Real Domestic Terrorism

[aristocrat]

13 hours ago, Roundybout said:

 

I mean yeah, I agree with that. It's simply low hanging fruit for leftists itching for revolution. 

 

But Trump quite literally had a Tesla sales demo outside the White House. 

 

You realize I don't seriously interact with you because your response is either calling me a "marxist" or posting half your twitter feed, right? 

Biden drove an electric jeep wrangler around the white house what's your point?

[Roundybout]

1 hour ago, aristocrat said:

Biden drove an electric jeep wrangler around the white house what's your point?

Did he have his cabinet attempt to pump up Stellantis stock? Or give a sales pitch, with notes, for Jeeps? 
 

Obviously, presidents go to factories and restaurants and such all the time. That’s not a big deal. 
 

I just find it awfully strange how this government is pulling out all the stops to support Tesla…owned by Trump’s right hand man. 

[Doc]

13 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

With zip ties, apparently.  At the Capitol.  And then inside the Capitol. 

So we’ve gone from “armed” insurrection to “zip tie” insurrection?  Again, if the government can be overthrown by zip ties…

[Motorin']

 

 

[aristocrat]

 

[mjt328]

On 3/20/2025 at 12:51 PM, SectionC3 said:

Give me a break. Talk about historical whitewashing.  Stop the Steal had nothing to do with widespread voter fraud and instead was borne of the fragile ego of Donald Trump.  Nothing more nothing less.  And before you travel too far down the “whataboutism” road, Hillary (to her credit) had a presser within days of the 2016 election and said, almost verbatim, “Donald Trump is our next president and we must accept that.”  

 

Stop the Steal was itself an attempt to steal an election.  It was BS then and BS now.  Instead of investigating J6 commission members, one would think that the “Stop the Steal” issue would be the subject of additional review.  But it’s not.  Because it’s all a lie.  

The Welfare Queen returns!  Thanks for proving my point. 

 

I understand your need to see Donald Trump as the greatest villain of our time.  So I doubt anything I say or the mountains of evidence I show you will convince you otherwise.  But here is all I will leave you with:

 

-  Countless politicians through our country's history have challenged election results, and/or accused the other side of cheating.  

-  Our political process allows for challenging election results, which is why a certification is done in the first place.

-  Political protests occasionally become violent.  This is wrong.  But it also isn't unique to one side.

 

Many want to hang their hat on the fact that Clinton verbally conceded, and Trump continued to challenge the results until the day Biden took office.  OK fine.  But at the end of the day, he absolutely did leave the White House peacefully and allowed Biden to complete his four years as President.  There was a peaceful transition of power.  Clinton also later said she regretted conceding, called Trump an illegitimate president, and encouraged Biden not to concede the 2024 election under any circumstances.  Her party also spent years trying to investigate and remove Trump from office, saying Russia interfered with the election.  

 

As I stated in my first reply.  Violent offenders on January 6 deserved to be prosecuted.  What they did was wrong.  

But the ridiculous overreaction by Democrats to that single event (while simultaneously ignoring anything similar their own party has done) is one of the reasons the majority of voters have a hard time taking them serious anymore.

 

[SectionC3]

30 minutes ago, mjt328 said:

 

I understand your need to see Donald Trump as the greatest villain of our time.  So I doubt anything I say or the mountains of evidence I show you will convince you otherwise.  But here is all I will leave you with:

 

-  Countless politicians through our country's history have challenged election results, and/or accused the other side of cheating.  

-  Our political process allows for challenging election results, which is why a certification is done in the first place.

-  Political protests occasionally become violent.  This is wrong.  But it also isn't unique to one side.

 

Many want to hang their hat on the fact that Clinton verbally conceded, and Trump continued to challenge the results until the day Biden took office.  OK fine.  But at the end of the day, he absolutely did leave the White House peacefully and allowed Biden to complete his four years as President.  There was a peaceful transition of power.  Clinton also later said she regretted conceding, called Trump an illegitimate president, and encouraged Biden not to concede the 2024 election under any circumstances.  Her party also spent years trying to investigate and remove Trump from office, saying Russia interfered with the election.  

 

As I stated in my first reply.  Violent offenders on January 6 deserved to be prosecuted.  What they did was wrong.  

But the ridiculous overreaction by Democrats to that single event (while simultaneously ignoring anything similar their own party has done) is one of the reasons the majority of voters have a hard time taking them serious anymore.

 

First storming of the Capitol since what, 1812?  But other people did stuff too that might have been bad, even though of infinitely lesser degree, so you whitewash it.  Got it. 

[All_Pro_Bills]

22 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

First storming of the Capitol since what, 1812?  But other people did stuff too that might have been bad, even though of infinitely lesser degree, so you whitewash it.  Got it. 

Storming? If they wanted to the protesters could have burned the Capitol to the ground. That would have been an insurrection. There was nothing there to stop them except for the standard Capitol Police detachment that was clearly inadequate for a crowd everyone knew would be that large. Somebody in charge choose to put this out-manned police detachment at risk. We get no answer on who gave that order and why that order was given for 4+ years. But widespread property destruction did not happen even with a fraction of the protesters that got violent.

Otherwise, the other peaceful protesters entered through open doors, rather than breaking in, and wandered around the hallways then just all left the building and went home. Something the nitwits that push the "insurrection" story cannot provide any rational explanation for without blowing their story. If they were trying to overthrow the election results and take over the government why did they voluntarily just leave? No explanation provided, ever, of any kind.

 

 

Edited Monday at 05:28 PM by All_Pro_Bills

[SectionC3]

2 hours ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

Storming? If they wanted to the protesters could have burned the Capitol to the ground. That would have been an insurrection. There was nothing there to stop them except for the standard Capitol Police detachment that was clearly inadequate for a crowd everyone knew would be that large. Somebody in charge choose to put this out-manned police detachment at risk. We get no answer on who gave that order and why that order was given for 4+ years. But widespread property destruction did not happen even with a fraction of the protesters that got violent.

Otherwise, the other peaceful protesters entered through open doors, rather than breaking in, and wandered around the hallways then just all left the building and went home. Something the nitwits that push the "insurrection" story cannot provide any rational explanation for without blowing their story. If they were trying to overthrow the election results and take over the government why did they voluntarily just leave? No explanation provided, ever, of any kind.

 

 

When you go for a tour do you wait in line or just barge in with zip ties and swing from the rafters?  And do you support the pardoning of the rioters who harmed police?  I’m gonna guess no to the first one and yea to the second one. Sick and sad. 

[Wacka]

On 3/20/2025 at 2:11 PM, JFKjr said:

 

For sale: One large ocean going ship.

[mjt328]

37 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

When you go for a tour do you wait in line or just barge in with zip ties and swing from the rafters?  And do you support the pardoning of the rioters who harmed police?  I’m gonna guess no to the first one and yea to the second one. Sick and sad. 

 

Great question!

Here is one of thousands of videos you can find online of January 6 protesters being orderly let into the capital by security guards, waiting in line and calmly taking pictures when they got inside.

https://rumble.com/v10578j-flashback-police-let-protesters-into-the-capital-without-a-fight.html

 

Now obviously this does not represent everyone who was there.  Regardless of how January 6 started, it became violent and out of control.  Anyone who broke down doors, smashed windows, vandalized property, attacked police, etc. deserved to be prosecuted for their actions.  But when you examine all the evidence in context, it simply does not support the idea of a pre-planned attempt at overthrowing the government.  It just doesn't.

 

In terms of the pardons, I think every case needs to be examined fully before passing judgment.  I'll be honest to say that I haven't taken the time to do that.  The question doesn't always come down to simple innocence or guilt.  Another factor is how harsh the sentencing was.  Is the punishment being handed down within reason?  For example, does someone deserve to be put in prison several years for vandalism?  If someone was convicted for attacking a police officer, are we talking about a single punch to the face?  Or are we talking about assault with a deadly weapon?  Does this person have a prior record of violence?  

 

[BillsFanNC]

They were all pardoned, even the violent ones, because their constitutional rights were obliterated by the Biden DOJ.  We can start with their right to a speedy trial guaranteed in the 6th amendment.

 

Now quick, turn to CNN and rage about illegal alien violent criminals being denied due process.

[SectionC3]

14 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said:

They were all pardoned, even the violent ones, because their constitutional rights were obliterated by the Biden DOJ.  We can start with their right to a speedy trial guaranteed in the 6th amendment.

 

Now quick, turn to CNN and rage about illegal alien violent criminals being denied due process.

Now that the resident constitutional expert and conspiracy maven has checked in, which rights were violated and how exactly were those rights violated?   

[All_Pro_Bills]

3 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

When you go for a tour do you wait in line or just barge in with zip ties and swing from the rafters?  And do you support the pardoning of the rioters who harmed police?  I’m gonna guess no to the first one and yea to the second one. Sick and sad. 

I asked what stopped the "rioters" that day from carrying out their plan? It wasn't the police. Or the National Guard. What force expelled the mob from the Capitol? Why did they leave? You or many others won't answer that question because the logical answer will destroy your delusions.

[JDHillFan]

5 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

What force expelled the mob from the Capitol?

The dinner bell

[SectionC3]

7 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said:

I asked what stopped the "rioters" that day from carrying out their plan? It wasn't the police. Or the National Guard. What force expelled the mob from the Capitol? Why did they leave? You or many others won't answer that question because the logical answer will destroy your delusions.

Government fled.  That’s what happened.  

[Doc]

14 minutes ago, SectionC3 said:

Government fled.  That’s what happened.  

 

That's your answer?  The "Government fled"?  Wouldn't that have made it even easier for them to take over the Government?  Yet they all left in time for dinner rezzies.

[Homelander]

6 hours ago, BillsFanNC said:

because their constitutional rights were obliterated by the Biden DOJ. 

 

Was a jury of their peers present - yes or no

 

[SectionC3]

6 hours ago, Homelander said:

 

Was a jury of their peers present - yes or no

 

Not only that, speedy trial is a legal issue.   So all of these purported speedy trial violations could have been raised by counsels before trial.  And of this issues weren’t raised but had merit, then we’re looking at a raft of ineffective assistance of counsel contentions that would have had merit and that would have yielded dismissal.  So the whole point about alleged pervasive constitutional speedy trial violations is straight BS.