encompasses more than guns. Pepper spray counts. Flag poles count. Fire extinguishers count. The fact they weren't armed is really a testament to how successful Washington's Gun Free zone worked - none of these jackasses wanted to risk getting busted to/from the event.
I agree with this, but if you are talking intent, you do understand this was not the understanding they were given by Trump in his speech about this proceeding. They were told Pence had the right to set aside electoral college, in fact had been begged by Trump to do this, and was a traitor for going through with what every sane person knew to be a rubber stamp role. They, OTOH, were told they needed to fight like hell to stop this from happening.
Not to nitpick, but I'm not sure I'd count Lincoln, Kennedy, et.al. as peaceful transitions...
to me, this is why Jan 6 is inherently different than last summers race riots. The aim was clear: to stop Congress from certifying the result of the election; to override the results sent by the 50 states. I have been clear and consistent that this is why it's different.
no one rioted in the street when LBJ was sworn in. Andrew Johnson - not sure. You might have a good nit to pick there.
The "rubber-stamp" proceeding is Constitutionally required as well as the EC ballots that were in wooden boxes inside the Senate chamber. Realizing this was the intent of the rioters, what would have happened if Pence was unable to fulfill the requirement? And what would have been the remedy if the EC ballots were stolen or destroyed?
There is no proof of any weapons used by the peaceful protesters. Perhaps start there instead of repeating the lies of a violent protest?
That question, and many others, appears to be in some dispute. How about a public hearing so that we can get to the bottom of it? I’d sure like to hear from the Capitol Police on this matter, wouldn’t you? If it was as peaceful as you claim they will testify to that under oath, right?
violence encompasses more than guns.
1. They were armed with various objects and there are pictures of people with guns that were in the crowd.
Lol...yeah. let Nancy Pelosi be the judge and jury. We already know what the findings will be. Those evil white nationals are scary and the root of all evil. Here are 10 things we must do to stop those people. The country don't need the political circus under the guise of being some unbiased arbitrator of the truth.
Sorry, but that is crap. Objects do not constitue arms. One dude with a flag pole does not mean they were armed. I know of no objects inside the Capitol building which were used to harm anyone. I know the narrative is hard to let go, but it is extremely misleading at best. If police shot a black man for carrying a flag saying he was 'armed', the BS meters would go off.
We already had hearings on the subject. There is no real mystery to what went on.Republicans had their chance for a bipartisan commission. They didn't want it.
Normally I would not consider a person with a flagpole armed, but when they start using it to beat police officers I would.
