Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,287,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

Page 108 of 119 FirstFirst ... 85898106107108109110118 ... LastLast
Results 8,026 to 8,100 of 8909
  1. #8026
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    updated with working link
    The punchline "It's a revolution!" is priceless.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  2. #8027
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    In the BLM protests the overall goal was to pressure lawmakers into holding police accountable. While there was vandalism, the vandalism wasn't the object of the protest and for every protester who chose to destroy property there were thousands who chose not to.

    In the march on the capitol, the object was to break into the capitol. The insurrection wasn't a byproduct, it was the objective.

    There were also numerous documented cases of the police using violent force on peaceful protesters as well as the media.

    The sweetest irony of this is that Ong calls US hypocrites, but if Remainers had stormed Parliament while the Brexit bill was being passed because some Remainer loony and the loony media had convinced them the referendum was rigged, he'd have been calling for them all to be shot in the face on the spot for opposing democracy. He wouldn't be making arguments about how they had a right to act on their deluded beliefs.

    Keeping order is only important when it's to support the kind of order you personally voted for apparently.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 01-07-2021 at 06:47 AM.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  3. #8028
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    4: 25th into a Pence pardon is a very realistic scenario imo.
    This would have to have conditions attached to it, like he'd have to concede that he lost fair and square. It's pretty obvious he never will.

    I think this will end up as a Napoleon-type scenario where NB got exiled to St. Helena the first time in the vain hope that he'd go quietly into the night. He of course came back to go all Waterloo on Europe's ass, and if Trump is not dealt with in some serious manner, he will come back too.

    The problem here is that they can't just put a bullet in him and make him go away. So, he's going to be around after Jan. 20 one way or another, stirring up shit probably until he dies.

    If ever there was a good time for a CIA-induced heart attack (which there isn't), well....
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  4. #8029
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,678
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    I agree. Trump isn't going anywhere. I do think he will lose base over this, but he will still have massive influence over a substantial part of the american population. It will likely tear the republican party apart.

    Given how federal agents at the capitol handled it, it's almost certain to happen again. The first actual resistance they encountered was a Secret Service agent probably guarding a head of state immediately behind him. This cannot be repeated enough: DC police and federal agents opened the barricades and took selfies with insurgents after they breached the capitol. Just 13 people were arrested. This is an open invitation for any mob (whites only ldo) to breach the capitol and break into the halls of congress if they don't like something. This is going to get a lot worse before it gets better.
    Last edited by oskar; 01-07-2021 at 07:12 AM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  5. #8030
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post

    Given how federal agents at the capitol handled it, it's almost certain to happen again.
    Yup, it's a perfect storm of a personality cult mixed with a cadre of more-or-less ideologically aligned law and order establishment. This is not over by a long way I'm afraid.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  6. #8031
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I have no plans to read this but I can imagine what it says. Seriously, I don't know if you really have nothing better to do than argue that an insurrection is no biggie, or reductio ad whataboutBLM it, or whatever. I'll just assume you're trolling and ignore you.
    So you basically want an echo chamber and don't want your views to be challenged? Suit yourself.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  7. #8032
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    In the BLM protests the overall goal was to pressure lawmakers into holding police accountable. While there was vandalism, the vandalism wasn't the object of the protest and for every protester who chose to destroy property there were thousands who chose not to.

    In the march on the capitol, the object was to break into the capitol. The insurrection wasn't a byproduct, it was the objective.
    This still doesn't answer my question. Poop conveniently decided to ignore me, so let's see if you can answer... why is occupying the Capitol such a problem? Why is this not a legitimate act of protest?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  8. #8033
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    So you basically want an echo chamber and don't want your views to be challenged? Suit yourself.
    If you had a legitimate challenge I would engage with it. But you just talk shit without any reasoning behind it. One thread of that is enough.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  9. #8034
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    The sweetest irony of this is that Ong calls US hypocrites, but if Remainers had stormed Parliament while the Brexit bill was being passed because some Remainer loony and the loony media had convinced them the referendum was rigged, he'd have been calling for them all to be shot in the face on the spot for opposing democracy. He wouldn't be making arguments about how they had a right to act on their deluded beliefs.
    Hey poop, just go right ahead and make up stories about how I would act in a hypothetical situation, and hold it up as fact.

    This is 100% incorrect speculation. Try to engage objectively poop. I know it's hard, but you can do it.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  10. #8035
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This still doesn't answer my question. Poop conveniently decided to ignore me, so let's see if you can answer... why is occupying the Capitol such a problem? Why is this not a legitimate act of protest?
    When people storm a building, you generally don't assume it's with peaceful intentions. They could peacefully protest outside without posing a threat to anyone or their property. Instead they went inside and (gasp) looted the Capital building. So why don't you want them shot too?
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  11. #8036
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Hey poop, just go right ahead and make up stories about how I would act in a hypothetical situation, and hold it up as fact.

    This is 100% incorrect speculation. Try to engage objectively poop. I know it's hard, but you can do it.
    What would you do in that hypothetical situation then? Please tell us so we can see your true beliefs on the sacred nature of protestor's rights.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  12. #8037
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    When people storm a building, you generally don't assume it's with peaceful intentions.
    Indeed, which is why I'm not gushing with sympathy for the woman who died in there. I can understand the cops being twitchy.

    But I was also watching it live. It was tense, but it was peaceful, at least from the protester's pov. I saw nobody doing anything more than shouting at cops. The cops weren't even doing much about it, it's like they allowed it all to happen. And when the cops decided it was time to take control of the situation, that happened without incident. Nobody in the crowd was physically resisting police. They stood their ground until they could no longer do so, that's the extent of these "riots".

    They "looted" the Capitol building. Funny. Forgive me for not giving a fuck about office supplies in a government building. My whole problem with looting is it's an attack on civilians.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  13. #8038
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    What would you do in that hypothetical situation then? Please tell us so we can see your true beliefs on the sacred nature of protestor's rights.
    I would ask if these people really though the result was fraudulent, or if they were just trying to overthrow a result they didn't like.

    Which is precisely what I was asking while I was watching this event live. I think these people really believe it. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I got.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  14. #8039
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,678
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This still doesn't answer my question. Poop conveniently decided to ignore me, so let's see if you can answer... why is occupying the Capitol such a problem? Why is this not a legitimate act of protest?
    People are protesting inside the halls of congress all the time. That alone is not a problem. Having a rally where the incumbent president says: this election was stolen from us... you can't let this happen... If Pence doesn't stop this, it is on you... and then to have his mob forcefully break into the halls of congress to stop the certification of the election in which the incumbent lost... that is a coup! That is the textbook definition of a coup. They are completely unorganized and they are following the incoherent directions of a lunatic, so they predictably failed, but it was a coup attempt.
    If government does not have the monopoly on violence, it is not a government. When mobs can take control of a government building, you by definition no longer have a government.

    Let me restate this again: the loser of the election directed a mob to storm the halls of congress to stop the certification of his successor. That is not protest. That is a coup.
    Last edited by oskar; 01-07-2021 at 08:04 AM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  15. #8040
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I would ask if these people really though the result was fraudulent, or if they were just trying to overthrow a result they didn't like.
    So if you thought they really believed it, you'd be ok with them storming Parliament and forcing all the MPs to run to the basement for their own safety?



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Which is precisely what I was asking while I was watching this event live. I think these people really believe it. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I got.
    Again, it's not relevant whether they were sincerely deluded or not. You are not allowed to break one law because you believe some other law has been broken.

    Frankly I'm surprised you are taking these views, since you're so strongly in favour of law and order that you want looters to be executed on sight (unless of course it's public property they're looting, which is fine).

    Do you see the contradiction in what you're saying here? I'm genuinely curious.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  16. #8041
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar
    That is the textbook definition of a coup.
    lol it's not a coup. It's not the textbook definition, since a coup involves overthrowing someone already in power, not stopping someone from taking power.

    And these protesters would argue that the election fraud they believe has happened is a coup. Which is why it's such a problem to talk about this objectively. Everyone has different opinions as to what the facts are. What makes you right and someone else wrong?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  17. #8042
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    So if you thought they really believed it, you'd be ok with them storming Parliament and forcing all the MPs to run to the basement for their own safety?
    Who gives a fuck about MPs running for the basement? That isn't what makes it right or wrong.

    If I thought someone really believed that democracy was being taken away from us, then yes, I would support their right to peaceful protest. And occupying a major government building is preferable to many other forms of protest, such as an actual riot.

    You are not allowed to break one law because you believe some other law has been broken.
    This is contentious. It depends on the severity of the law in question. I mean, we're talking about trespass here. Let's not lose perspective.

    Frankly I'm surprised you are taking these views, since you're so strongly in favour of law and order that you want looters to be executed on sight (unless of course it's public property they're looting, which is fine).

    Do you see the contradiction in what you're saying here? I'm genuinely curious.
    I'm surprised you can't distinguish between the looting of private businesses vs the vandalism of a government office. That you see a contradiction implies you see these two things as equivalent.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  18. #8043
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,678
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    lol it's not a coup. It's not the textbook definition, since a coup involves overthrowing someone already in power, not stopping someone from taking power.

    And these protesters would argue that the election fraud they believe has happened is a coup. Which is why it's such a problem to talk about this objectively. Everyone has different opinions as to what the facts are. What makes you right and someone else wrong?
    Can you give me one specific claim of election fraud that amounts to a coup? If you want to entertain this idea, imo you should have some idea what their claims are and how incredibly stupid they are.
    You're talking fantasyland ideas. You're making it sound like they had legitimate claims. They did not. The claims of election fraud are the ramblings of lunatics. I've seen "irrefutable proof" that dems dumped ballots in certain counties. I looked at the counties... they're in california! Dems stole california, can you believe it? These people are morons.

    They had months to dispute the vote counts. Votes were hand counted and they still blamed Dominion machines. Trump appointed judges shut down their cases because they had no basis in reality. The supreme court shut them down.
    Trump didn't narrowly lose the election. He lost by a landslide. 232 to 306. Down by 7 million in the popular vote. He would have to dispute and win 3 major swing states to win by a major fluke of the electoral college.
    Last edited by oskar; 01-07-2021 at 08:44 AM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  19. #8044
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar
    Can you give me one specific claim of election fraud that amounts to a coup?
    No.

    If you want to entertain this idea, imo you should have some idea what their claims are and how incredibly stupid they are.
    It doesn't matter if the claims are credible by your standards, or even mine.

    You're talking fantasyland ideas. You're making it sound like they had legitimate claims. They did not.
    I don't know this. And it's not my place to decide if their claims are legitimate. If I decided to protest some stupid shit, I'm not going to give a fuck about what some random Austrian guy thinks. You are obviously entitled to your opinion, but you don't get to decide if their claims are legitimate. You can only have an opinion, and that will only ever be based on what you choose to read and believe.

    I don't know what's happening because I can't be fucked to have to decide what's reliable information and what isn't.

    The claims of election fraud are the ramblings of lunatics.
    Subjective.

    I've seen "irrefutable proof" that dems dumped ballots in certain counties. I looked at the counties... they're in california! Dems stole california, can you believe it? These people are morons.
    I doubt anyone truly believes the Dems stole Cali, and if anyone actually does think it, then yes, "moron" is a fair word to describe that person. We're talking much less than 1% here. Nobody seriously thinks Trump won Cali.

    Down by 7 million in the popular vote.
    Didn't Trump lose with, officially, the second highest number of votes in history? Second only, of course, to Biden's +7m. Do you not find that suspicious? I do. There is a potential explanation in that Trump is so despised that significantly more people voted than usual, but +15m on Obama 2012? It's reason enough for me to think there might be something going on. It's not proof though. So I remain on the fence. I've seen nothing from either side to convince me either way.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  20. #8045
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'm surprised you can't distinguish between the looting of private businesses vs the vandalism of a government office. That you see a contradiction implies you see these two things as equivalent.
    The law makes no such distinction. And since your previously professed concern was with upholding law and order, why do you?

    I mean, I get that you don't like gov't in general, but you have to admit they're kind of necessary for law and order.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  21. #8046
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,678
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    The courts get to decide what's legitimate, and they have decided those claims are not legitimate. It ends there. If you now want to say ok maybe Trump appointed judges, republican governors and a 6:3 conservative supreme court are all conspiring to rig the election for Biden, then you have to look at the claims if you don't want to look like a raving lunatic... and the claims are fucking retarded, so where do we go from here?
    You don't literally think anyone who has feefees that the government might be bad gets to violently take control of the capitol, do you? I guess you said you do, but I'm trying to steelman you here as best as I can.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  22. #8047
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,678
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Joe Scarborough with the appropriate level of outrage.

    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  23. #8048
    Quote Originally Posted by poop
    The law makes no such distinction. And since your previously professed concern was with upholding law and order, why do you?
    You're doing your best to misinterpret my previous comments, not sure if' it's deliberately insincere or if you really can't understand the difference.

    The law does make a distinction. Looting is taking private property in a time of national crisis. Key word... private. Government property is not private.

    More to the point, the moral distinction is that looting of private property causes the public to lose faith in the ability of state security to protect the general population. Social security is severely compromised. The tension spreads around the entire country, into neighbourhoods and towns, instead of focussed on strategic sites in cities. Looting of private property is a serious escalation of a crisis. It is an attack on civilians, not an attack on government. That's a big, big difference.

    Which is why I'm surprised you don't see a distinction.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  24. #8049
    I stopped watching that link when he emphasised the word "INVASION".

    Biased news source. Not reliable information.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  25. #8050
    You don't literally think anyone who has feefees that the government might be bad gets to violently take control of the capitol, do you?
    "violently"

    The use of this word is pretty ridiculous in the context of what I was watching yesterday.

    People walked into a building. Police didn't stop them.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  26. #8051
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You're doing your best to misinterpret my previous comments, not sure if' it's deliberately insincere or if you really can't understand the difference.

    The law does make a distinction. Looting is taking private property in a time of national crisis. Key word... private. Government property is not private.

    More to the point, the moral distinction is that looting of private property causes the public to lose faith in the ability of state security to protect the general population. Social security is severely compromised. The tension spreads around the entire country, into neighbourhoods and towns, instead of focussed on strategic sites in cities. Looting of private property is a serious escalation of a crisis. It is an attack on civilians, not an attack on government. That's a big, big difference.

    Which is why I'm surprised you don't see a distinction.
    This is why no-one here takes you serioulsy imo. Whenever you get challenged on something you start talking completely out of your ass. Not that it's much different from where you start from tbh.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  27. #8052
    Do better than that poop. Or don't bother at all.

    The law does make a distinction. Prove me wrong.

    And explain to me why it's morally equivalent to attack government or civilian targets.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  28. #8053
    No, show me the law that says damaging property is only illegal if it's privately owned.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  29. #8054
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    No, show me the law that says damaging property is only illegal if it's privately owned.
    Wait, weren't we talking about looting a minute ago? When did the convo shift to criminal damage?

    You were trying to argue that the Capitol was looted. That isn't true.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  30. #8055
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You were trying to argue that the Capitol was looted. That isn't true.


    Give it up.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  31. #8056
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    Give it up.
    This is you reducing the conversation, not me. You outright refuse to engage with me in a sincere manner.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  32. #8057
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    The courts get to decide what's legitimate, and they have decided those claims are not legitimate. It ends there. If you now want to say ok maybe Trump appointed judges, republican governors and a 6:3 conservative supreme court are all conspiring to rig the election for Biden, then you have to look at the claims if you don't want to look like a raving lunatic... and the claims are fucking retarded, so where do we go from here?
    You don't literally think anyone who has feefees that the government might be bad gets to violently take control of the capitol, do you? I guess you said you do, but I'm trying to steelman you here as best as I can.

    Exactly.

    Moreover, the law has a standard that you are expected to act as a "reasonable person." That means you don't just believe everything you are told, but evaluate things with some degree of skepticism. No reasonable person thinks the election was rigged to give it to Biden.

    The criminals who illegally entered the Capitol building would be judged by law as criminals, plain and simple. They don't get to claim they sincerely believed an unreasonable conspiracy and that justifies why they broke the law. The only way around the reasonable person standard is to claim insanity. That may well apply to some of them, but being fooled because you're a koolaid swigger is not the same thing as having a mental illness that distorts your ability to assess reality.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  33. #8058
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You outright refuse to engage with me in a sincere manner.
    I don't try to talk about serious issues with the 6 year old who lives next door either. I don't expect him to have done his homework.

    And experience shows you don't do yours either (even though unlike him you're capable of understanding it) because you can't be bothered.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  34. #8059
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    I don't try to talk about serious issues with the 6 year old who lives next door either. I don't expect him to have done his homework.

    And experience shows you don't do yours either (even though unlike him you're capable of understanding it) because you can't be bothered.
    What you do is instantly take an opposing position to anything I say. Instantly. That you refuse to acknowledge any kind of difference between an attack on government and an attack on civilians is evidence of your insincerity. You asked me what the difference was between what you call looting in the Capitol, and the looting of 2020, I told you, and you didn't go "ok that makes some sense", instead you try to go down the path of saying law does not distinguish between looting and criminal damage (it does), and then tell me to give it up as though I'm the one talking shit.

    And you're calling people criminals for walking into a building.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  35. #8060
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,546
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Ong, you can disagree with us all you want, but I'm personally let down that you characterized my positions on the BLM protests and yesterday's events the way you have.

    There are only 4 of us here having the conversation. For you to lump all of our perspectives into one lump of BS like "You were all cheering for the looters in the BLM protests." is so wrong, not only in the fact that no one here was cheering or supporting the looting, not only in the fact that it was YOU who kept insisting that all protestors were looters, but also the fact that you should really know that I would never cheer the loss of property or life without due process of law.

    And tell me how is my characterization of the events of yesterday as "petty stuff, really" somehow me "outraged?"


    It sucks to realize that I know so much about you, but you apparently don't know much of anything about me, or if you do, you don't care to represent my position accurately.
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  36. #8061
    I don't think I mentioned you mojo. By "you guys" I pretty much meant poop and oskar, who I usually butt heads with. You tend to be more reasonable in your arguments.

    The problem here is that I regularly feel cornered, a lone voice in what would otherwise be an echo chamber. So I'm going to occasionally use sloppy language like "you guys" when I don't necessarily intend to mean you as well.

    I hope if you read my comments again with the knowledge that I'm basically talking to poop and oskar only, you won't feel so offended.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  37. #8062
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I don't think I mentioned you mojo. By "you guys" I pretty much meant poop and oskar
    What part of what I said about the events of last night made you conclude I was outraged when you made that comment about "you guys"? And for the record, I assumed you meant to include Mojo in that as well, since he also opposed your position on the BLM protests at the time.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  38. #8063
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    What you do is instantly take an opposing position to anything I say. Instantly.
    If it seems like that, it's only because I disagree with 99% of what you say. I can't help that, sorry.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    That you refuse to acknowledge any kind of difference between an attack on government and an attack on civilians is evidence of your insincerity. You asked me what the difference was between what you call looting in the Capitol, and the looting of 2020, I told you, and you didn't go "ok that makes some sense", instead you try to go down the path of saying law does not distinguish between looting and criminal damage (it does), and then tell me to give it up as though I'm the one talking shit.

    And you're calling people criminals for walking into a building.
    Even your language here is self-contradictory. First you use the word "attack" and then by the end of it you make it sound like the Trumpers were a bunch of tourists just walked into a building and looked around.

    Oskar has already explained to you the obvious distinction between what the BLM protests were about and what the Trumpers were doing. So I'm not going to bother with that again.

    And more generally, this and your other posts about gov't vs. civlian property shows your general approach to any debate. Once it's clear you're getting shot down in flames you try to shift the argument to some tedious point that doesn't really matter in the larger scheme of things. Like it's somehow relevant whether the Trumpers were acting on private or public property when they tried their little half-assed coup attempt.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  39. #8064
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post

    The problem here is that I regularly feel cornered, a lone voice in what would otherwise be an echo chamber. So I'm going to occasionally use sloppy language like "you guys" when I don't necessarily intend to mean you as well.
    This may be true, but no-one is forcing you to argue with us, especially in the way you do. And you should really not feel like you're doing us a favour by putting up an opposing view, and then when that view is shown to be groundless you stick to it anyways, then try to turn it into a convo about something completely irrelevant to what it started out as. What is the point of that really?
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  40. #8065
    Even your language here is self-contradictory. First you use the word "attack" and then by the end of it you make it sound like the Trumpers were a bunch of tourists just walked into a building and looked around.
    It was both. It was clearly planned, but once inside it was basically tourism. There was no plan beyond "occupy Capitol".

    Oskar has already explained to you the obvious distinction between what the BLM protests were about and what the Trumpers were doing. So I'm not going to bother with that again.
    No, oskar pointed out that the rioters were a small percentage of the overall protesters, and that looting was never the goal. That isn't distinguishing between government and civilian targets, which is what you asked me to clarify. You're point blank refusing to acknowledge such a distinction exists, presumably because you don't want to have to admit that occupying a building is not as bad as burning shops down.

    And more generally, this and your other posts about gov't vs. civlian property shows your general approach to any debate. Once it's clear you're getting shot down in flames you try to shift the argument to some tedious point that doesn't really matter in the larger scheme of things.
    Are you shitting me? You're the one who asked my what the difference between 2020 looters and yesterday's idiots is. Then when I tell you, you accuse me of shifting the argument... in the fucking direction you took me.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  41. #8066
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I stopped watching that link when he emphasised the word "INVASION".

    Biased news source. Not reliable information.
    I agree Scarborough is pretty hyperbolic in general (though he makes some valid points about wtf the authorities were doing).

    I hope that makes you feel better Ong.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  42. #8067
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It was both. It was clearly planned, but once inside it was basically tourism. There was no plan beyond "occupy Capitol".
    A fair proportion probably thought they had no chance of getting inside, and once they were let in they had no idea what to do. So they walked around and took selfies.

    That woman who got shot though was clearly trying to break in by climbing thru a broken window. It's not obvious what part of the building that happened in, but there were a bunch of them with her trying to get to somewhere they obviously weren't welcome. Pretty sure that's considered trespassing. Not sure who broke the window, but most likely it was the Trumpers.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    No, oskar pointed out that the rioters were a small percentage of the overall protesters, and that looting was never the goal. That isn't distinguishing between government and civilian targets, which is what you asked me to clarify. You're point blank refusing to acknowledge such a distinction exists, presumably because you don't want to have to admit that occupying a building is not as bad as burning shops down.
    Again you're still arguing about something that doesn't really matter in the big scheme of things. This isn't a nuanced discussion about the subtleties of property law. It's about people going into the Capitol building to fuck with the election process.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Are you shitting me? You're the one who asked my what the difference between 2020 looters and yesterday's idiots is. Then when I tell you, you accuse me of shifting the argument... in the fucking direction you took me.
    You're right I should have ignored it as irrelevant the first time you brought it up. There you go, I agreed with you twice in one day now, mark your calendar.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  43. #8068
    Lol, they're impeaching him again.




    Just put a bullet in him already and get it over with.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  44. #8069
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    9,546
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Just to follow up, there was talk of weapons and bombs among the misguided idiots who stormed the Capitol building, but what I've heard since is that stuff was minimal and the bombs were in the city of Washington DC, but I haven't heard them linked to this particular act of stupidity.

    I've heard of a handful of people who were arrested for having a firearm in the capitol building, but not any stories of any of them drawing their firearms. They had them, the police noticed, and arrested those people.

    I've heard those who entered the building described as violent, but I personally think that's hyperbole. Sure, the act of entering the building and house chambers uninvited is aggressive, and perhaps violent under a legal definition (IDK), but I see no evidence that anyone who entered the capitol was there to harm or kill anyone.

    Time will tell, I suppose, but even if it comes out that a couple people were there to cause violence or widespread destruction, the truth is almost certainly that was not the intent of 99% of the people present in that event.


    I really don't expect a 2nd impeachment, though I think it's wholly appropriate. Biden is not calling for any further censuring of Trump, and is talking about healing the nation, and seems to think allowing the million scandals of Trump to be swept under the rug is going to be a good thing for the office of POTUS.
    I don't get that. What the hell, Biden? What are you planning to do in the next 4 years that you're afraid to set a precedent by proving the American president is not above the law?
    You can find any pattern you want to any level of precision you want, if you're prepared to ignore enough data.
  45. #8070
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    I really don't expect a 2nd impeachment, though I think it's wholly appropriate. Biden is not calling for any further censuring of Trump, and is talking about healing the nation, and seems to think allowing the million scandals of Trump to be swept under the rug is going to be a good thing for the office of POTUS.
    I don't get that. What the hell, Biden? What are you planning to do in the next 4 years that you're afraid to set a precedent by proving the American president is not above the law?
    This is the problem I think. If they don't come down hard on Trump and the DC goons (granted most of them were "peaceful" inasmuch as it is possible to be while you storm the Capitol building), it just sends the message that this kind of thing is acceptable. It's also a puss move by the Ds because it effectively says it's fine that you (Trump) gassed and shot rubber bullets and drove cars into actual peaceful protesters and bullied them out of the way for your little Church photo-op, but when your side does something bordering on sedition which you incited them to do, we just want to "heal the nation." I say fuck off to that, throw the book at all of them, especially Trump.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  46. #8071
    The problem with trying to be Ned Flanders to Trump and the R's Homer Simpson is that you just invite them to keep walking all over you.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  47. #8072
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,678
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    When you bring a weapon to a robbery it doesn't matter whether you were intending to use it or not, it's armed robbery in the eyes of the law. I think those who brought guns, pipe bombs, molotov cocktails, and zip tie cuffs into the halls of congress are positively fucked. I know Trump stacked the judiciary with maga fret boys, but this might be a little much even for them.

    Five people died including a police officer, the circumstances are not entirely clear, but that's not what happens at your usual peaceful protest.
    I'm waiting for information come in, which is slow since they only made 13 arrests initially and are now on a manhunt based on video evidence.

    It might end up being a lot worse than it looks as well. DC police chief says there was no intelligence that suggested additional security was needed on the 6th, which is a transparent lie. The pentagon limited the deployment of police, national guard, and the use of riot gear on the date. I believe it was the head of the national guard who said in a public statement they repeatedly informed DC they were ready to deploy and were told to stand down until hours after the breach. He also called for Trump to resign or be removed. With a number of Trump officials currently resigning this could turn into a full blown trial on sedition... but that's just speculation at this point.

    The yallqaeda that stormed the capitol is obviously simply the most gullible of Trump's circle and their information is limited to whatever Trump is telling them. The bigger legal challenges will be faced by those who paved the way for them.
    I think prosecution should throw the book at all of them, but I wouldn't be surprised about any outcome from no charges filed to 20+ years for some of them.
    Last edited by oskar; 01-08-2021 at 11:31 AM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  48. #8073
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    When you bring a weapon to a robbery it doesn't matter whether you were intending to use it or not, it's armed robbery in the eyes of the law. I think those who brought guns, molotov cocktails, and zip tie cuffs into the halls of congress are positively fucked. I know Trump stacked the judiciary with maga fret boys, but this might be a little much even for them.


    Five people died including a police officer, the circumstances are not entirely clear, but that's not what happens at your usual peaceful protest.
    I'm waiting for information come in, which is slow since they only made 13 arrests initially and are now on a manhunt based on video evidence.
    Yup. Just because Trump's goons were an inchoherent rabble who didn't go thru with the worst of their plans doesn't mean they were "peaceful" by any stretch.





    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    It might end up being a lot worse than it looks as well. DC police chief says there was no intelligence that suggested additional security was needed on the 6th, which is a transparent lie. The pentagon limited the deployment of police, national guard, and the use of riot gear on the date. I believe it was the head of the national guard who said in a public statement they repeatedly informed DC they were ready to deploy and were told to stand down until hours after the breach. With a number of Trump officials currently resigning this could turn into a full blown trial on sedicion... but that's just speculation on this point.
    One can't help but wonder who gave them that order to stand down and what their motive was. If it was one of these Trump cliquers that basically means they had the whole thing mapped out in advance.

    I heard a rumour as well that Trump initially refused to call in the NG, and it was Pence who called them in. That is suspiciously consistent with the whole deliberately letting it happen theory.





    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    The yallqaeda that stormed the capitol is obviously simply the most gullible of Trump's circle and their information is limited to whatever Trump is telling them. The bigger legal challenges will be faced by those who paved the way for them.
    You have to wonder why it's so hard for people to connect the dots here. There's the Trump rally where he tells them to go march on the Capitol, attended by thousands of yallqaeda (lol at that name), there's the Rs in the Capitol protesting the state results with no actual chance of it ever succeeding, and then you have the NG being kept on a leash for hours.

    At the very least it would seem this was orchestrated to happen so as to cause a big stink and encourage right wing paranoia for 2024 by encouraging doubt in the legitimacy of the election results.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  49. #8074
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,678
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Found it:


    This was tough to find... wtf.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  50. #8075
    So it was the Sec. of Defense that asked them to stand down (Esper). Don't know anything about that guy. Then the Sec. Army called them in.

    Wtf was Esper thinking? How do you say "no we're good" when there's an angry mob at the Capitol? That seems pretty fishy to me...
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  51. #8076
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,678
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Esper was fired after he opposed deploying troops against BLM protestors. He was replaced by a former defense contractor last november who made the news by blocking the Biden transition and also breaking the longstanding guideline to not put ex-military in that position. The acting SoD was put in as a last minute loyalist to repeat the show of removing troops from Afghanistan prior to the election and then obviously put them back. Same dance they did about 2 years ago. Biden's pick is also ex-military... just so nobody thinks I have any delusions about Biden's foreign policy going forward.
    Last edited by oskar; 01-08-2021 at 02:07 PM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  52. #8077
    Ah ok. Not too surprised it was a Trump toady who took the job.

    There's also the question of who gave the order to open the fencing and let them in.

    https://twitter.com/cevansavenger/st...310867968?s=20

    Was it just a case of the cops at the scene being MAGA sympathizers? Seems like a pretty big risk to take if your job is to protect the building and you are on film opening the gates for the mob.

    Edit: Looking at the video again, maybe it was a strategic retreat. There was already a bunch of MAGAtards behind them at the time they opened it.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 01-08-2021 at 02:27 PM.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  53. #8078
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,678
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    85% of cops are Trump supporters. It probably was just a combination of them being deliberately understaffed by leadership and them not wanting to hurt Trump supporters. There's never an email going around saying "we're doing coup, pls everyone assist in the coup... this is punishable by death, but we're confident we got this!"
    What Trump did was as explicit as you can get. "They're stealing the election from you ... you have to show strength!" Don Jr "Do you want to be a hero or do you want to be a zero [sic]" Rudy Giuliani calls for "trial by combat"...
    You can be sure they're reading their fan fiction, so they know exactly what the crowd was expecting.

    Anyway... this just in... I have run out of superlatives to describe how monumentally stupid I think these people are two years ago, and even I am floored by how far they manage to limbo under my expectations.

    WTF:


    https://thedonald.win/p/11RhKLUTAq/u...elieve-trum/c/
    Last edited by oskar; 01-08-2021 at 03:09 PM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  54. #8079
    I mean it's about as believable right now as the theory doing the rounds that Trump is dead and the last speech he did was a deepfake.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  55. #8080
    How long until he's back under another name?

    https://twitter.com/TwitterSafety/st...84877634838528

    Some of the comments from the MAGAtard snowflakes are hilarious too.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  56. #8081
    Coup d'tard theory given credence by NATO intelligence expert.

    https://www.businessinsider.com/trum...21-1?r=US&IR=T

    "The defeated president gives a speech to a group of supporters where he tells them he was robbed of the election, denounces his own administration's members and party as traitors, and tells his supporters to storm the building where the voting is being held," the NATO intelligence official said.

    The French police official said they believed that an investigation would find that someone interfered with the deployment of additional federal law-enforcement officials on the perimeter of the Capitol complex; the official has direct knowledge of the proper procedures for security of the facility.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  57. #8082
    Quote Originally Posted by Poopadoop View Post
    How long until he's back under another name?

    Apparently, not long.

    https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1347740149380214800

    He's so fucking stupid he actually thought they would ban his personal account but let him keep ranting on the others.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  58. #8083
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  59. #8084
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I realise this. But there is a huge difference between the kinds of protest we have seen in the last year. You guys were cheerleading the looting of shops because you agreed with their ideology. But when a group of people who protest an election result on the basis of perceived fraud storm an actual government building, for some reason this isn't cool.

    Setting shops on fire... cool. Storming the Capitol... not cool.

    Like I say, funny. You're blind to your own hypocrisy.

    Let's just make one thing clear... from my pov, it doesn't matter if fraud was committed, what matters is if the people who are protesting believe fraud to have happened. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they do genuinely think so. In that event, they have every right to protest. And I would say, in my humble opinion, that storming Capitol is a better form of protest that looting and setting fire to peoples' businesses.
    You're an idiot.

    MMM, ban me, wag your finger, or whatever, that's your prerogative, but this isn't ad hominem, Ong is trolling or is in fact an idiot.
  60. #8085
    I don't give a fuck if you think I'm an idiot, and you have every right to say it.

    The reaction to this event is far, far greater than the reaction to the riots of 2020. But the riots of 2020 were much more serious.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  61. #8086
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    you have every right to say it.
    In that case, I'd like to add my vote to Boost's.

    More accurately, I think when it comes to politics at least, you switch off the intelligent part of your brain and use only the emotional part. Which kind of does make you an idiot I guess, but one with less of an excuse than those who aren't capable of processing information. You are capable of it, but you choose not to use that capability when it would contradict your beliefs.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  62. #8087
    You say I'm being emotional, when the exact opposite is true. I don't form my political opinions based on emotion, I try to put emotion aside, which is why you consider me a "heartless bastard". I might come across as emotional in my arguing, but that's purely because I can get a little carried away, I can be a little too enthusiastic. That's because I actually have fun debating these topics strongly. But my opinions are not emotional. You guys (and I'll include mojo here) are emotional. You're motivated primarily by your hatred for Trump. I don't carry that burden. I don't hate Trump, or Biden, or Boris, in fact I don't hate anyone. Mojo isn't motivated by hate though, his emotion emerges in his sensitivity, not in his opinions. His emotion is reactive. But yours isn't. It's clear to see when you discuss anything political, whether it's US politics, Brexit, whatever. You have actual contempt for your political opponents, as though having an opinion that differs to you is outright immoral.

    So no, I reject your charge that I am emotional.

    I don't take offence to being called an idiot for a few reasons... One, I definitely can be an idiot sometimes. We all can. Two, the term "idiot" is subjective, someone out there might agree with me and think you're the idiots. And three, I don't take offence to being called names because I'm not sensitive to such things, I grew up when the proverb "sticks and stones" was a valuable lesson for children.

    I think that proverb has changed now to "sticks and stones may break my bones but words will literally kill me".
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  63. #8088
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I don't give a fuck if you think I'm an idiot, and you have every right to say it.

    The reaction to this event is far, far greater than the reaction to the riots of 2020. But the riots of 2020 were much more serious.
    It's also amusing you call me emotional after I post this.

    I mean, I refuse to take offence to name calling, defend boost's right to say it, and then calmly explain why I have a problem with current events in as few words as possible. This is probably the least emotional post in this thread. The timing of your comment wasn't great.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  64. #8089
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,678
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    You're an idiot.

    MMM, ban me, wag your finger, or whatever, that's your prerogative, but this isn't ad hominem, Ong is trolling or is in fact an idiot.
    I appreciate that he doesn't run from conflict as most people with his ideology do. Ong is not stupid in the sense that he can reason just fine, but he reasons strictly around his ideology like religious people do. Every information coming in has to be made to fit his image of the world. That results in him being perfectly capable of discussing things that are unimpeded by his ideology, but if the subject clashes with his ideology he ends up sounding like a total mong.

    I remember I called Trump's last days almost beat by beat. I said he wouldn't accept losing the election, and his supporters will stand by him and go crazy. Ong called me a maniac for believing that iirc.
    Now that it's happening, it can't be happening because it doesn't fit his model of the world. So it has to be justifiable, but since it's so unjustifiable, his reasoning can't make sense. He says [you said BLM burning down buildings wasn't bad] (strawman) but now you say [destroying the WH and trying to overthrow government is bad] - therefore the latter is not bad.

    That is nonsense, but you go ahead and try to rationalize the events of Jan 6 if you have to categorically believe them to be good or at least ok, and see what comes out.

    You see the same thing all over right wing media. They either say: those are peaceful protestors, you are crazy for saying they tried to harm anyone... If they do recognize that a coup d'etat is bad, they immediately rationalize it by saying: It was Antifa doing it!
    Last edited by oskar; 01-10-2021 at 04:57 AM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  65. #8090
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,214
    Location
    Finding my game
    Just a little good ol' ignorance. I absolutely don't think ong is an idiot, even though he's acting like one. Oskar's theory is compelling.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  66. #8091
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar
    but he reasons strictly around his ideology like religious people do.
    I don't think I do, I think you guys do. I suspect that if the BLM mob were merely occupying buildings, you'd be arguing that this kind of protest is acceptable. Your problem isn't that they occupied the Capitol, it's that you don't agree with their reasons for doing so.

    When BLM were going crazy, my problem was with the looting and the fighting with cops. It was widespread, across the country, and not the kind of behaviour I'd want to see from the left or right. I'm pretty sure I would have said things along the lines of "if they were attacking police stations then I can at least support that" but they were hitting shops and creating misery for normal people. That isn't what happened in DC though. What happened in DC was an occupation, basically mass trespass.

    but if the subject clashes with his ideology he ends up sounding like a total mong.
    I'm not going to lie, I find it incredibly refreshing to see an ultra-leftie like yourself using language like "mong". You'd get cancelled for this on Twitter. Hi five.

    I remember I called Trump's last days almost beat by beat. I said he wouldn't accept losing the election, and his supporters will stand by him and go crazy. Ong called me a maniac for believing that iirc.
    I think we all predicted this. Only, I would have been more on the fence about it in the sense that I would have anticipated the integrity of the election being the reason it wasn't a simple transition. I certainly predicted his supporters would not react in the same way Clinton's did four years ago, it's far too early to say if that prediction is accurate or not because Clinton's supporters made noise for four fucking years. I still think that when Biden takes office, Trump's supporters will focus their attention on the next election. But maybe there's more to come. The fact that, at least from the pov of the right, the issue of election fraud is still subject to debate means it's not so easy to predict what will happen next, but I think the vast majority of people are starting to accept that Trump never had any proof, will not get any proof, and without proof there is no justification for continued protest once Biden takes office.

    He says [you said BLM burning down buildings wasn't bad] (strawman) but now you say [destroying the WH and trying to overthrow government is bad] - therefore the latter is not bad.
    Trying to overthrow government is not necessarily bad. To take that away from people is dangerous, and I'm surprised you guys don't see that. When it's a challenge to democracy it's a different story. If I was 100% certain Biden won fair and square, I'd find it a lot harder to justify recent events. But it's not that clear cut. If these people genuinely think democracy has been stolen from them, and they do think that, then they are justified in taking action.

    They didn't try to overthrow the govt though. They walked into a building and then left before bedtime. That isn't an attempt to overthrow a government. It's an act of mass rebellion. And they didn't destroy the Capitol (not the WH). Not even close. The British had a go at that in 1814 when they set fire to it, but even that didn't destroy it. It took four years to restore it. The "damage" done to it the other day will take less time to fix than it did to break.

    You see the same thing all over right wing media. They either say: those are peaceful protestors, you are crazy for saying they tried to harm anyone... If they do recognize that a coup d'etat is bad, they immediately rationalize it by saying: It was Antifa doing it!
    I have deliberately avoided mentioning Antifa in this discussion, because any accusation they were involved is highly tenuous. It wouldn't surprise me, but it's not something I'm going to put forward as an argument.

    They were peaceful protesters. And this wasn't a coup. I addressed that. A coup seeks to overthrow an existing government. Even if they were trying to stop Biden from taking office, that isn't a coup. But ok it's not far off, same shit different word. But I reject that as the purpose. If they wanted to stop Biden taking office, then it would have been violent, they wouldn't have been joking around, they wouldn't have given up the position they had.

    I've seen worse at football matches. That isn't hyperbole.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  67. #8092
    The word being banded about at the moment is "insurrection". I'll be honest, I had to look that word up.

    an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.
    Does anyone here think this should be a crime?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  68. #8093
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,214
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I don't think I do, I think you guys do. I suspect that if the BLM mob were merely occupying buildings, you'd be arguing that this kind of protest is acceptable. Your problem isn't that they occupied the Capitol, it's that you don't agree with their reasons for doing so.
    I realize you truly believe that, but at least for me it's just not true. It's about the symbolism of occupying the congress building. I'm against each and every broken window caused by anyone BLM-adjacent, but these things are just entirely on different levels of significance. One is run of the mill vandalism, the other is a semi-orchestrated attempt to influence the election process. If you fail to see the difference there, you might want to analyze your own views on the reasons for these events.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  69. #8094
    CoccoBill's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,214
    Location
    Finding my game
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    The word being banded about at the moment is "insurrection". I'll be honest, I had to look that word up.



    Does anyone here think this should be a crime?
    _o/

    Voicing your opinion is fine, forcing others to succumb to it is not.
    Our brains have just one scale, and we resize our experiences to fit.

  70. #8095
    Quote Originally Posted by cocco
    It's about the symbolism of occupying the congress building
    I don't really understand why that's an issue. For me, such an occupation makes a bigger statement than anything else I can think of.

    One is run of the mill vandalism, the other is a semi-orchestrated attempt to influence the election process.
    Run-of-the-mill vandalism? No, graffiti is run-of-the-mill vandalism. Looting is a serious crime. And I don't think anyone who entered the Capitol seriously expected to "interfere" with the election process. I doubt anyone thought this would stop Biden getting into office. That wasn't the motivation.

    Voicing your opinion is fine, forcing others to succumb to it is not.
    This doesn't seem to be a logical reply to my comment. I mean, I agree with this, which is why I hate the mostly-left thing of cancelling people due to their opinion.

    However, I asked if rebelling against the govt should be a crime. I'm an emphatic "no".
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  71. #8096
    1. In the weeks following the election that he loses, the ex-POTUS repeatedly calls it a fraud and claims that he really won, and that the sacred democractic rights of his supporters are being trampled on by dark forces. He calls on his political allies to join him in disputing the results, and for his VP to refuse to certify them. During this same time, the fraud narrative is repeated on social media and right-wing groups prepare to go to the Capitol on Jan. 6 at the ex-POTUS' behest.

    2. On the day the election is being certified, the ex-POTUS holds a rally near to the Capitol building to decry the results of the election. He encourages his supporters to march on the Capitol building where that election is being ratified, and fight for their rights. His minions use language like "be a hero or a zero" (don Jr. )and "trial by combat" (Rudy).

    To be clear, 1 and 2 above alone are encouraging sedition no matter what happens after that. The entire Trump clique should be in jail right now, and in most countries they would be.

    3. Leading up to that day, Capitol security is aware problems are brewing and asks for help from the National Guard. The acting Sec. Defense refuses that help, making himself complicit in the events that follow.

    4. After the ex-POTUS holds his rally the mob goes to the Capitol building and overwhelms the security forces, breaking into the building (trespassing) and then doing damage (vandalism), including one taking a shit inside someone's office, and stealing items (looting). The elected officials inside are forced to retreat to a basement for their own safety.

    5. Trying to enter a secure area, the mob are filmed smashing windows and in another area, pinning a security guard in the door frame. Security at this point has barricaded the door, and when a member of the mob tries to enter through a broken window, she gets killed. One police officer is also killed by someone swinging a fire extinguisher, and three other members of the mob die (one apparently from accidentally tasering himself in the balls and giving himself a heart attack).

    6. Finally the National Guard is called in and the mob is removed. Among the items recovered are pipe bombs and a noose.


    There's no doubt in my mind that Trump and his henchmen tried to stage a coup. The mob were his weapon, and whether the members of said mob were serious about trying to overthrow the gov't, just a bunch of MAGA-tards who thought it'd be fun to bust up the Capitol and stick it to the man, or both, is an open question.

    But calling them a group of "peaceful" protestors who did nothing worse than "occupy a gov't building" is something only an idiot would say. It's kinda dumb to say that at first when the facts aren't in yet, but when the facts come in and you keep sticking to that argument, you are indeed an idiot.
    Last edited by Poopadoop; 01-09-2021 at 07:49 PM.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  72. #8097
    Does anyone remember when Wuf used to spend all his free time reading r_thedonald and Scott Adams, and then would come here and try to tell us Trump was a 3D chess grandmaster? I suspect something similar is going on here with Ong - I'll bet he's exposing himself to a lot of right-wing "alternative facts" on twitter about Trump, Brexit, and the like and because they fit his worldview, he accepts them in lieu of the truths we try to explain to him.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  73. #8098
    I'll bet he's exposing himself to a lot of right-wing "alternative facts"
    Incorrect. I'm far too lazy for that. I mean, when did I even say anything that you believe to be an "alternative fact"? I've been quick to point out that many "facts" you state are just your interpretation, you opinion.

    But calling them a group of "peaceful" protestors who did nothing worse than "occupy a gov't building" is something only an idiot would say.
    I think this is idiotic. You say you're in no doubt this was a "coup". So why did they leave without a fight? And while there were certainly isolated incidents of violence, the "mob" weren't violent. I watched multiple streams for hours and saw nothing that I considered to be "violent", other than a woman getting shot by police. Obviously I did not watch everything, and I'm aware a cop died after being attacked with a fire extinguisher, so clearly there was violence. But the protest itself was ridiculously mild compared to what we've seen over the last year. What has made this different is the choice of location for the protest, and the method of protest.

    I think what we saw the other day was a more acceptable form of protest than outright riots and looting. The only question is whether it was justified, and that really does depend on what motivated these people. I believe they think the election was stolen from them, and on that basis I would say the protest was justified. It's irrelevant if it actually was stolen.

    It's kinda dumb to say that at first when the facts aren't in yet, but when the facts come in and you keep sticking to that argument, you are indeed an idiot.
    What facts?

    (one apparently from accidentally tasering himself in the balls and giving himself a heart attack).
    I hope this is a fact.

    6. Finally the National Guard is called in and the mob is removed.
    This isn't a fact. The NG turned up after they had already left the Capitol.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  74. #8099
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Incorrect. I'm far too lazy for that. I mean, when did I even say anything that you believe to be an "alternative fact"? I've been quick to point out that many "facts" you state are just your interpretation, you opinion.
    You continue to express suspicion about the legality of the election, despite us explaining to you repeatedly that all the cases disputing have been thrown out of court as laughable. So where are you getting this idea from? Do you just hear "Trump disputes election" and give him the benefit of the doubt? If so, that's pretty dumb given his record for lying to suit his own ends.

    The argument that there couldn't have been a swing of votes towards Biden when the urban votes were counted was one of your dumb arguments I recall. Another one had something to do with more people voting than in 2012, like that's proof of something. I'm sure there've been others but I can't think of them right now.



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    You say you're in no doubt this was a "coup". So why did they leave without a fight? And while there were certainly isolated incidents of violence, the "mob" weren't violent.
    You obv. didn't read what I said. It was Trump trying to use the mob to carry out the coup. He didn't lead them there himself, and they weren't organised or led by anyone so they had no chance of succeeding. He was telling them to go there and fight for their rights, that the election was a fraud. He refused to agree to the order for the National Guard to go in and restore order. Obviously he wanted shit to really kick off so he could pull some presidental power out of his ass and declare Martial Law or something. Who knows what his idiotic plan was? It wasn't to peacefully hand over power, that's for sure.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I watched multiple streams for hours and saw nothing that I considered to be "violent", other than a woman getting shot by police. Obviously I did not watch everything, and I'm aware a cop died after being attacked with a fire extinguisher, so clearly there was violence. But the protest itself was ridiculously mild compared to what we've seen over the last year. What has made this different is the choice of location for the protest, and the method of protest.
    There's plenty of footage and photos of violence that weren't livestreamed but is now available. There's vidoes of the press being threatened. I already mentioned the cop getting killled, and another cop being squashed in a door frame. Saying it was peaceful because you saw mostly peaceful scenes is ignorant. It was not a love-in by a long way.


    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I think what we saw the other day was a more acceptable form of protest than outright riots and looting.
    Trying to overthrow an election is acceptable? And you accuse us of being biased...



    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I believe they think the election was stolen from them, and on that basis I would say the protest was justified. It's irrelevant if it actually was stolen.
    If you believe something undemocratic has gone on in an election, you go to court and present your evidence to a judge. You don't do that, and when the judge says fuck off you have no evidence, then decide to storm the seat of power, fight with security, steal things, and damage the building, and crack a guard in the head with a fire extinguisher for good measure. You don't bring pipe bombs and a noose.




    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    This isn't a fact. The NG turned up after they had already left the Capitol.
    Reductio ad Subjecto Chango. The impt. thing is the NG showed up late, and only because Pence called them in. Trump and his Sec. Defense refused to do it. That's a smoking gun right there that they were hoping for a coup.
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry
  75. #8100
    What do you think would have happened if those MAGA-tards banging on the door had managed to get past security and string up Pence and Pelosi? Or toss a couple of pipe bombs into a room full of senators?
    I just think we should suspend judgment on Trump until we have all the facts through an inquiry

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •