Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

January 6th - what will happen?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Sea Duck said:

They didn't retract it so it must be true! is not how it works. :lol:

Otherwise, you could say the exact same thing about the fire extinguisher story.

KHOU made a blunder by A) not quoting a source, and/or B) misrepresenting a press statement. If other outlets compound the error by relying on KHOU's bad reporting, that doesn't make the story any less false.

All I'm asking here is for the "stroke truthers" to apply the same standards that they are applying to the NYT. Where is the on-the-record source for the stroke claim?

Except they did retract the fire extinguisher story. Very small and hidden but that's how most NYT retractions go.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 5.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The President told MAGA to do it MAGA said they were going to do it MAGA filmed themselves doing it Afterwards, MAGA bragged about it Clearly, it was ANTIFA’s fault

So they're finally following the CDC guidelines for the pandemic?

One is an ugly, decrepit wasteland ruled by an assortment of villains hoping to impose their will on peace-loving people everywhere who otherwise just want to be left alone to tend to their gardens.

2 minutes ago, Apple Jack said:

Great show!

I've checked out the Orchard Park ones from the late 80s-early 90s. Definitely a good show, if unfortunately on astroturf.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, bostonfred said:

Super confused by this page and afraid to read it because it sounds like some people are defending the Capitol riots because there weren't as many deaths as reported and besides one of the guys was going to die anyway he had a stroke and there isn't even proof that he got hit with a fire extinguisher. 

In the unlikely event that someone is making that horrible argument, and that I'm not misunderstanding, if someone went to parents house and smashed the windows and your mom died of a stroke would you be like oh its ok she was going to die anyways. Not guilty!  

I was halfway hoping that there would be an intelligent conversation about what it means for McConnell to say yes trump is guilty after his vote, does that exist somewhere?  

In this case the cause of death would be "stroke".  Not broken windows or her head being smashed in with a fire extinguisher.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Insein said:

Except they did retract the fire extinguisher story. Very small and hidden but that's how most NYT retractions go.

Hey Insein, I'm sympathetic to your argument about the NYT and retractions, but you realize that's an age-old problem and not a new one? For a long time, people have been furious about corrections and misleading articles. The corrections never carry the day in public opinion or recall, it seems, and only the false information or unsubstantiated allegations remain. But that's as old as the press.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Insein said:

Except they did retract the fire extinguisher story. Very small and hidden but that's how most NYT retractions go.

They didn't technically retract it. They are still standing by their claim that law enforcement officials stated that he was hit by a fire extinguisher. The latest reporting says "police sources and investigators were at odds over whether he was hit".

Nonetheless, I haven't seen a single source for the stroke claim. Got a link?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tonydead said:
9 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

They didn't retract it so it must be true! is not how it works.

You're not keeping up.  

This is turning into a bizarre "My bad media is better than your bad media" whataboutism.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even assuming that Trump's January 6th speech can be generously construed as political rhetoric, how can one defend his lack of action once the mob attacked?  He did nothing for hours, and even then, his on camera remarks praised the attackers and failed to condemn a direct attempt to violently prevent Congress from performing its Constitutional obligations. 

To me, his failure to act is a damning admission that the mob attack is precisely the result he intended.  He cannot claim innocence for his indifference, dereliction of duty, and failure to defend the Constitution.    

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

This is turning into a bizarre "My bad media is better than your bad media" whataboutism.

That's not a whataboutism, though. Whataboutism is "look at your media. My media is bad, but look at yours." Any active claim against the New York Times is to be taken on its own merits, then we can address the other bad media. In this case, the other bad media saw enough holes in the story to question it, and they were correct. Should be a full stop in this case, but people are really heavily invested in one side or the other.

It's pretty simple. The Times got the story wrong. They should issue a mea culpa. Full stop.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Hey Insein, I'm sympathetic to your argument about the NYT and retractions, but you realize that's an age-old problem and not a new one? For a long time, people have been furious about corrections and misleading articles. The corrections never carry the day in public opinion or recall, it seems, and only the false information or unsubstantiated allegations remain. But that's as old as the press.

Nope I'm aware. Tale as old as time. 

Edited by Insein
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, rockaction said:
16 minutes ago, Sea Duck said:

This is turning into a bizarre "My bad media is better than your bad media" whataboutism.

That's not a whataboutism, though. Whataboutism is "look at your media. My media is bad, but look at yours." Any active claim against the New York Times is to be taken on its own merits, then we can address the other bad media. In this case, the other bad media saw enough holes in the story to question it, and they were correct. Should be a full stop in this case, but people are really heavily invested in one side or the other.

It's pretty simple. The Times got the story wrong. They should issue a mea culpa. Full stop.

I wasn't referring to the "bad media" who saw holes and questioned it. (That would be good media, no?)

I was talking about KHOU and other media sources (such as this Baltimore TV station -- is that the station Insein was referring to?) which incorrectly reported that Sicknick had a stroke while at the Capitol or shortly afterwards.

When media makes a claim, it should be supported by a quote or a source. KHOU failed that basic standard when it reported "he suffered a stroke at the Capitol during riots, according to US Capitol Police in a late statement". The Capitol Police made no such statement as far as I can tell.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Insein said:

Depends. Did the person use their moms death to try to incriminate someone for giving a speech nearby that is being blamed as the reason for the person breaking their windows? Yes that's how convoluted this story is. 

Media made up a story either willingly or through incompetence that lead to a national outrage over a cop being killed directly at the hands of rioters. Now that the Impeachment trial is over and nothing came of it, we get a 50 word retraction buried in the fold saying "our bad, that didn't happen."

If the times deliberately lied about this story i will be upset 

If the times didn't properly investigate a story about a major historical incident i will be a little upset

If the times investigated a major historical incident as it happened, got an important fact wrong because they heard it from one or more sources, and then retracted it when further investigation found it wasn’t true, I'll be ok with it but admit that it is consistent with their bias. 

Now its your turn. 

None of this matters because there was still a deadly riot and Trump knew that people on Parler were planning to attack the capitol,gave a speech that deliberately fired up the crowd and referred to them as the enemy, heard them threaten to kill pence, saw them bring weapons and nooses, saw their t shirts,, sent them to the under defended Capitol, and failed to get the national guard there. 

I'm totally willing to say that the times is biased but even McConnell acknowledged that trump is guilty.  What are you hoping for? Oh technically it wasn't cop killing because he had a stroke?  Why is this even an argument? 

You supported a guy who led a violent insurrection, either you still support him or you don't.  Simple question for most people, but this is the nuance you pick?

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Insein said:

Nope I'm aware. Tale as old as time. 

Cool. To a different point...

The main takeaway, IMO, is not whataboutism like Sea Duck says. The main takeaway is who do we trust with reporting and why do we trust them? The problem is that the market is not reinforcing accuracy as a good thing that gets rewarded financially by procuring customers. We're getting "comfort" news, news that fits our preconceived notions or narratives. That's the danger that outlets like WaPo and NYT are facing. So this is the new dilemma. How to satisfy market share needs? Are the big dailies now serving narrative comfort rather than fact? All good questions.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bostonfred said:

You supported a guy who led a violent insurrection, either you still support him or you don't.  Simple question for most people, but this is the nuance you pick?

We don't know if Insein supported him. You're making an assumption about that.

It's like assuming that me talking in this thread about the New York Times means that I must support Trump. It could just be a criticism of modern media, and that the Trump stuff is either second or merely ancillary to the criticism.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, rockaction said:

We don't know if Insein supported him. You're making an assumption about that.

It's like assuming that me talking in this thread about the New York Times means that I must support Trump. It could just be a criticism of modern media, and that the Trump stuff is either second or merely ancillary to the criticism.

You've been in this forum for how long and don't know that insein supported Trump?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bostonfred said:

You've been in this forum for how long and don't know that insein supported Trump?  

Oh, a long time, but I miss the minutiae of everyone's political leanings at times. In part, that's because we have guys like Shamrock Pride and ren hoek and Insein and Norville Barnes and others who seem to be more grievance voters against the two parties and support outsiders qua outsiders rather than supporting a particular candidate because of policy. The love of Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang leads me to believe that their support of all these candidates with wildly incompatible policy aims is prompted by disaffection with the system rather than support of a candidate or policy that drives them.

Perhaps that is wrong. But there's a difference between the aforementioned's politics as opposed to tonydead and knowledge dropper and GoBirds and HellToupee who are very pro-Repubican, and therefore, pro-Trump. Even though Toupee hates Romney now, in 2012 he was full-throated in his support of the R candidate.

So that's why I didn't know Insein's proclivities. Plus, Insein is more of an SP guy if I'm not mistaken.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mookie said:

Even assuming that Trump's January 6th speech can be generously construed as political rhetoric, how can one defend his lack of action once the mob attacked?  He did nothing for hours, and even then, his on camera remarks praised the attackers and failed to condemn a direct attempt to violently prevent Congress from performing its Constitutional obligations. 

To me, his failure to act is a damning admission that the mob attack is precisely the result he intended.  He cannot claim innocence for his indifference, dereliction of duty, and failure to defend the Constitution.    

You no longer need to assume.  He was acquitted and found not guilty.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, bostonfred said:

If the times deliberately lied about this story i will be upset 

If the times didn't properly investigate a story about a major historical incident i will be a little upset

If the times investigated a major historical incident as it happened, got an important fact wrong because they heard it from one or more sources, and then retracted it when further investigation found it wasn’t true, I'll be ok with it but admit that it is consistent with their bias. 

Now its your turn. 

None of this matters because there was still a deadly riot and Trump knew that people on Parler were planning to attack the capitol,gave a speech that deliberately fired up the crowd and referred to them as the enemy, heard them threaten to kill pence, saw them bring weapons and nooses, saw their t shirts,, sent them to the under defended Capitol, and failed to get the national guard there. 

I'm totally willing to say that the times is biased but even McConnell acknowledged that trump is guilty.  What are you hoping for? Oh technically it wasn't cop killing because he had a stroke?  Why is this even an argument? 

You supported a guy who led a violent insurrection, either you still support him or you don't.  Simple question for most people, but this is the nuance you pick?

Not true.  The FBI found that the vast majority of the planning was done on Facebook.

And no he didn't.  Trump was acquitted and found not guilty.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, rockaction said:

Oh, a long time, but I miss the minutiae of everyone's political leanings at times. In part, that's because we have guys like Shamrock Pride and ren hoek and Insein and Norville Barnes and others who seem to be more grievance voters against the two parties and support outsiders qua outsiders rather than supporting a particular candidate because of policy. The love of Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang leads me to believe that their support of all these candidates with wildly incompatible policy aims is prompted by disaffection with the system rather than support of a candidate or policy that drives them.

Perhaps that is wrong. But there's a difference between the aforementioned's politics as opposed to tonydead and knowledge dropper and GoBirds and HellToupee who are very pro-Repubican, and therefore, pro-Trump. Even though Toupee hates Romney now, in 2012 he was full-throated in his support of the R candidate.

So that's why I didn't know Insein's proclivities. Plus, Insein is more of an SP guy if I'm not mistaken.

I've voted republican once, my entire life.  

But, yes I guess, given the choice between radical left or socialist left that the Dems have evolved into call me pro-Republican.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tonydead said:

I've voted republican once, my entire life.  

But, yes I guess, given the choice between radical left or socialist left that the Dems have evolved into call me pro-Republican.  

Ah, I see. Yours was one that I was a bit unsure of, too. That's why I didn't assume about Insein, either. Instead of excusing myself by making further generalizations, I should have just said that I thought that Insein was more a third party guy rather than discuss other posters' proclivities that I don't specifically know about. My apologies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That goes for everyone I listed, too. My apologies if I got it wrong. It's not malicious, it's bad notebooking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, tonydead said:

Not true.  The FBI found that the vast majority of the planning was done on Facebook.

And no he didn't.  Trump was acquitted and found not guilty.  

It is true that plans were made openly on Parler.  It doesn't make it better that more plans were made elsewhere. 

McConnell said that trump was "practically and morally responsible" for the riots.   Many other voters agreed.  Supporting him because he got off without punishment is not the same as supporting him because he was not guilty. 

Do you continue to support trump after the riots?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, bostonfred said:

It is true that plans were made openly on Parler.  It doesn't make it better that more plans were made elsewhere. 

McConnell said that trump was "practically and morally responsible" for the riots.   Many other voters agreed.  Supporting him because he got off without punishment is not the same as supporting him because he was not guilty. 

Do you continue to support trump after the riots?

Suggesting he was found not guilty after what we heard from McConnell... oof.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bostonfred said:

It is true that plans were made openly on Parler.  It doesn't make it better that more plans were made elsewhere. 

McConnell said that trump was "practically and morally responsible" for the riots.   Many other voters agreed.  Supporting him because he got off without punishment is not the same as supporting him because he was not guilty. 

Do you continue to support trump after the riots?

It may not make it better, but, I think it shows you're peddling false information.  

Political rhetoric from a politician.

Has he said he's running for reelection?  What are my other choices?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bostonfred said:

If the times deliberately lied about this story i will be upset 

If the times didn't properly investigate a story about a major historical incident i will be a little upset

If the times investigated a major historical incident as it happened, got an important fact wrong because they heard it from one or more sources, and then retracted it when further investigation found it wasn’t true, I'll be ok with it but admit that it is consistent with their bias. 

Now its your turn. 

None of this matters because there was still a deadly riot and Trump knew that people on Parler were planning to attack the capitol,gave a speech that deliberately fired up the crowd and referred to them as the enemy, heard them threaten to kill pence, saw them bring weapons and nooses, saw their t shirts,, sent them to the under defended Capitol, and failed to get the national guard there. 

I'm totally willing to say that the times is biased but even McConnell acknowledged that trump is guilty.  What are you hoping for? Oh technically it wasn't cop killing because he had a stroke?  Why is this even an argument? 

You supported a guy who led a violent insurrection, either you still support him or you don't.  Simple question for most people, but this is the nuance you pick?

A) never supported Trump. Votes for him twice but never got into the day to day minutia like most were hug up on. 

2) saying that he knew about parler and the people that planned this is a gross exaggeration. He doesn't have a parler account. Even with that, the people on parler planning the attack were also prevalent in twitter, facebook etc but only one app was targeted. Hint it had nothing to do with the attack on their targeting. That was the excus n ended to eliminate a market threat to the oligarchy.

D) Mcconnell is not the litmus test for guilt here. He'd throw his mother under the bus if he felt it would improve his standing politically. As for the "it's technically not a cop killing" because it wasn't literally a cop killing. That's what the nation was led to believe during this whole farce. Even now I guarantee that more than 50% of the people (probably even higher) if asked why Trump should be impeached, they would reference the cop that was killed by Trump supporters. 

This isn't a with Trump or against him moment. This is with America or being used as useful pawns of the elites moment. This whole thing has been a flimsy excuse from the start to paint Trump and anyone who vot d for him as a radical element that needs to be dealt with. Even now there are still fences and armed guards in Washington DC to "protect the people" from these "radicals". It was the exact event that was needed to cause further divide and usher in a new era of Patriot Act style laws that will help find these "terrorists" and protect America going forward. Instead of Bush/Obama and Islam we now get Biden and home grown White Supremacists.

So enjoy arguing the distinction between murdering a cop and him dying of a stroke day later while the government moves on to the next crisis to shape our lives.

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, bostonfred said:

got it thanks 

What choice did I have? 

Career politicians that have gotten rich off of the taxpayer or Cartoonist Buffoon from TV. Buffoon all day and every day over literal crooks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, tonydead said:

I've voted republican once, my entire life.  

But, yes I guess, given the choice between radical left or socialist left that the Dems have evolved into call me pro-Republican.  

So you either didn't vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020?  That surprises me considering you seem to defend his actions to your dying breath, and seem to hate everything non-Trump.

From most of your posts, I've always considered you to be very pro-Trump.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, rockaction said:

Cool. To a different point...

The main takeaway, IMO, is not whataboutism like Sea Duck says. The main takeaway is who do we trust with reporting and why do we trust them? The problem is that the market is not reinforcing accuracy as a good thing that gets rewarded financially by procuring customers. We're getting "comfort" news, news that fits our preconceived notions or narratives. That's the danger that outlets like WaPo and NYT are facing. So this is the new dilemma. How to satisfy market share needs? Are the big dailies now serving narrative comfort rather than fact? All good questions.

It goes both ways with this. Fox news and Newsmax fill the void for the people that want to hate Democrats and everything they do just like CNN, MSNBC and NYT fill the void for the people that want to hate Republicans and everything they do. A less cynical me would say this is purely ratings driven and they are feeding what the market wants (just like reality tv, talent shows etc are popular then we get 20 of them every night if the week). The more cynical me says that while money plays a factor, keeping the populous against each other is the ultimate goal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Chaz McNulty said:

So you either didn't vote for Trump in 2016 or 2020?  That surprises me considering you seem to defend his actions to your dying breath, and seem to hate everything non-Trump.

From most of your posts, I've always considered you to be very pro-Trump.

A little bit over sensational, but, ok.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sea Duck said:
6 hours ago, Insein said:

Stroke was actually the original reported cause of death. They just added in the "due to being bludgeoned by a fire extinguisher."

https://www.khou.com/mobile/article/news/national/us-capitol-police-officer-dies-stroke-riots/285-0d4f3e9c-63be-4f5b-a8f8-208dbd33a85f

Wow, talk about a poorly-written article.

The very first sentence says "suffered a stroke at the Capitol during riots", then attributes the claim to a purported statement released Thursday night by the Capitol Police........then does not bother to quote the relevant details from the actual statement.

I searched through the Capitol Police press statements, and only found one statement from Thursday night (here). Guess what? It doesn't say he suffered a stroke! In fact, I searched the entire uscp.gov website for the words "Sicknick" and "stroke" and there were zero results.

So where is the Capitol Police statement that he suffered a stroke at the Capitol??

Yeah, that article is bad. I would critique it exactly as you did.

In addition I would add police union reps are usually not good sources. They play fast and loose with details

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, tonydead said:

You no longer need to assume.  He was acquitted and found not guilty.  

He was impeached by the House, and 57 Senators voted to convict.  Even McConnell stated that Trump was guilty, but took the jurisdictional exit door, and it is highly likely that many more took that same tack to avoid the culpability question.  That legal technicality, which is disputed by most legal scholars and directly contrary to Senate precedent, has no bearing on the President's guilt. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/15/2021 at 2:04 PM, bostonfred said:

 

None of this matters because there was still a deadly riot

By deadly you mean an unarmed protester being shot by police.  The other known deaths were by health issues.  The only person known to have been killed was by the police.  

Edited by jon_mx
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jon_mx said:

By deadly you mean an unarmed protester being shot by police.  The other known deaths were by health issues.  The only person known to have been killed was by the police.  

They are extremely lucky there weren't many more people shot by police. And I think the 35 cops now under investigation might speak to that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Apple Jack said:

They are extremely lucky there weren't many more people shot by police. And I think the 35 cops now under investigation might speak to that.

The witch hunt hss expandrd to those taking selfies and wearing MAGA hats.   Really more ridiculous than i imagined.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

The witch hunt hss expandrd to those taking selfies and wearing MAGA hats.   Really more ridiculous than i imagined.  

So it's ok for on duty cops to take selfies with people that broke down barricades and stormed the building they were supposed to guard?

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

So it's ok for on duty cops to take selfies with people that broke down barricades and stormed the building they were supposed to guard?

No it's not. It just further enhances how ridiculous it is to call this a terrorist insurrection. The "terrorists" don't get escorted through the halls or take pictures with the people they're supposed to be overthrowing.

This is no different than the first BLM/Antifa riots where there were pallets of bricks waiting for the people in front of glass windows. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Insein said:

No it's not. It just further enhances how ridiculous it is to call this a terrorist insurrection. The "terrorists" don't get escorted through the halls or take pictures with the people they're supposed to be overthrowing.

This is no different than the first BLM/Antifa riots where there were pallets of bricks waiting for the people in front of glass windows. 

The insurrectionists weren't overthrowing the police.  They were trying to stop Congress.  I didn't see any selfies of the rioters with Congresscritters.

Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

So it's ok for on duty cops to take selfies with people that broke down barricades and stormed the building they were supposed to guard?

A lot of them just entered the building freely even calming passing through security.  They were protesters.  The characterization of what happened is incorrect.  There were some that used force, but a minority.  There were no death squads.  None of them were brandishing arms or gun shots from protesters..  The only one killed was unarmed protestor shot by police.  The capitol security was not prepared to handle a crowd they knew was coming weeks ahead of time.   This was not a planned insurrection, it was a protest which lack an appropriate security presence.  Punishing the officers for how they responded to a confusing chaoic situation which they were wrongly exposed to is so inappropriate.  The only purpose it serves is to satisfy the lustful leftist who are in search of 10 pounds of flesh to satisfy they hatred of anything right.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

7 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

A lot of them just entered the building freely even calming passing through security.  They were protesters.  The characterization of what happened is incorrect.  There were some that used force, but a minority.  There were no death squads.  None of them were brandishing arms or gun shots from protesters..  The only one killed was unarmed protestor shot by police.  The capitol security was not prepared to handle a crowd they knew was coming weeks ahead of time.   This was not a planned insurrection, it was a protest which lack an appropriate security presence.  Punishing the officers for how they responded to a confusing chaoic situation which they were wrongly exposed to is so inappropriate.  The only purpose it serves is to satisfy the lustful leftist who are in search of 10 pounds of flesh to satisfy they hatred of anything right.  

Lustful leftist. That's a new one

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

The insurrectionists weren't overthrowing the police.  They were trying to stop Congress.  I didn't see any selfies of the rioters with Congresscritters.

Who's side is the police on?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

A lot of them just entered the building freely even calming passing through security.  They were protesters.  The characterization of what happened is incorrect.  There were some that used force, but a minority.  There were no death squads.  None of them were brandishing arms or gun shots from protesters..  The only one killed was unarmed protestor shot by police.  The capitol security was not prepared to handle a crowd they knew was coming weeks ahead of time.   This was not a planned insurrection, it was a protest which lack an appropriate security presence.  Punishing the officers for how they responded to a confusing chaoic situation which they were wrongly exposed to is so inappropriate.  The only purpose it serves is to satisfy the lustful leftist who are in search of 10 pounds of flesh to satisfy they hatred of anything right.  

Read like 2 minutes into an article. One cop was suspended for being seen in videos wearing a MAGA hat and directed these people around the building. Another for taking selfies with people who are entering the building illegally :lol:

Come on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Insein said:

Who's side is the police on?

If they are on duty, they should be doing that job function.  Doesn't matter where their political sympathies lie.  If they have a problem with that, they throw down their badge and walk away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jon_mx said:

Punishing the officers for how they responded to a confusing chaoic situation which they were wrongly exposed to is so inappropriate.

I think only those that actively didn't do their job function should be punished.  Taking selfies with rioters is not a job function.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, The Z Machine said:

If they are on duty, they should be doing that job function.  Doesn't matter where their political sympathies lie.  If they have a problem with that, they throw down their badge and walk away.

I agree and that day they were there to protect the people in the capitol but instead they escorted people in the building.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, The Z Machine said:

If they are on duty, they should be doing that job function.  Doesn't matter where their political sympathies lie.  If they have a problem with that, they throw down their badge and walk away.

You would never say that if a police officer did that at a BLM protest.  It would be a sign of unity and seen as an attempt to calm the hostility towards the police.  But since you wrongly view the Capitol protestors as armed insurgents who are attempting to overthrow the government and trying to kill politicians, your opinion is distorted by misconceptions.  The action of this officer may of had a positive impact and had a calming impact on the crowd..

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, The General said:

Read like 2 minutes into an article. One cop was suspended for being seen in videos wearing a MAGA hat and directed these people around the building. Another for taking selfies with people who are entering the building illegally :lol:

Come on.

A far better approach than shooting unarmed people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, jon_mx said:

You would never say that if a police officer did that at a BLM protest.  It would be a sign of unity and seen as an attempt to calm the hostility towards the police.  But since you wrongly view the Capitol protestors as armed insurgents who are attempting to overthrow the government and trying to kill politicians, your opinion is distorted by misconceptions.  The action of this officer may of had a positive impact and had a calming impact on the crowd..

Can you show me where police officers were taking selfies with BLM protesters that broke into government buildings?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...