First insurrectionist removed from office under 14th amendment

[Faun]

Wow...................I give you an actual news story where it is reported that Trump tried to defend the protesters who were calling for the hanging of Mike Pence, and you respond with an opinion piece that twists things around (it's readily apparent from reading it that the writer of the opinion piece will defend anything Trump says). Sorry, but Trump DID try to defend those who were calling for hanging Pence, and YES, there were protesters who wanted to do so. Matter of fact, they even erected a gallows at the protest. But, keep on with the denial, it seems to make you feel better.

The gallows was just a prop to reflect their contempt for Congress.

 

[Faun]

Maybe, but the officer didn't have the clearance of basic deadly force rules to use deadly force in the situation.

LOL

Sez you.

 

[martybegan]

LOL

Sez you.

Sez any honest interpretation of the use of deadly force guidelines for law enforcement.

 

[Faun]

Sez any honest interpretation of the use of deadly force guidelines for law enforcement.

Nope, sez you. I only see your words here. I don't see any official guideline for lethal defense.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wow...................I give you an actual news story where it is reported that Trump tried to defend the protesters who were calling for the hanging of Mike Pence, and you respond with an opinion piece that twists things around (it's readily apparent from reading it that the writer of the opinion piece will defend anything Trump says). Sorry, but Trump DID try to defend those who were calling for hanging Pence, and YES, there were protesters who wanted to do so. Matter of fact, they even erected a gallows at the protest. But, keep on with the denial, it seems to make you feel better.

Did you listen to the actual video they use to claim that? I did.

 

[ABikerSailor]

The gallows was just a prop to reflect their contempt for Congress.

Might have just been a prop, but the intent was real. Kinda like hanging someone in effigy. That also is a prop, but it also means they want that person removed, by any means they can come up with.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Did you listen to the actual video they use to claim that? I did.

You know, when I heard that crap, I didn't think that Trump was really supporting the hanging of Pence, because he tends to use a lot of hyperbolic language, as well as seriously panders hard to whoever he thinks is supporting him. Yeah, I knew it was a bunch of crap when I heard it, but it still doesn't negate the fact that even though he was pandering, he still came across like he was supporting the people that wanted Pence hung, and that is just stupid and wrong for ANY politician to do (yes, even those on the left, I think they are idiots as well any time they support violence against fellow politicians on the other side of the aisle.) At one time I used to think that politicians were supposed to be a bit more genteel and civilized, always trying to present their best to the American people, but sadly, over the past couple of decades, politicians in their race to pander to all, have sunk to the bottom. Now? Most politicians sound like a bunch of spoiled brats wishing the worst on each other. And, the really sad thing is that their supporters are now using that kind of language themselves, thinking that if the elected officials use it, they should too. Need proof? Look at all the crap on this very board where conservatives and liberals are calling each other names, telling each other they should leave the country, and wishing bad things on one another.

 

[Faun]

Might have just been a prop, but the intent was real. Kinda like hanging someone in effigy. That also is a prop, but it also means they want that person removed, by any means they can come up with.

Yes, the intent to harm Mike Pence was very real. And fueled by Donald Trump.

 

[Foxfyre]

You know, when I heard that crap, I didn't think that Trump was really supporting the hanging of Pence, because he tends to use a lot of hyperbolic language, as well as seriously panders hard to whoever he thinks is supporting him. Yeah, I knew it was a bunch of crap when I heard it, but it still doesn't negate the fact that even though he was pandering, he still came across like he was supporting the people that wanted Pence hung, and that is just stupid and wrong for ANY politician to do (yes, even those on the left, I think they are idiots as well any time they support violence against fellow politicians on the other side of the aisle.) At one time I used to think that politicians were supposed to be a bit more genteel and civilized, always trying to present their best to the American people, but sadly, over the past couple of decades, politicians in their race to pander to all, have sunk to the bottom. Now? Most politicians sound like a bunch of spoiled brats wishing the worst on each other. And, the really sad thing is that their supporters are now using that kind of language themselves, thinking that if the elected officials use it, they should too. Need proof? Look at all the crap on this very board where conservatives and liberals are calling each other names, telling each other they should leave the country, and wishing bad things on one another.

I listened to the tape before You Tube took it down & Google no longer allows it to be googled. He did not even SEEM to possibly, tacitly, or any other way defend anybody who said hang Pence or anybody else. Yes he is given to hyperbole. Yes he often speaks in broken and/or incomplete sentences because his mind is usually going ahead of his words--that is a trait in many people who have a lot to say and a limited time in which to say it. Yes sometimes he is petty, even petulant, and that is one of his personal traits I find off putting.

But he did not condone or defend anybody saying hang Pence or Pelosi or anybody else despite how a media or talking heads who rabidly hate Trump phrase it.

My Twitter account was restricted once when I actually defending a prominent politician but ended my comment with "I am not saying s/he shouldn't be hung, but s/he should be hung for a crime s/he actually committed." People say stuff like that. People who are angry or critical OFTEN say stuff like that. "He should be hung." "He should be shot." "He should be horsewhipped." "Hang him." "Hang her." "Lock her/him up." It is not intended to be taken seriously, and I think people who want to be honorable don't take stuff like that seriously. General Omar Bradley pinned down by enemy fire in Sicily was asked who planned that operation, and he famously said, "I don't know, but they ought to shoot him." Did he mean that? Of course not.

As for the personal insults thrown around on USMB by all sides of the political spectrum, I hate that, but I try to allow people to be who they are. Some I just translate into another language where it sounds more noble.

(Twitter immediately gave me my account back when I took down that tweet. No big deal.)

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Which wouldn't have been as bad as it is had Congress not been in there do business.

A concept which seems to willfully elude you.

But those other examples of buildings also conducted govt business, but you said they’re just buildings.

It seems you have a special standard here, which doesn’t support a worthwhile opinion. You’ll make different standards just to paint your political opponents as evil.. it’s kinda bush league for someone who spends so much time here

 

[martybegan]

Nope, sez you. I only see your words here. I don't see any official guideline for lethal defense.

Most people know what they are, and shooting an unarmed woman hanging out a window ain't in em.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Most people know what they are, and shooting an unarmed woman hanging out a window ain't in em.

I asked this question of you further up the thread, but you never answered, so here it is again..............

If a woman you didn't know was halfway in a door window in your house, and you had a gun for self defense, would you shoot first, or would you ask her if she was armed and what her intentions were first?

 

[WEATHER53]

I asked this question of you further up the thread, but you never answered, so here it is again..............

If a woman you didn't know was halfway in a door window in your house, and you had a gun for self defense, would you shoot first, or would you ask her if she was armed and what her intentions were first?

What if used to eradicate what was.
Does not work on thinkers

 

[martybegan]

I asked this question of you further up the thread, but you never answered, so here it is again..............

If a woman you didn't know was halfway in a door window in your house, and you had a gun for self defense, would you shoot first, or would you ask her if she was armed and what her intentions were first?

Again, a person defending their home is not a police officer with arrest powers. The situations do not match.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Again, a person defending their home is not a police officer with arrest powers. The situations do not match.

Way to dodge the question.

 

[martybegan]

Way to dodge the question.

If the situations don't line up, they don't line up. That isn't dodging, that's answering.

 

[WEATHER53]

Again, a person defending their home is not a police officer with arrest powers. The situations do not match.

They are Always apples to furnaces

 

[Faun]

But those other examples of buildings also conducted govt business, but you said they’re just buildings.

It seems you have a special standard here, which doesn’t support a worthwhile opinion. You’ll make different standards just to paint your political opponents as evil.. it’s kinda bush league for someone who spends so much time here

I can't help you don't know the difference between a building with government officials inside conducting government business; from a building with no government officials inside.

Storm the former and you're attacking the government; storm the latter and you're attacking a building.

 

[Faun]

Most people know what they are, and shooting an unarmed woman hanging out a window ain't in em.

LOL

Too bad you once again want the forum to accept your word on something you can't prove. Again, citing yourself as an authority will fail you every time.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I can't help you don't know the difference between a building with government officials inside conducting government business; from a building with no government officials inside.

Storm the former and you're attacking the government; storm the latter and you're attacking a building.

Where does it say people have to be in a building in your definition of insurrection.. you even said it’s not about who’s in a building previously lol. Do you not remember?