Poll to condemn or condone "the violence and law breaking that took place inside the Capital on 1/6"

[Correll]

When you get hysterical about one riot, while ignoring hundreds of other riots, it is not "diversion" to ask about that.


You seem to be only outraged by riots, when they give you an excuse to use the power of the state to crush your enemies.


.

Your pathetic attempt at diversion fails miserably.

The topic of this tread concerns "the violence and law breaking that took place inside the Capital on 1/6"

View attachment 506136​

There is no reason for you getting hysterical about the topic being addressed.

If the topic were World War II, and your agenda necessitated its not being discussed, you might try a "Let's talk about other wars instead!!" ploy, but that would be equally devious.

The Trump goon attack on Congress to prevent the results of a democratic election, certified by all 50 states, from being officially registered ended the proud tradition of the nation's peaceful transfers of power since 1797. It was unprecedented.

If you'd prefer to discuss some other violent incident in the nation's history, you can initiate a thread concerning it.

IMO, the Civil War was a good example of refusing to respect the peaceful transfer of power, after the election of Lincoln.

Are you going to admit that that is addressing your point, or are you just going to talk some more shit?

Except the losing candidates didn't contest the outcome. Southern Democrat John Breckinridge remained vice president of the United States until Lincoln took the oath of office then resumed his seat as U.S. Senator from Kentucky. Northern Democrat Stephen Douglas pledged his loyalty to Lincoln. No one tried to prevent Lincoln from assuming the presidency.

But they refused to accept his Authority over them. They seceded and waged war trying to make it stick. Waging war is the exact opposite of peaceful.


Thus, schmidlap's claim of "unprecedented" is nonsense.

 

[gipper]

Chaos agent: Right-wing blames US Capitol riot on notorious instigator banished by Black Lives Matter - The Grayzone

John Sullivan was at the front of the Trumpist mob in the Capitol, egging it on as he recorded the rampage. The far-right is pointing to him as proof of Antifa's role in the riot. But leftist activists call him a dangerous provocateur and have banished him. The most dramatic footage to emerge...

thegrayzone.com

If John Sullivan, the Agitator at the Capitol, Is Not BLM/ Antifa, Who Does He Work For?

John Sullivan, the man who has a history of inciting violence and who was seen urging demonstrators to violence inside the Capitol, appears to have been denounced by Black Lives Matter, leading critics to wonder if the denunciation is a public-relations gesture or if he is working for a...

needtoknow.news

John Sullivan, Fake "activist" and his Brother James are Agent Provocateurs. Giuliani is Complicit

On January 6th, a young black man stood out. In fact, he worked hard to stand out as he urged people to break glass and enter the Capitol. His name is John Sullivan. His brother James is a Proud Boy, working with Roger Stone, and obviously Rudy...

www.dailykos.com

BLM Activist, Antifa, Anarchist or FBI asset: Who is John Sullivan?

John Sullivan shot to the limelight after he appeared with jade Sacker on CNN for a chat with anchor Anderson Cooper. | OpIndia News

www.opindia.com

Videos: Arrested Suspected BLM ‘Agent Provocateur’ At The Cpaitol

Breaking News and Information with a strong bias for telling the truth. Censored news and analysis that you won't find anywhere else.

www.newswars.com

• thegrayzone.com
• needtoknow.news
• dailykos.com
• opindia.com
• newswars.com
  
  Do you even know what real news looks like?

Yup.

Anything that isn't manufactured propaganda to brainwash the masses by the ruling kleptocracy.

The American Empire and its Media​

The American Empire and its Media

Largely unbeknownst to the general public, executives and top journalists of almost all major US news outlets have long been members of the influential Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).

swprs.org

Notes and updates​

[1] In general, elite journalists do not have to be told what to write. In a 1997 essay, media researcher Noam Chomsky explained this aspect as follows: “The point is that they wouldn’t be there unless they had already demonstrated that nobody has to tell them what to write because they are going to say the right thing anyway. () They have been through the socialization system.”

2018: In January 2018, a few weeks before his internet access was cut off, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange shared the above CFR media chart on his Twitter account.

2019: In 2019, it became known that deceased multi-millionaire sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein had been, until 2009, a member and donor of both the CFR and the Trilateral Commission.

2020: After the reversal of many CFR initiatives by the Trump presidency, the key positions in Joe Biden’s cabinet will once again be filled almost entirely by CFR members (read more).

Its unfortunate that few Americans know this shit. It’s even more unfortunate that when informed of this shit, they refuse to believe it. They are like sheep to the slaughter. Happily accepting their demise.

 

[Correll]

Except the losing candidates didn't contest the outcome. Southern Democrat John Breckinridge remained vice president of the United States until Lincoln took the oath of office then resumed his seat as U.S. Senator from Kentucky. Northern Democrat Stephen Douglas pledged his loyalty to Lincoln. No one tried to prevent Lincoln from assuming the presidency.

It is clear that the butt barnacles will grasp at any pretexts for a diversion, however feeble.

The dogma that they have been programmed to spout is founded upon one essential commodity:

I'm seriously addressing one of the points you made.


That this seems to confuse you, is just you revealing that you consider the shit you post, to be shit.

 

[Seawytch]

OMG, look at the fucking poll. 80% of Republicans condemn the 1/6 riot at the capital.
Do democrats condemn the 2020 riots? Fuck no.
Care to compare the two? Which is worse? So we'll see in 2022 and 2024 which party voters prefer.
I can see why you don't want to debate policies, the democrats can't defend theirs.

You know what's really going to get you crying in your beer? The protests listed on the left side will go down in history (correctly) as a time of civil unrest in the advancement of civil rights. (And just an FYI, the violence and rioting were roundly and soundly condemned by Democrats. Joe Biden certainly never told rioters that he "loved" them as Trump did) The list on the right side will go down in history as a failed insurrection.

1. Was anyone charged with insurrection? Ans: NO (so the DC protest wasn't an insurrection, duh)
2. Look at the democrats urging the rioters to burn businesses down, the violence wasn't condemned by democrats, it was supported, Kamala even bailed out rioters to continue rioting. History will call them lawless thugs, not peaceful protesters.

1. When has anyone ever been charged with insurrection? Whether or not anyone gets charged with insurrection, seditious conspiracy or just plain trespassing, January 6th will go down in history as a failed insurrection. This is fact.
2. Supporting the protests isn't the same as supporting the violence and rioting. Democrats have roundly and soundly condemned the violence and rioting at the protests.

1. You get charged with insurrection when there is a case for insurrection. Democrat talking points are soon forgotten, like right after the 2022 and 2024 elections. History can't call it an insurrection if no one is charged with insurrection, by definition, look at the charges, not talking points.
2. Bailing out rioters to keep up the violence is NOT condemning the violence. Democrats

Bail fund backed by Kamala Harris freed same rioter twice – now he's been charged again

A man who was twice bailed out of jail in separate cases by a fund supported by Vice President Kamala Harris has been arrested again while under investigation for another possible case, Minnesota prosecutors said.

www.foxnews.com

3. Clyburn and a few other democrats spoke up against the violence, but there were many others supporting the violence, like Kamala.

1. You did not answer the question. When has anyone been charged with insurrection? Insurrection is what it is being called now and what it will be called in the future. I know you don't like the fact, but that does not change it being a fact.

2. Small piece of advice...do a quick Google search before making statements.

1. I don't care if/when anyone has ever been charged with insurrection, its totally irrelevant.
What matters is what the 1/6 protesters are charged with, and its NOT insurrection, that's the only fact.

2. LOL! So democrats talk out both sides of their mouths. That is NOT news. Kamala also said she was already at the southern border, a lie. So Kamala condemns violence, but bails out rioters to do more burning and violence, typical hypocrite pol.

Bail fund backed by Kamala Harris freed same rioter twice – now he's been charged again

A man who was twice bailed out of jail in separate cases by a fund supported by Vice President Kamala Harris has been arrested again while under investigation for another possible case, Minnesota prosecutors said.

www.foxnews.com

HARRIS PROMOTED GROUP THAT PUT UP BAIL FOR ALLEGED VIOLENT CRIMINALS

1. The fact that none have been charged and may not be charged with insurrection does not in any way, shape or form, change the fact that history will record it as a failed insurrection.

2. She condemned the violence. Neither she nor Biden went out and told the violent rioters that they "loved" them. Your attempt at whataboutism is a fail.

1. LOL!! Do you actually read what you post? If no one is charged with insurrection, how can it be called an insurrection? Its like calling a drunk a heroin addict, the shoe just doesn't fit. If its called an insurrection in history books its fake history, like the 1619 Project.

2. Ok, we can agree that some democrats condemned the BLM riots. The full Trump quote is below,

Trump tells his violent supporters who stormed the Capitol 'you're very special,' but asks them 'to go home'

President Donald Trump's taped message to his supporters tapped into their grievances and avoided any condemnation.

www.businessinsider.com

After hours of violence and chaos, Trump told his supporters to "go home" but did not condemn them. Later in the day, went even further in a follow up tweet to depict the siege as inevitable.
He also continued to falsely claim the presidential election was stolen.
"This was a fraudulent election, but we can't play into the hands of these people," Trump said in the video. "We have to have peace. So go home. We love you; you're very special."

1. Because it is already being called one. That isn't going to change. Plenty of things have been called an insurrection where people weren't charged with insurrection. Again, would you prefer failed coup? Failed rebellion? Failed takeover of the government (also known as insurrection)?

Except the 1619 project isn't fake history. The things depicted in the byline happened.

Fact Checking the 1619 project and it's critics.

2. All leading Democrats. No Democrats told those rioting that they "loved" them.

 

[Seawytch]

When you get hysterical about one riot, while ignoring hundreds of other riots, it is not "diversion" to ask about that.


You seem to be only outraged by riots, when they give you an excuse to use the power of the state to crush your enemies.


.

Your pathetic attempt at diversion fails miserably.

The topic of this tread concerns "the violence and law breaking that took place inside the Capital on 1/6"

View attachment 506136​

There is no reason for you getting hysterical about the topic being addressed.

If the topic were World War II, and your agenda necessitated its not being discussed, you might try a "Let's talk about other wars instead!!" ploy, but that would be equally devious.

The Trump goon attack on Congress to prevent the results of a democratic election, certified by all 50 states, from being officially registered ended the proud tradition of the nation's peaceful transfers of power since 1797. It was unprecedented.

If you'd prefer to discuss some other violent incident in the nation's history, you can initiate a thread concerning it.

IMO, the Civil War was a good example of refusing to respect the peaceful transfer of power, after the election of Lincoln.

Are you going to admit that that is addressing your point, or are you just going to talk some more shit?

Except the losing candidates didn't contest the outcome. Southern Democrat John Breckinridge remained vice president of the United States until Lincoln took the oath of office then resumed his seat as U.S. Senator from Kentucky. Northern Democrat Stephen Douglas pledged his loyalty to Lincoln. No one tried to prevent Lincoln from assuming the presidency.

But they refused to accept his Authority over them. They seceded and waged war trying to make it stick. Waging war is the exact opposite of peaceful.


Thus, schmidlap's claim of "unprecedented" is nonsense.

It is unprecedented. This exact thing has never happened. No losing candidate has ever thrown the sore loser tizzy that Trump and his sycophants have.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

If you are willing to do the time for the crime. If crimes are being committed, arrests should be made. Not complicated.

I am anti-Trump and very left wing, but I saw no crimes.
Breaking someone's else's window for no reason is destructive and a crime.
But if you break a window over something more important, like a fire or a political fraud, then it is not a crime, especially if it is actually your window.

Depends on how you view our "rights". I have a very unorthodox view of rights that most would not agree with. Also, I feel that if you willingly live in a society and decide to remain in said society, you have 3 choices. (1) abide by the society rules; (2) don't abide but be willing to accept the consequences, or (3) do something constructive to make changes you think need to be made.

Well and good, but you did not indicate any disagreement.
1) if you think an election has been defrauded, the rules of this society say you are then required to die if necessary, fighting to fix it. That was the sentiment of all the Founders, and is what all so called "patriots" claim when they go off to war and massacre innocents abroad. In the rules of this society, you don't have the option of doing noting if the democratic process has been defrauded. I personally do not think the election was defrauded, but there are so many things that are, like the Pentagon lying about WMD in Iraq, the illegal War on Drugs, etc., that it hardly matters. The system is so hopelessly corrupt, we likely should start over.
2) The consequences is you either win or die. Accepting government corruption is not an option. That just makes you complicit in the harm of others.
3) When government has the largest incarceration % in the world, lies about Iraqi WMD, does not even provide pubic health care, etc. it is time for torches and pitchforks most likely.

You have the mindset of the devil. No wonder you are a leftist

 

[RetiredGySgt]

No one on the 6th of January tried to overthrow the Government. The goal was to contest the electoral college certifications so that 6 or so states elections could be properly investigated for fraud and cheating.

 

[Correll]

When you get hysterical about one riot, while ignoring hundreds of other riots, it is not "diversion" to ask about that.


You seem to be only outraged by riots, when they give you an excuse to use the power of the state to crush your enemies.


.

Your pathetic attempt at diversion fails miserably.

The topic of this tread concerns "the violence and law breaking that took place inside the Capital on 1/6"

View attachment 506136​

There is no reason for you getting hysterical about the topic being addressed.

If the topic were World War II, and your agenda necessitated its not being discussed, you might try a "Let's talk about other wars instead!!" ploy, but that would be equally devious.

The Trump goon attack on Congress to prevent the results of a democratic election, certified by all 50 states, from being officially registered ended the proud tradition of the nation's peaceful transfers of power since 1797. It was unprecedented.

If you'd prefer to discuss some other violent incident in the nation's history, you can initiate a thread concerning it.

IMO, the Civil War was a good example of refusing to respect the peaceful transfer of power, after the election of Lincoln.

Are you going to admit that that is addressing your point, or are you just going to talk some more shit?

Except the losing candidates didn't contest the outcome. Southern Democrat John Breckinridge remained vice president of the United States until Lincoln took the oath of office then resumed his seat as U.S. Senator from Kentucky. Northern Democrat Stephen Douglas pledged his loyalty to Lincoln. No one tried to prevent Lincoln from assuming the presidency.

But they refused to accept his Authority over them. They seceded and waged war trying to make it stick. Waging war is the exact opposite of peaceful.


Thus, schmidlap's claim of "unprecedented" is nonsense.

It is unprecedented. This exact thing has never happened. No losing candidate has ever thrown the sore loser tizzy that Trump and his sycophants have.

I would say that the riots and illegal actions from the left, after Trump's win, were far more of a "tizzy" than a 4 hour riot.


You do know that your words have actual MEANINGS, and if the way you string them together says shit that is not true, that other people can notice and call you on it, right?

 

[kyzr]

OMG, look at the fucking poll. 80% of Republicans condemn the 1/6 riot at the capital.
Do democrats condemn the 2020 riots? Fuck no.
Care to compare the two? Which is worse? So we'll see in 2022 and 2024 which party voters prefer.
I can see why you don't want to debate policies, the democrats can't defend theirs.

You know what's really going to get you crying in your beer? The protests listed on the left side will go down in history (correctly) as a time of civil unrest in the advancement of civil rights. (And just an FYI, the violence and rioting were roundly and soundly condemned by Democrats. Joe Biden certainly never told rioters that he "loved" them as Trump did) The list on the right side will go down in history as a failed insurrection.

1. Was anyone charged with insurrection? Ans: NO (so the DC protest wasn't an insurrection, duh)
2. Look at the democrats urging the rioters to burn businesses down, the violence wasn't condemned by democrats, it was supported, Kamala even bailed out rioters to continue rioting. History will call them lawless thugs, not peaceful protesters.

1. When has anyone ever been charged with insurrection? Whether or not anyone gets charged with insurrection, seditious conspiracy or just plain trespassing, January 6th will go down in history as a failed insurrection. This is fact.
2. Supporting the protests isn't the same as supporting the violence and rioting. Democrats have roundly and soundly condemned the violence and rioting at the protests.

1. You get charged with insurrection when there is a case for insurrection. Democrat talking points are soon forgotten, like right after the 2022 and 2024 elections. History can't call it an insurrection if no one is charged with insurrection, by definition, look at the charges, not talking points.
2. Bailing out rioters to keep up the violence is NOT condemning the violence. Democrats

Bail fund backed by Kamala Harris freed same rioter twice – now he's been charged again

A man who was twice bailed out of jail in separate cases by a fund supported by Vice President Kamala Harris has been arrested again while under investigation for another possible case, Minnesota prosecutors said.

www.foxnews.com

3. Clyburn and a few other democrats spoke up against the violence, but there were many others supporting the violence, like Kamala.

1. You did not answer the question. When has anyone been charged with insurrection? Insurrection is what it is being called now and what it will be called in the future. I know you don't like the fact, but that does not change it being a fact.

2. Small piece of advice...do a quick Google search before making statements.

1. I don't care if/when anyone has ever been charged with insurrection, its totally irrelevant.
What matters is what the 1/6 protesters are charged with, and its NOT insurrection, that's the only fact.

2. LOL! So democrats talk out both sides of their mouths. That is NOT news. Kamala also said she was already at the southern border, a lie. So Kamala condemns violence, but bails out rioters to do more burning and violence, typical hypocrite pol.

Bail fund backed by Kamala Harris freed same rioter twice – now he's been charged again

A man who was twice bailed out of jail in separate cases by a fund supported by Vice President Kamala Harris has been arrested again while under investigation for another possible case, Minnesota prosecutors said.

www.foxnews.com

HARRIS PROMOTED GROUP THAT PUT UP BAIL FOR ALLEGED VIOLENT CRIMINALS

1. The fact that none have been charged and may not be charged with insurrection does not in any way, shape or form, change the fact that history will record it as a failed insurrection.

2. She condemned the violence. Neither she nor Biden went out and told the violent rioters that they "loved" them. Your attempt at whataboutism is a fail.

1. LOL!! Do you actually read what you post? If no one is charged with insurrection, how can it be called an insurrection? Its like calling a drunk a heroin addict, the shoe just doesn't fit. If its called an insurrection in history books its fake history, like the 1619 Project.

2. Ok, we can agree that some democrats condemned the BLM riots. The full Trump quote is below,

Trump tells his violent supporters who stormed the Capitol 'you're very special,' but asks them 'to go home'

President Donald Trump's taped message to his supporters tapped into their grievances and avoided any condemnation.

www.businessinsider.com

After hours of violence and chaos, Trump told his supporters to "go home" but did not condemn them. Later in the day, went even further in a follow up tweet to depict the siege as inevitable.
He also continued to falsely claim the presidential election was stolen.
"This was a fraudulent election, but we can't play into the hands of these people," Trump said in the video. "We have to have peace. So go home. We love you; you're very special."

1. Because it is already being called one. That isn't going to change. Plenty of things have been called an insurrection where people weren't charged with insurrection. Again, would you prefer failed coup? Failed rebellion? Failed takeover of the government (also known as insurrection)?

Except the 1619 project isn't fake history. The things depicted in the byline happened.

Fact Checking the 1619 project and it's critics.

2. All leading Democrats. No Democrats told those rioting that they "loved" them.

1. If you actually read the link you posted you'd see that the 1619 Project is fake history.
a. The American Revolution was NOT fought to protect slavery. (1-0 1776 Commission)
The Verdict: The historians have a clear upper hand in disputing the portrayal of the American Revolution as an attempt to protect slavery from British-instigated abolitionism.

b. Was Abraham Lincoln a racial colonizationist or exaggerated egalitarian? (2-0 1776 Commission)
The historians’ letter contests this depiction, responding that Lincoln evolved in an egalitarian direction and pointing to his embrace of an anti-slavery constitutionalism that was also shared by Frederick Douglass. Hannah-Jones, they contend, has essentially cherry picked quotations and other examples of Lincoln’s shortcomings on racial matters and presented them out of context from his life and broader philosophical principles. Who freed the slaves? That was Abraham Lincoln.

c. Did slavery drive America’s economic growth and the emergence of American Capitalism? (3-0 1776 Commission)
The five historians directly challenged the historical accuracy of Desmond’s thesis. By presenting “supposed direct connections between slavery and modern corporate practices,” they note, the 1619 Project’s editors “have so far failed to establish any empirical veracity or reliability” of these claims “and have been seriously challenged by other historians.” The historians’ letter further chastises the Times for extending its “imprimatur and credibility” to these claims. Each of these criticisms rings true.
The Verdict: This one goes conclusively to the five historians. Echoing other critics, the historians point to serious and substantive defects with Matthew Desmond’s thesis about the economics of slavery, and with the project’s overreliance on the contested New History of Capitalism literature. By contrast, the Times has completely failed to offer a convincing response to this criticism – or really any response at all.

d. Did the 1619 Project seek adequate scholarly guidance in preparing its work? (4-0 1776 Commission)
The Verdict: The historians have a valid complaint about deficiencies of scholarly guidance for the 1619 Project’s treatment of the period between the American Revolution and the Civil War. This comparative lack of scholarly input for the years between 1775 and 1865 stands in contrast with the Times’ heavy use of scholars who specialize in more recent dimensions of race in the United States. It is worth noting that the 1619 Project has received far less pushback on its materials about the 20th century and present day – areas that are more clearly within the scholarly competencies of the named consultants.

Thank you very much for that link!

 

[lennypartiv]

Because it is already being called one. That isn't going to change. Plenty of things have been called an insurrection where people weren't charged with insurrection. Again, would you prefer failed coup? Failed rebellion? Failed takeover of the government (also known as insurrection)?

When an election is stolen, don't be surprised if people protest.

 

[Rigby5]

If you are willing to do the time for the crime. If crimes are being committed, arrests should be made. Not complicated.

I am anti-Trump and very left wing, but I saw no crimes.
Breaking someone's else's window for no reason is destructive and a crime.
But if you break a window over something more important, like a fire or a political fraud, then it is not a crime, especially if it is actually your window.

Depends on how you view our "rights". I have a very unorthodox view of rights that most would not agree with. Also, I feel that if you willingly live in a society and decide to remain in said society, you have 3 choices. (1) abide by the society rules; (2) don't abide but be willing to accept the consequences, or (3) do something constructive to make changes you think need to be made.

Well and good, but you did not indicate any disagreement.
1) if you think an election has been defrauded, the rules of this society say you are then required to die if necessary, fighting to fix it. That was the sentiment of all the Founders, and is what all so called "patriots" claim when they go off to war and massacre innocents abroad. In the rules of this society, you don't have the option of doing noting if the democratic process has been defrauded. I personally do not think the election was defrauded, but there are so many things that are, like the Pentagon lying about WMD in Iraq, the illegal War on Drugs, etc., that it hardly matters. The system is so hopelessly corrupt, we likely should start over.
2) The consequences is you either win or die. Accepting government corruption is not an option. That just makes you complicit in the harm of others.
3) When government has the largest incarceration % in the world, lies about Iraqi WMD, does not even provide pubic health care, etc. it is time for torches and pitchforks most likely.

You have the mindset of the devil. No wonder you are a leftist

And what part do you disagree with?
Personally I do not think there was election fraud, but those who did think there was election fraud, did not go overboard I think?
But the government has gone overboard almost all the time. Like the BATF, DEA, TSA, and most of the federal agencies are totally illegal.
They are not authorized by the constitution.

 

[schmidlap]

It is unprecedented. This exact thing has never happened. No losing candidate has ever thrown the sore loser tizzy that Trump and his sycophants have.

Indeed. The Cry Baby Sore Loser taking a crap on democracy is without precedent, and he appears to making it into a marathon event - narcissism over nation.

 

[Correll]

It is unprecedented. This exact thing has never happened. No losing candidate has ever thrown the sore loser tizzy that Trump and his sycophants have.

Indeed. The Cry Baby Sore Loser taking a crap on democracy is without precedent, and he appears to making it into a marathon event - narcissism over nation.

While the four years of riots and illegal impeachments, from you hysterical drama queens, that was just...what?

You taking the High Road?

 

[Seawytch]

OMG, look at the fucking poll. 80% of Republicans condemn the 1/6 riot at the capital.
Do democrats condemn the 2020 riots? Fuck no.
Care to compare the two? Which is worse? So we'll see in 2022 and 2024 which party voters prefer.
I can see why you don't want to debate policies, the democrats can't defend theirs.

You know what's really going to get you crying in your beer? The protests listed on the left side will go down in history (correctly) as a time of civil unrest in the advancement of civil rights. (And just an FYI, the violence and rioting were roundly and soundly condemned by Democrats. Joe Biden certainly never told rioters that he "loved" them as Trump did) The list on the right side will go down in history as a failed insurrection.

1. Was anyone charged with insurrection? Ans: NO (so the DC protest wasn't an insurrection, duh)
2. Look at the democrats urging the rioters to burn businesses down, the violence wasn't condemned by democrats, it was supported, Kamala even bailed out rioters to continue rioting. History will call them lawless thugs, not peaceful protesters.

1. When has anyone ever been charged with insurrection? Whether or not anyone gets charged with insurrection, seditious conspiracy or just plain trespassing, January 6th will go down in history as a failed insurrection. This is fact.
2. Supporting the protests isn't the same as supporting the violence and rioting. Democrats have roundly and soundly condemned the violence and rioting at the protests.

1. You get charged with insurrection when there is a case for insurrection. Democrat talking points are soon forgotten, like right after the 2022 and 2024 elections. History can't call it an insurrection if no one is charged with insurrection, by definition, look at the charges, not talking points.
2. Bailing out rioters to keep up the violence is NOT condemning the violence. Democrats

Bail fund backed by Kamala Harris freed same rioter twice – now he's been charged again

A man who was twice bailed out of jail in separate cases by a fund supported by Vice President Kamala Harris has been arrested again while under investigation for another possible case, Minnesota prosecutors said.

www.foxnews.com

3. Clyburn and a few other democrats spoke up against the violence, but there were many others supporting the violence, like Kamala.

1. You did not answer the question. When has anyone been charged with insurrection? Insurrection is what it is being called now and what it will be called in the future. I know you don't like the fact, but that does not change it being a fact.

2. Small piece of advice...do a quick Google search before making statements.

1. I don't care if/when anyone has ever been charged with insurrection, its totally irrelevant.
What matters is what the 1/6 protesters are charged with, and its NOT insurrection, that's the only fact.

2. LOL! So democrats talk out both sides of their mouths. That is NOT news. Kamala also said she was already at the southern border, a lie. So Kamala condemns violence, but bails out rioters to do more burning and violence, typical hypocrite pol.

Bail fund backed by Kamala Harris freed same rioter twice – now he's been charged again

A man who was twice bailed out of jail in separate cases by a fund supported by Vice President Kamala Harris has been arrested again while under investigation for another possible case, Minnesota prosecutors said.

www.foxnews.com

HARRIS PROMOTED GROUP THAT PUT UP BAIL FOR ALLEGED VIOLENT CRIMINALS

1. The fact that none have been charged and may not be charged with insurrection does not in any way, shape or form, change the fact that history will record it as a failed insurrection.

2. She condemned the violence. Neither she nor Biden went out and told the violent rioters that they "loved" them. Your attempt at whataboutism is a fail.

1. LOL!! Do you actually read what you post? If no one is charged with insurrection, how can it be called an insurrection? Its like calling a drunk a heroin addict, the shoe just doesn't fit. If its called an insurrection in history books its fake history, like the 1619 Project.

2. Ok, we can agree that some democrats condemned the BLM riots. The full Trump quote is below,

Trump tells his violent supporters who stormed the Capitol 'you're very special,' but asks them 'to go home'

President Donald Trump's taped message to his supporters tapped into their grievances and avoided any condemnation.

www.businessinsider.com

After hours of violence and chaos, Trump told his supporters to "go home" but did not condemn them. Later in the day, went even further in a follow up tweet to depict the siege as inevitable.
He also continued to falsely claim the presidential election was stolen.
"This was a fraudulent election, but we can't play into the hands of these people," Trump said in the video. "We have to have peace. So go home. We love you; you're very special."

1. Because it is already being called one. That isn't going to change. Plenty of things have been called an insurrection where people weren't charged with insurrection. Again, would you prefer failed coup? Failed rebellion? Failed takeover of the government (also known as insurrection)?

Except the 1619 project isn't fake history. The things depicted in the byline happened.

Fact Checking the 1619 project and it's critics.

2. All leading Democrats. No Democrats told those rioting that they "loved" them.

1. If you actually read the link you posted you'd see that the 1619 Project is fake history.
a. The American Revolution was NOT fought to protect slavery. (1-0 1776 Commission)
The Verdict: The historians have a clear upper hand in disputing the portrayal of the American Revolution as an attempt to protect slavery from British-instigated abolitionism.

b. Was Abraham Lincoln a racial colonizationist or exaggerated egalitarian? (2-0 1776 Commission)
The historians’ letter contests this depiction, responding that Lincoln evolved in an egalitarian direction and pointing to his embrace of an anti-slavery constitutionalism that was also shared by Frederick Douglass. Hannah-Jones, they contend, has essentially cherry picked quotations and other examples of Lincoln’s shortcomings on racial matters and presented them out of context from his life and broader philosophical principles. Who freed the slaves? That was Abraham Lincoln.

c. Did slavery drive America’s economic growth and the emergence of American Capitalism? (3-0 1776 Commission)
The five historians directly challenged the historical accuracy of Desmond’s thesis. By presenting “supposed direct connections between slavery and modern corporate practices,” they note, the 1619 Project’s editors “have so far failed to establish any empirical veracity or reliability” of these claims “and have been seriously challenged by other historians.” The historians’ letter further chastises the Times for extending its “imprimatur and credibility” to these claims. Each of these criticisms rings true.
The Verdict: This one goes conclusively to the five historians. Echoing other critics, the historians point to serious and substantive defects with Matthew Desmond’s thesis about the economics of slavery, and with the project’s overreliance on the contested New History of Capitalism literature. By contrast, the Times has completely failed to offer a convincing response to this criticism – or really any response at all.

d. Did the 1619 Project seek adequate scholarly guidance in preparing its work? (4-0 1776 Commission)
The Verdict: The historians have a valid complaint about deficiencies of scholarly guidance for the 1619 Project’s treatment of the period between the American Revolution and the Civil War. This comparative lack of scholarly input for the years between 1775 and 1865 stands in contrast with the Times’ heavy use of scholars who specialize in more recent dimensions of race in the United States. It is worth noting that the 1619 Project has received far less pushback on its materials about the 20th century and present day – areas that are more clearly within the scholarly competencies of the named consultants.

Thank you very much for that link!

Some disputed inaccuracies does not invalidate the idea or the project.

 

[MadChemist]

I want to know why an unarmed petite woman can be shot dead, and the shooter isn't made public, not to mention stand trial for murder.

What murder? A criminal insurgent was shot attacking the seat of our government.

And Wichita is a weather meca !!!!

 

[Faun]

As an example, Dr. Fauci's paying the Wuhan Lab for covid "gain of function" research bit him on the ass.

That's another lie. Fauci actually said “Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect, that the N.I.H. has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute.”

The Wuhan Lab documented that the funding came from NIH. Dr. Fauci paid the Wuhan Lab to do gain of function research, and it got out. Thank God it wasn't the deadliest virus they developed.
Point being, that we can't trust anything that the government says or does. You can drink their KoolAde, I'm not.

Funding for research did come from the N.I.H. but that funding wasn't for gain-of-function research. Nor had it been proven that was the origin of the virus. Senator Paul lied and Fauci called him on it.

Fauci is a liar. Rand is calling him a liar. The paper trail confirms that Fauci is lying. Do you support paying China to do "gain of function" research to make bat viruses more deadly? I don't.

Fauci claims US gave $600,000 to Wuhan lab research; documents show it was more

In a Senate hearing late last month, top doctor Anthony Fauci told lawmakers the U.S. granted $600,000 in funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology over a five year period, but documents provided by the Department of Health and Human Services Friday show otherwise.

www.foxnews.com

True, that would be a lie if Fauci actually knew the figure was $826K, but I have no evidence of that either. And your question about support paying China to do "gain of function" research is based on your falsehood that we paid China for gain-of-function research. That's never been proven either.

But seeing as how you can't stop yourself from lying, I can't wholly state I expect anything different from you.

1. Yes there is evidence that Fauci paid China to do gain of function research. There are tons of credible sites.

Why US outsourced bat virus research to Wuhan - Asia Times

The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded bat-coronavirus research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China to the tune of US$3.7 million, a

asiatimes.com

The Wuhan Lab and the Gain-of-Function Disagreement - FactCheck.org

A disagreement between Republican Sen. Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci has put $600,000 of U.S. grant money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology back into the spotlight, while making "gain-of-function" research a household term -- all amid calls for more investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

www.factcheck.org

There are a lot of unknowns, speculation and differences of opinion on these topics. But let’s start with what we do know: In 2014, the NIH awarded a grant to the U.S.-based EcoHealth Alliance to study the risk of the future emergence of coronaviruses from bats. In 2019, the project was renewed for another five years, but it was canceled in April 2020 — three months after the first case of the coronavirus was confirmed in the U.S.
EcoHealth ultimately received $3.7 million over six years from the NIH and distributed nearly $600,000 of that total to China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology, a collaborator on the project, pre-approved by NIH.
The grant cancellation came at a time when then-President Donald Trump and others questioned the U.S. funding to a lab in Wuhan, while exaggerating the amount of federal money involved.

2. QED. You can't deny the funding.

3. My suspicion is that Dr Fauci's irresponsible research is what killed 600,000 Americans. Covid did not come directly from bats, it was enhanced via gain of function research. It will be proven.

You really can't stop posting bullshit, can ya, con?

I only got as far as this lie....

The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded bat-coronavirus research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China to the tune of US$3.7 million, a recent article in the British newspaper Daily Mail revealed.​

You've now posted 2 articles on this.... one stating the NIH gave the Wuhan $826K, the other stating the NIH gave the Wuhan lab $3.7 million.

Clearly, they can't both be true. So clearly, you're posting fake news again.

So do you ever stop lying?

Ever???

This is exactly the reason you have zero cred. You say abortion is murder... then you say abortion is not murder. You say you're not pro-choice... then you say you are pro-choice. Now you say the NIH gave the Wuhan lab $826K... then you say the NIH gave the Wuhan lab $3.7 million.

You keep relying on fake news -- you keep on embarrassing yourself.

Clearly you can't debate. You obfuscate. Maybe you know you are fighting the truth, so obfuscation is all you can do.
I'm retired, I have all day to post the truth.
1. NIH funded gain of function research at the Wuhan Lab to make bat viruses more deadly, the funding came from several US agencies, thru intermediaries, to cover their asses. So don't whine about the amounts and from whom.

US officials may have avoided the coronavirus lab-leak theory to avoid associations with controversial gain-of-function research

The US has funded labs that alter coronaviruses for research. That may have led officials to avoid investigating whether the virus leaked from a lab.

www.businessinsider.com

2. The virus got out and killed 600,000 Americans, as well as hurt the US economy, and President Trump's term
3. Do you ever debate with facts? Ever??
4. In the US is abortion murder, y/n? So stop your stupid grade school arguments or you lose the debate, and that's all I'll put in future replies.
5. Your empty posts show how vapid your grade school arguments are.

LOL

You literally posted two different articles that contradicted each other but you project I'm the one obfuscating.

Your lies and nuttiness aside, you claim...

"NIH funded gain of function research at the Wuhan Lab to make bat viruses more deadly"​

... but then you post an article that shows you're lying...

Scientists haven't ruled out the possibility that the coronavirus leaked from a lab.​

... which means your claims haven't been proven to be true.

I don't even have to debate you. Your own articles do that for me.

1. Your post has no content, just lies.
2. Your post is contradictory, my post stands as correct. 1) NIH funded gain of function research, and 2) there is a possibility that the (deadlier) virus leaked from the lab.
3. My claims, as supported by Sen Rand Paul as well as many scientists are valid. The US paid for gain of function research, the virus then escaped from the Wuhan Lab.
4. You can't obfuscate when the truth is staring you in the face. All you have are lies and deflection.

Like I said, I have all day to keep re-posting the truth and disproving your childish unsubstantiated obfuscations.

"my post stands as correct. 1) NIH funded gain of function research"

You're still lying (surprise, surprise). Your point was refuted by your own links.

Again, your own links didn't say that. Your own links state that hasn't been confirmed.

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like ya do.

1. Your Lie#1, my point was refuted by my own links. Here is a link proving my point, NIH funded GOF research:

Emails Show Fauci Downplayed Funding Gain Of Function Research At Wuhan Lab

Dr. Anthony Fauci knew about U.S. funding for the gain of function research occurring at the Wuhan lab in China but downplayed its role in the COVID-19 pandemic, new emails show.

thefederalist.com

"Dr. Anthony Fauci knew about U.S. funding for the gain of function research occurring at the Wuhan lab in China but downplayed its role in the COVID-19 pandemic, new emails show. Fauci recently denied that specific research was used by the overseas Virology Institute or funded by him.
In emails acquired by Buzzfeed News, Fauci conversed with NIAID Principal Deputy Director Hugh Auchincloss in a conversation labeled “IMPORTANT” about an article detailing the gain of function research occurring in Wuhan through the Wuhan Virology Institute."

2. Here is another credible link proving my point again:

Fauci admits ‘modest’ NIH funding of Wuhan lab but denies ‘gain of function’

The country’s top infectious disease expert has long pushed back on the notion the US funded research that made coronaviruses more lethal or transmissible.

nypost.com

Your unsubstantiated lies are obvious, as well as childish. Thanks for playing kid.

Actually, Fauci played both sides of the argument...

​

The voluntary moratorium on gain-of-function research related to the transmissibility of highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus should continue, pending the resolution of critical policy questions concerning the rationale for performing such experiments and how best to report their results.​

​

... the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a component of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, strongly supports the continuation of this moratorium pending the resolution of critical policy issues related to the rationale for performing and reporting such experiments.​

"1. Your Lie#1, my point was refuted by my own links. Here is a link proving my point, NIH funded GOF research:"

Do you ever stop lying? Ever???

Your lie was claiming the NIH paid the Wuhan lab to conduct gain-of-function research and every link you posted stated there was uncertainty if the Wuhan lab did that. So exactly how brain-damaged are you to claim the NIH paid for something which isn't even confirmed to exist??

OMG, you are way out of your lane.
1. H5N1 is the avian flu or "bird flu" of 1997, not Covid, duh.
2. Your claiming "uncertainty" is way overblown. The link said LIKELY, meaning probably. Just because something isn't confirmed does not mean its false, duh.
3. Its your turn to prove that Covid-19 came from the Wuhan "wet market". If it wasn't engineered in the Wuhan Lab, as paid for by Fauci, then it must have occurred naturally. Please prove that with credible and current links, not the old links from the deep state's cover story. I have current links saying the opposite, duh.

Coronavirus DID leak from Wuhan lab: increasing numbers of experts say

A respected author and China expert has said evidence has emerged suggesting the coronavirus must have leaked from a Wuhan laboratory.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Did the coronavirus escape from a Chinese lab? Here's what we know

Experts say animal-to-human transmission is far more likely, but some circumstantial evidence suggests it's possible it was accidentally released by a lab.

www.nbcnews.com

LOL

I never said Swine Flu is covid. Who knows what I said that triggered that misfiring in your head?

And "likely" is still not certainly, which you continue to claim despite every link you've posted showing you're wrong.

If Covid-19 most LIKELY was engineered in the Wuhan Lab, that Trumps the UNLIKELY event that it came from the Wuhan wet market, duh.

It trumps nothing. You're literally claiming it was engineered via gain-of-function research when even your own links disagree with you.

There is no disagreement. Read every word. There is no uncertainty in this article. You're welcome.

Rand Paul: Dr. Fauci lied to Congress about Wuhan lab research funding

Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky., claimed that Dr, Fauci lied to Congress when he denied that the National Institute of Health was funding research at the controversial Wuhan lab, which some allege was the source of the COVID outbreak.

www.foxnews.com

While speaking to co-host Bill Hemmer, Paul elaborated on his allegation and claimed that Dr. Shi Zhengli, the Wuhan-based ‘bat woman’ virologist who researched coronavirus variants in animals, wrote a paper that MIT scientists surmised was referencing gain-of-function research (making pathogens deadlier or more easily transmissible).

Video
Paul claims that the paper acknowledged that their funding came from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), a subset of the NIH where Dr. Fauci is the director.

Paul added that he has looked at the grant application for the Wuhan lab research, which he says also references gain-of-function research, based on the analysis of a Rutgers cellular biologist.

LOLOLOL

You're such a dumbfuck.

Nothing in that article states covid was the result of gain-of-function research. The claim in that article is Rand Paul accusing the NIH if funding gain-of-function research ... Fauci denying funding was for gain-of-function research ... and then Paul accusing Fauci of lying.

You're still batting 0.000.

You must be illiterate. Here is the fucking sentence you don't comprehend:
"Paul added that he has looked at the grant application for the Wuhan lab research, which he says also references gain-of-function research, based on the analysis of a Rutgers cellular biologist."

LOL

Dumbfuck, that does say coronavirus virus was the result of gain-of-function research. Even worse for you, read your own fucking link...

"We can’t prove the virus came from the lab." ~ Rand Paul​

 

[Faun]

.
Fauci started the pandemic and then tried to stop the pandemic. We still don't know why Fauci was the lead medical authority when the head of the CDC, Dr. Redfield should have been.
This isn't about Ben Franklin, its about funding "gain of function" research on bat viruses in China.
Fauci probably killed 600,000 Americans with his recklessness.

 

[Faun]

Said a man that still maintains that Trump said ws were very fine people, when he clearly said "not".

YOu people are complete lying whores.

LOLOL

Watch as I prove you're lying about what I said. You claim I said Trump said white supremacists are very fine people yet here's a post of mine, to you, saying Trump condemned white supremacists...

​

I assumed nothing, dumbfuck. It's what he said. There was a racist rally of various rightwing racist groups. Trump said some of them were "very fine people." So which ones did he mean? Not white supremacists, KKK or neo-Nazis as he condemned them. That leaves the Proud Boys and the neo-Confederates.

​

[emphasis mine to highlight your lie]​

You should apologize for lying about me like that.

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.

Your silly semantics is noted and dismissed.

Stop trying to derail the thread. The point was made, nothing you people said, can be taken seriously.


ANy internal LOGIC, your argument might have, that is still relevant. But any claims outside of that, should be dismissed.

You lied about what I said and got caught. Sadly, you lack even the minimal character needed to apologize for that.

Now you're lying about me derailing this thread when in fact, you're the one who started talking about Charlottesville.

I noted your sematic bullshit for you. What more do you want?

I did not try to derail the thread. But we must always remember to dismiss any claims from yours side. YOu don't get to do that anymore.

LOLOL

You got caught lying about what I said AND you derailed the thread to lie about what I said. Now you prove you're not man enough to own up to your lies you get caught telling.

Regardless, this thread is about 1/6. What do you have to say about Trump supporters storming the Capitol?

You people are the liars, not me, not us.

My point regarding the 1/6 riot is the same as it has always been. It was violent riot, but those who broke the law still have a right to equal protection of the law, which means that being singled out for extra aggressive investigation and prosecution is a violation of their rights.


Any of them that end up in jail, will thus be political prisoners.


YOu people are scum of the earth.

LOL

Cries the imbecile who lied about what I said.

 

[Faun]

Said a man that still maintains that Trump said ws were very fine people, when he clearly said "not".

YOu people are complete lying whores.

LOLOL

Watch as I prove you're lying about what I said. You claim I said Trump said white supremacists are very fine people yet here's a post of mine, to you, saying Trump condemned white supremacists...

​

I assumed nothing, dumbfuck. It's what he said. There was a racist rally of various rightwing racist groups. Trump said some of them were "very fine people." So which ones did he mean? Not white supremacists, KKK or neo-Nazis as he condemned them. That leaves the Proud Boys and the neo-Confederates.

​

[emphasis mine to highlight your lie]​

You should apologize for lying about me like that.

Like I always say, if conservatives didn't lie, they'd have absolutely nothing to say.

Your silly semantics is noted and dismissed.

Stop trying to derail the thread. The point was made, nothing you people said, can be taken seriously.


ANy internal LOGIC, your argument might have, that is still relevant. But any claims outside of that, should be dismissed.

You lied about what I said and got caught. Sadly, you lack even the minimal character needed to apologize for that.

Now you're lying about me derailing this thread when in fact, you're the one who started talking about Charlottesville.

I noted your sematic bullshit for you. What more do you want?

I did not try to derail the thread. But we must always remember to dismiss any claims from yours side. YOu don't get to do that anymore.

LOLOL

You got caught lying about what I said AND you derailed the thread to lie about what I said. Now you prove you're not man enough to own up to your lies you get caught telling.

Regardless, this thread is about 1/6. What do you have to say about Trump supporters storming the Capitol?

I think that they are being denied their right to equality before the law. They are being targeted with vastly more energy and zeal than the other rioters of the last 5 years.

Many are charged with obstructing Congress, which we have video evidence of them doing. what's unequal about that?

Because they are being targeted far more aggressively than any of the other rioters of the last 5 years.

Of course they are. They attacked our democracy.

 

[Street Juice]

Tell us all you know about the hundreds of people who were arrested and their "white supremacist affiliations".

150 days after Capitol attack, more than 465 arrested as FBI seeks tips on hundreds more​

[150 days after Capitol attack, more than 465 arrested as FBI seeks tips on hundreds more: DOJ]
​

Members Of Right-Wing Militias, Extremist Groups Are Latest Charged In Capitol Siege​

[Members Of Right-Wing Militias, Extremist Groups Are Latest Charged In Capitol Siege]

Prosecutors in Washington, D.C. on Tuesday evening released a slew of communications
indicating that three para-military militia groups had formed a coordinated “alliance”
in the weeks ahead of the Jan. 6 Capitol siege — discussing strategy and use of
force tactics as they prepared to “get shit kicked off” following the “Save the Steal” rally.
[‘Wait for the 6th When We Are All in DC to Insurrection’: New Communications Indicate Coordination Between Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, and Three-Percenters]
​

More Than a Dozen Extremist Groups Took Part in Capitol Riots​

[Researchers: More Than a Dozen Extremist Groups Took Part in Capitol Riots]


Trump goons are being brought to justice after the self-proclaimed "Trumpiest Congressman"'s desperate attempt to blame others fizzled:​

Gaetz claims MAGA mob was Antifa 'masquerading as Trump supporters'​

[Gaetz claims MAGA mob was Antifa 'masquerading as Trump supporters']



View attachment 504687
Would you believe, 'BLM in whiteface'?"

View attachment 504686




​

So let me see whether I've got this straight. Your guys steal an election, and you're angry that it made people angry. Did I nail it?