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

[Faun]

You are upset because so many Trump goons were identified, apprehended, and are being prosecuted.

Please try to endure justice.

Grannies are being arrested and prosecuted, Skinflap, for being let into the Capitol and spending
a few minutes there. This is a farce and cheapens the term justice.

No wonder you celebrate what's going on, being a dumb fuck and all.

Grannies shouldn't have gone into the Capitol that day if they didn't want to get arrested.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Stop squirming, and show some respect for American jurisprudence, if not for our democratic system of governance.

As soon as you show respect for fair and uncorrupted elections.

 

[Correll]

demn them.

Except, right there, you did it again.


YOu qualify your condemnation of riots, in order to EXCLUDE the lefty riots.


Watch what I do here.


I, correll, condemn rioting. It is a violent crime and should be treated accordingly.


Note the lack of weasel words like, "acting like someone else" or " at a certain place or time".


Clear, universal, consistent.


Can you do that? lol!!!

It appears that you are unable to cite a single other instance of goons rioting in support of any other political cult figure.

If you were able to conjure up any other such repulsive event, aimed at the U.S. Congress or any venue less vital to democracy, I would heartily condemn it.

I'll watch for you to initiate a thread that addresses your topic, and presents credible evidence of comparable barbarity in the name of any other politician.

I reject your excuses for excluding hundreds of lefty riots from the discussion of a riot.


YOur desire to focus solely on the one riot that makes your enemies look bad, while ignoring the hundreds that make you look bad, is just you being a partisan zealot and is not legitimate.

 

[schmidlap]

LOL

Your welcome, your point is you're an idiot. They are not equal, one was for Trump. The other was not for any politician or political party..

The desperate need to contrive a parallel is obvious, but even the most tenacious trumpy butt barnacle is impotent is contriving anything remotely as cultish or egregious as the Trump goon attack on Congress.

Their compulsion is, as ever, to lash out elsewhere, but there is no there there.

 

[Correll]

You seem to be making excuses or minimizing the hundreds of lefty riots.

You persist in your desperate attempt at diversion.

If you refuse to respect the topic, so be it.

I have never expressed support for any riots, and if you initiate a thread that is about any other politician's goons acting as Trump's did at the Capitol, I'll eagerly condemn them.

Except, right there, you did it again.


YOu qualify your condemnation of riots, in order to EXCLUDE the lefty riots.


Watch what I do here.


I, correll, condemn rioting. It is a violent crime and should be treated accordingly.


Note the lack of weasel words like, "acting like someone else" or " at a certain place or time".


Clear, universal, consistent.


Can you do that? lol!!!

LOL

You poor, desperate thing. Insurrection Day was done for Donald Trump. The summer riots were not done for any Democrat.

Sure they were. For Democratic goals and ideas anyways.


Oh, I see what you did there. YOu tried qualifying it again, so that you could exclude your lefty riots, from the discussion.


Since I can't name a NAME, of a dem that the riots of for, they don't "count" in your view?

LOL!!!!


Thanks for demonstrating my point. AGAIN.

LOL

Your welcome, your point is you're an idiot. They are not equal, one was for Trump. The other was not for any politician or political party..

They were not equal, that is true.

ONe small riot of a few hours, does not equal four years of nation wide riots.


That you want to focus on the one riot that makes your enemies look bad, while ignoring the hundreds that make you look bad, is just you being a partisan zealot and an asshole.

 

[jc456]

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.

The 1619 Project is a joke, fake history, and just fucking wrong. But you're welcome to believe it as true, this is America, you can say or think or write whatever you want. Unless the hi-tech oligarchs censor you...

Except it isn't. Parts of it were inaccurate, yes, but that doesn't mean curriculum based on it has to be wrong. Also, why did you truncate the "verdicts" ?

For example:

a. Hannah-Jones’s argument nonetheless contains kernels of truth that complicate the historians’ assessment, without overturning it. Included among these are instances where Britain was involved in the emancipation of slaves during the course of the war. These events must also be balanced against the fact that American independence created new opportunities for the northern states to abolish slavery within their borders. In the end, slavery’s relationship with the American Revolution was fraught with complexities that cut across the political dimensions of both sides.

You left it off entirely for b.

The Verdict: Nikole Hannah-Jones has the clear upper hand here. Her call to evaluate Lincoln’s record through problematic racial policies such as colonization reflects greater historical nuance and closer attention to the evidentiary record, including new developments in Lincoln scholarship. The historians’ counterarguments reflect a combination of outdated evidence and the construction of apocryphal exonerative narratives such as the lullaby thesis around colonization.

There is nothing wrong with exploring all parts of our history, not just the sunshine and roses part.

No nuance needed. It's all about anti-white racism. If there were an honest attempt to bring more light on the subject, the role of Jews in the slave trade would be discussed. It isn't. Ergo, anti-white racist hatred. Period. Any white person who goes along with this shit is a fool, a coward, or both.

take away the 'or' it should read a fool, a coward, both

 

[schmidlap]

I reject your excuses for excluding hundreds of lefty riots from the discussion of a riot.


YOur desire to focus solely on the one riot that makes your enemies look bad, while ignoring the hundreds that make you look bad, is just you being a partisan zealot and is not legitimate.

Get back to me when you have conjured up an instance of cultish devotion to any other American politician that has expressed itself in a manner and with a target that is remotely comparable to the trump goon attack on Congress.

 

[Faun]

LOL

Your welcome, your point is you're an idiot. They are not equal, one was for Trump. The other was not for any politician or political party..

The desperate need to contrive a parallel is obvious, but even the most tenacious trumpy butt barnacle is impotent is contriving anything remotely as cultish or egregious as the Trump goon attack on Congress.

Their compulsion is, as ever, to lash out elsewhere, but there is no there there.

It's how they relieve their guilt.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

The big lie that supports the big assumption is that the rioters on 1/6 were all Trump supporters
who, for some reason, decided to go wild and stage a riot in the Capitol.

That's never been demonstrated. It's only been alleged by tireless liars like Skinflap and other
miscreants.

It gives old cranks something to do but it in no way is established fact.

 

[Faun]

You seem to be making excuses or minimizing the hundreds of lefty riots.

You persist in your desperate attempt at diversion.

If you refuse to respect the topic, so be it.

I have never expressed support for any riots, and if you initiate a thread that is about any other politician's goons acting as Trump's did at the Capitol, I'll eagerly condemn them.

Except, right there, you did it again.


YOu qualify your condemnation of riots, in order to EXCLUDE the lefty riots.


Watch what I do here.


I, correll, condemn rioting. It is a violent crime and should be treated accordingly.


Note the lack of weasel words like, "acting like someone else" or " at a certain place or time".


Clear, universal, consistent.


Can you do that? lol!!!

LOL

You poor, desperate thing. Insurrection Day was done for Donald Trump. The summer riots were not done for any Democrat.

Sure they were. For Democratic goals and ideas anyways.


Oh, I see what you did there. YOu tried qualifying it again, so that you could exclude your lefty riots, from the discussion.


Since I can't name a NAME, of a dem that the riots of for, they don't "count" in your view?

LOL!!!!


Thanks for demonstrating my point. AGAIN.

LOL

Your welcome, your point is you're an idiot. They are not equal, one was for Trump. The other was not for any politician or political party..

They were not equal, that is true.

ONe small riot of a few hours, does not equal four years of nation wide riots.


That you want to focus on the one riot that makes your enemies look bad, while ignoring the hundreds that make you look bad, is just you being a partisan zealot and an asshole.

This is where you fail again. Insurrection day wasn't just a riot, it was an attack on our democracy and an attempt to destroy our country by installing the loser of an election.

The two are not equal.

 

[schmidlap]

It's how they relieve their guilt.

This is how they deal with guilt:

 

[Correll]

I reject your excuses for excluding hundreds of lefty riots from the discussion of a riot.


YOur desire to focus solely on the one riot that makes your enemies look bad, while ignoring the hundreds that make you look bad, is just you being a partisan zealot and is not legitimate.

Get back to me when you have conjured up an instance of cultish devotion to any other American politician that has expressed itself in a manner and with a target that is remotely comparable to the trump goon attack on Congress.

Your use of qualifiers to defend hundreds of riots, reveals your pretense of being upset over the 1/6 riot, to be a sham.

 

[Faun]

The big lie that supports the big assumption is that the rioters on 1/6 were all Trump supporters
who, for some reason, decided to go wild and stage a riot in the Capitol.

That's never been demonstrated. It's only been alleged by tireless liars like Skinflap and other
miscreants.

It gives old cranks something to do but it in no way is established fact.

^^^ Antifa, right?

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

“The Storming of the Capitol”: The four big lies underpinning this story show it was likely a staged event.

“The Storming of the Capitol”: The four big lies underpinning this story show it was likely a staged event. “The Storming of the Capitol”: The four big lies underpinning this story show it was likely a staged event | The Wentworth Report 8 Jan 2021 ~~ By Kit Knightly. The story we are...

www.usmessageboard.com

Shout out for this post. Skinflap should explain why he continues to advance a big lie when it's
not supported by fact.

 

[schmidlap]

I reject your excuses for excluding hundreds of lefty riots from the discussion of a riot.


YOur desire to focus solely on the one riot that makes your enemies look bad, while ignoring the hundreds that make you look bad, is just you being a partisan zealot and is not legitimate.

Get back to me when you have conjured up an instance of cultish devotion to any other American politician that has expressed itself in a manner and with a target that is remotely comparable to the trump goon attack on Congress.

Your use of qualifiers to defend hundreds of riots, reveals your pretense of being upset over the 1/6 riot, to be a sham.

The weird worship of one dude is unparalleled in America. Thus, the paucity of diversionary material.

 

[Correll]

The big lie that supports the big assumption is that the rioters on 1/6 were all Trump supporters
who, for some reason, decided to go wild and stage a riot in the Capitol.

That's never been demonstrated. It's only been alleged by tireless liars like Skinflap and other
miscreants.

It gives old cranks something to do but it in no way is established fact.

View attachment 507261

^^^ Antifa, right?

Pointing to one person, does not demonstrate that everyone in a crowd was the same.


As you well know.

 

[Correll]

I reject your excuses for excluding hundreds of lefty riots from the discussion of a riot.


YOur desire to focus solely on the one riot that makes your enemies look bad, while ignoring the hundreds that make you look bad, is just you being a partisan zealot and is not legitimate.

Get back to me when you have conjured up an instance of cultish devotion to any other American politician that has expressed itself in a manner and with a target that is remotely comparable to the trump goon attack on Congress.

Your use of qualifiers to defend hundreds of riots, reveals your pretense of being upset over the 1/6 riot, to be a sham.

The weird worship of one dude is unparalleled in America. Thus, the paucity of diversionary material.

Your spin and your qualifiers have been noted. THe fact remains. I am happy to discuss the 1/6 riot and I condemn it.


I just reject your desire to focus solely on it, and pretend that all the other riots don't count, for whatever bullshit reason.

 

[Eric Arthur Blair]

Your spin and your qualifiers have been noted. THe fact remains. I am happy to discuss the 1/6 riot and I condemn it.


I just reject your desire to focus solely on it, and pretend that all the other riots don't count, for whatever bullshit reason.

The "bullshit" reason is to acknowledge months of riots and arson and other damage undercuts whatever
partisan whackbags claim about the 1/6 confrontation at the Capitol.

And to be clear, to claim that this anomalous disturbance is all attributable to Donald Trump supporters
is also bullshit and not at all something that can be even remotely demonstrated by said partisan
whackbags though it seems to be their (his) entire reason for being.

 

[Faun]

Your spin and your qualifiers have been noted. THe fact remains. I am happy to discuss the 1/6 riot and I condemn it.


I just reject your desire to focus solely on it, and pretend that all the other riots don't count, for whatever bullshit reason.

The "bullshit" reason is to acknowledge months of riots and arson and other damage undercuts whatever
partisan whackbags claim about the 1/6 confrontation at the Capitol.

And to be clear, to claim that this anomalous disturbance is all attributable to Donald Trump supporters
is also bullshit and not at all something that can be even remotely demonstrated by said partisan
whackbags though it seems to be their (his) entire reason for being.

LOLOL

Yeah, they weren't even Trump supporters.

 

[schmidlap]

I just reject your desire to focus solely on it, and pretend that all the other riots don't count, for whatever bullshit reason.

When the Trump goon riot is the topic, I don't attempt to divert it to other matters.

You have cited no other instances of a cultish devotion to any other politician resulting in an attack upon democracy comparable to the January 6 attack by Trump goons upon Congress.

Honestly confronting that heinous event in no way exonerates any or all who perpetrate unrelated crimes.

“The president bears responsibility for Wednesday's attack on Congress by mob rioters. He should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding. These facts require immediate action by President Trump."​

Kevin McCarthy (R), Minority Leader, said on the House floor​

[McCarthy says Trump ‘bears responsibility’ for Capitol riot]​

​

MeCarthy's stating the obvious in no way suggests that all other criminals should be excused.