Cont: Trump’s Coup - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Azrael 5 said:
I see some of the protestors have been arrested,namely guy who sat in Pelosi's chair as one. Just wondering,considering security and police stood back and let them enter what can they be charged with?
Click to expand...

Domestic terrorism.
They could also get ten years under that executive order that Trump himself signed to punish people defacing Federal monuments and property. He thought it was something he could use to lock up BLM protesters but hilariously it will end up incarcerating his own mob.
 
Darat said:
What a clear example of how someone can become a radicalised extremist and a threat, it’s rare that we get to see how it happens.
Click to expand...

Sad journey.
When she joined the Air Force she took an oath (it's the same for all branches of the US Military...same one I took when I joined the US Army) to preserve, protect and defend the Constiution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. SHe ended up being one of those enemies. Tragic.
 
dirtywick said:
whatever point you're trying to make is pretty easily dismissed by calling this a summary execution.
Click to expand...
I concede.
Referring to a killing at the hands of LEO while a crime is being committed (however minor) as an "execution" is such a comically biased term that it destroys the argument that is behind it.

I shall henceforth treat it that way.
 
dudalb said:
And there are reports that Laptops are missing form Pelosi's officed.
This might indeed be espionage. Putin would be happy to pay money to get his hands on those.
Click to expand...

Pelosi said they were seldomly used and merely for presentations.
 
Planigale said:
I haven't seen a picture of her climbing through the window, so I'll accept that she was doing so with an enormous backpack on. Was the thought she had a bomb in the back pack? I do not understand otherwise the association between a back pack and her needing to be shot in the face.
Click to expand...

She was a US Air Force Vet which indicates she had military training in carrying out manoevres. That was no prank her climbing through that window with a back up crowd.
 
Distracted1 said:
Yet so many groups believe they have the absolute, inside scoop on it.
Click to expand...
which doesn’t invalidate anyone knowing the actual truth. You might as well reject evolution as the truth because some other group like creationists think they have the truth. You’re not going to go all postmodern on me now, are you?

Distracted1 said:
To have certainty would require omniscience- which a Forum like this exists (at least originally) in denial of.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about absolute, 100% certainty? But < 100% certainty does not mean you don’t accept that which is 99% surely true.
 
I guess people just weren't on the same page. Everyone had been screaming about overturning the election by force, and some people came prepared for that with zip ties and weapons, but it seems most of them just went there to have some boisterous fun. Shame on the officer for taking them at their word and responding as if they had planned to overturn the election by force.
 
Last edited:
Olmstead said:
I guess people just weren't on the same page. Everyone had been screaming about overturning the election by force, and some people came prepared for that with zip ties and weapons, but it seems most of them just went there to have some boisterous fun. Shame on the officer for taking them at their word and responding as if they had planned to overturn the election by force.
Click to expand...
Indeed. One goes from (mostly peaceful) protestor to (mostly peaceful) rioter when the glass starts getting broken.
 
Darat said:
Look at all those MAGA Civil War 1-6-21 sweatshirts, they are what fans of Marvel films would wear to a premier of the latest Marvel movie. It is like I say above what privilege is all about.
Click to expand...

Everybody at that Save America rally knew that Trump was there to whip up fake claims of election fraud. He was psyching them up like Muhammad Ali before a fight. These people had travelled three thousand miles across America. They were not there to hang about in the rain for four hours.

OK so maybe two-thirds were just Trump fanatics. The hardcore were far right wing survivalists and neo-fascists.

No way were they there for innocent reasons.
 
Planigale said:
I would hope they are sworn to uphold the law, and protect all people regardless of race, sex, religion or job.
Click to expand...

Not the secret service agents. They are there only to defend the senators. Full stop. Period. The job starts and ends there.
 
Planigale said:
I would accept Molotov cocktails as bombs. Were there Molotov cocktails thrown in the capitol? (I'd better go and google that before darat sends me another helpful link.)

ETA
No Molotov cocktails thrown in or at the capitol?
Click to expand...

Writers of The Secret Service Training Manual, please note: a Molotov cocktail must be thrown first before you exercise any defence of your subject.

Personnel MUST wait at least fifteen minutes to see whether a whole mob comes rushing at you before you fire a defence shot.

BY ORDER OF THE MANAGEMENT
 
Vixen said:
She was a US Air Force Vet which indicates she had military training in carrying out manoevres. That was no prank her climbing through that window with a back up crowd.
Click to expand...

As a US Air Force vet myself, I just want to say that just because she was in the military doesn't necessarily mean she's had training in "maneuvers".
I worked in an office, I know squat about "maneuvers".
 
Are you trolling?

Planigale said:
I do recognise that many of these people were armed. I think the second amendment is stupid and this is a direct consequence of the second amendment, indeed one can say this was the justification for the second amendment. But a key thing (one that one can hear in every dubious shooting of a black man by a LEO) "once you draw your weapon like that, you have to defend yourself with deadly force." No, a police officer drawing a weapon does not mean that by merely drawing his weapon he is justified in using it.
Click to expand...

You are the plainclothes officer at the other side of the door.

That woman breaks through.

You do what now?

10 seconds later, while you are doing whatever it is that you think should have been done (instead of stopping her), you have another dozen people who have gone through. What happens now?

Oh, by the way, you have congress folk on the the same side of the door as you are and it's your job to protect them.

Planigale said:
They were not a radical political group
Click to expand...

They are a "group" (loosely speaking) of people radicalized over the last 5 years who had been told by at least 2 people who have the ear of the POTUS that at least one person on the other side of that door needs to be executed by firing squad. Some of them probably have the same mindset as the group who was planning to kidnap the governor of Michigan a while back. They are radicalized people who, in their own incompetent way, thought that they were there to install as president someone who was not elected to the office for the 20th of January. Believing in nonsense can be a dangerous thing (and they do and they are). These are not people on a tour of the grounds.

As it turns out, we now have records of online discussions about bringing restraints and apprehending "traitors". As it turns out, we have photographs of this assault on the Capitol building showing that at least two people were equipped with such restraints (one of them appears have been identified and seems to be ex-military).

Planigale said:
who took hostages and entered into negotiations, they were not political activists who occupied the capitol with a lock in.
Click to expand...

They did not take hostages because they did not gain access to the people who they would have targeted as hostages. They did not gain such access because they were stopped, at that doorway, from entering that hallway (as well as, initially, at the front door of the chamber).

But your argument here seems to be that they should have been allowed in because no one knew that they were not good people?
 
Planigale said:
I think the window was only big enough for one person, (with a large back pack), pepper spraying her or tasering her halfway through effectively blocks the hole?
Click to expand...

You think smashing a thick heavily reinforced window at Capitol in a restricted area and then attempting to scramble through it is an ordinary every day action by any old member of the public?
 
rdaneel said:
As a US Air Force vet myself, I just want to say that just because she was in the military doesn't necessarily mean she's had training in "maneuvers".
I worked in an office, I know squat about "maneuvers".
Click to expand...

Apparently she had training and had duties that involved protecting buildings when she was in the airforce. She probably knew more than most what the reaction to a perimeter being breached entails.
 
cosmicaug said:
Are you trolling?



You are the plainclothes officer at the other side of the door.

That woman breaks through.

You do what now?

10 seconds later, while you are doing whatever it is that you think should have been done (instead of stopping her), you have another dozen people who have gone through. What happens now?

Oh, by the way, you have congress folk on the the same side of the door as you are and it's your job to protect them.



They are a "group" (loosely speaking) of people radicalized over the last 5 years who had been told by at least 2 people who have the ear of the POTUS that at least one person on the other side of that door needs to be executed by firing squad. Some of them probably have the same mindset as the group who was planning to kidnap the governor of Michigan a while back. They are radicalized people who, in their own incompetent way, thought that they were there to install as president someone who was not elected to the office for the 20th of January. Believing in nonsense can be a dangerous thing (and they do and they are). These are not people on a tour of the grounds.

As it turns out, we now have records of online discussions about bringing restraints and apprehending "traitors". As it turns out, we have photographs of this assault on the Capitol building showing that at least two people were equipped with such restraints (one of them appears have been identified and seems to be ex-military).



They did not take hostages because they did not gain access to the people who they would have targeted as hostages. They did not gain such access because they were stopped, at that doorway, from entering that hallway (as well as, initially, at the front door of the chamber).

But your argument here seems to be that they should have been allowed in because no one knew that they were not good people?
Click to expand...
Your argument seems to be that killing her was done as a way to set an example to the other people who might have attempted to follow her through the window. Further, since there were bad actors about, it was possible that she was planning more than what she already was doing (trespassing).

That is putting a whole lot of decision making latitude into the hands of the LEO, no?

Not that I am necessarily against that, it just has not been the predominant sentiment on this Forum for some time now.
 
Vixen said:
The dolt was interviewed in a video and his acute moronity is revealed when he brags he left her a message saying, 'here's your quarter you bitch'.
Click to expand...

I hope they tack "attempted bribery of a public official" into the list of charges.
 
Distracted1 said:
I concede.
Referring to a killing at the hands of LEO while a crime is being committed (however minor) as an "execution" is such a comically biased term that it destroys the argument that is behind it.

I shall henceforth treat it that way.
Click to expand...

Again another lie - you’ve made it clear in the threads that have got under your skin so much you want to paint your false equivalency in this thread - that you disagree with that use of the word.

So you are not only lying multiple times but being a hypocrite when you do so.
 
As riot raged at Capitol, Trump tried to call senators to overturn election

President Donald Trump and his attorney Rudy Giuliani both mistakenly made calls to Republican Sen. Mike Lee as deadly riots were unfolding at the US Capitol earlier this week, a spokesman for the senator confirmed to CNN -- calls that were intended for another GOP senator the White House was frantically trying to convince to delay the counting of Electoral College votes.

[...]

"Sen. Tuberville? Or I should say Coach Tuberville. This is Rudy Giuliani, the President's lawyer," he said according to to the transcript.

"I'm calling you because I want to discuss with you how they're trying to rush this hearing and how we need you, our Republican friends, to try to just slow it down so we can get these legislatures to get more information to you," Giuliani said, referring to unfounded claims of voter fraud in the presidential election.

"I know they're reconvening at 8 tonight, but it ... the only strategy we can follow is to object to numerous states and raise issues so that we get ourselves into tomorrow -- ideally until the end of tomorrow."

[...]
Click to expand...
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/01/08/...ville-trump-misdialed-capitol-riot/index.html
 
Last edited:
Distracted1 said:
Your argument seems to be that killing her was done as a way to set an example to the other people who might have attempted to follow her through the window. Further, since there were bad actors about, it was possible that she was planning more than what she already was doing (trespassing).

That is putting a whole lot of decision making latitude into the hands of the LEO, no?

Not that I am necessarily against that, it just has not been the predominant sentiment on this Forum for some time now.
Click to expand...

Multiple lies this time.
 
Darat said:
Apparently she had training and had duties that involved protecting buildings when she was in the airforce. She probably knew more than most what the reaction to a perimeter being breached entails.
Click to expand...

Ah, ok, I hadn't seen anything on that. It just looked to me like an assumption was being made that being in the military automatically meant she had special training.
 
Planigale said:
Thank you. I am unable to access that link as it seems to be behind a paywall. I take your point, that she was shot because others might come through. Did any others? Was there no alternative? Maybe the officer did not have a taser or pepper spray or a baton or handcuffs.

I'll stick with the killing people is wrong view. Even if there was no alternative, it is not something to celebrate. She did not deserve to be shot in the face. This was a sad event, to be regretted, even if there was no other option.
Click to expand...

I know you don't have the advantage of living here, but it ought to be clear from the video of the shooting that a mob was at the window/door and only a few cops were on the other side. She was told to back off as told by other people on her side of the door, i.e. witnesses on the mob side.

She ignored the warning from armed police who were just a couple feet away at most. I don't think that's the time to try to taser someone. Tasers are very useful when handled properly. But there's no guarantee it will stop someone leading a mob through a window. Same with pepper spray.

The cop had no other options. It seems you get that.

But if you want to express sadness over this death, it shouldn't start with the cop. It should start with the irresponsible people spreading the lies which led to the woman's beliefs that led her there.
 
Last edited:
Distracted1 said:
Exactly!!!
It is the essence of hypocrisy to shed tears over unarmed people being shot while in the act of breaking the Law, then celebrate the death of this poor woman who was summarily executed for trespassing.
Click to expand...

While it is true that there have been some people in this forum celebrating the death of this poor woman, most of us are not celebrating.

Moreover, she was not shot because she was trespassing. She was shot because the policeman who shot her perceived her to be a threat to the Congressmen in the House chamber. We who support his action believe that his threat assessment was reasonable and his actions justified.
 
jimbob said:
This guy probably just had a nerf gun on his hip, and the zipties were just for a bit of light kidnapping.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=43938&thumb=1&d=1610132096[/qimg]
Click to expand...

YKINMKBYKIOK
 
Distracted1 said:
Your argument seems to be that killing her was done as a way to set an example to the other people who might have attempted to follow her through the window.
Click to expand...
Nothing in the post you quoted makes that argument, not even a little bit. She was breaking through a barrier between the mob and the mob's targets. She did so in the full knowledge that the guards had guns and were ready to use them.
Further, since there were bad actors about, it was possible that she was planning more than what she already was doing (trespassing).
Click to expand...
She was a bad actor. Are you arguing that she was legally entitled to pass this barrier and those guarding it? That she was somehow separate from the mob behind her? If so, you're beyond wrong, well into an alternate reality.
That is putting a whole lot of decision making latitude into the hands of the LEO, no?

Not that I am necessarily against that, it just has not been the predominant sentiment on this Forum for some time now.
Click to expand...

I know you love the idea of exposing some profound hypocrisy, but you're doomed to failure. Even the most strident anti-cop liberal can see the difference between killing an unarmed citizen in the street and killing an unarmed citizen who is part of a mob directly attacking our elected government.

But keep trolling trying! I'm sure you're enjoying baiting us with nonsense.
 
dudalb said:
Which is good news. SOme of laptops much have had sensative data on it.
Click to expand...
And hopefully a laptop with sensitive data on it has that behind a password. Though I can't say I have confidence they understand that yet in the government.
 
Olmstead said:
I guess people just weren't on the same page. Everyone had been screaming about overturning the election by force, and some people came prepared for that with zip ties and weapons, but it seems most of them just went there to have some boisterous fun. Shame on the officer for taking them at their word and responding as if they had planned to overturn the election by force.
Click to expand...

Magical think that if they stop a ritual procedure it would somehow make Biden not elected.
 
Vixen said:
OK so maybe two-thirds were just Trump fanatics. The hardcore were far right wing survivalists and neo-fascists.

No way were they there for innocent reasons.
Click to expand...



There's a reason the concept of "useful idiots" is so common in revolutionary groups. They're basically volunteer human shields who are too stupid to realize that they are the human shields. While the loudmouth yahoos are running around attracting all the attention, the serious guys are moving about with purpose and intent, and if things go bad, they fade back into the cover of the mob.
 
Planigale said:
No, I don't. Now I do. I have seen a few stills and no videos. Sometimes the facts prove that one is wrong. The initial pictures I saw looked like only a few people. I have watched no news broadcast in the last 48 hours. I have seen some pics in papers and some from last night on the BBC website. My download speeds mean I avoid streaming. You would be justified in saying that I am foolish to express an opinion if I am ignorant of the facts. You could be helpful and inform me of the facts. But you would be wrong to assume because you know something I know something. You would be utterly wrong and in breach of the forum rules (or potentially the winner of a $1,000,000 prize) to claim to know what I know.
Click to expand...

"I commented about something that I do not know jack **** about" is great defense. And later I see a lot more of lying, like "They were not a radical political group". Great trolling, btw.

Darat said:
Another lie.
Do you not realise how obvious your lies are?
Click to expand...

Of course. He is trolling.
 
rdaneel said:
As a US Air Force vet myself, I just want to say that just because she was in the military doesn't necessarily mean she's had training in "maneuvers".
I worked in an office, I know squat about "maneuvers".
Click to expand...

US Army vet and we made jokes about the lack of basic infantry skills in the Navy and Air Force..though I understand that the AF actually does have some infanty training in their Basic nowdays.
 
As Riot Raged At Capitol, Trump Tried To Call Senators To Overturn Election by Sunlen Serfaty

Lee picked up the phone and Trump identified himself, and it became
clear he was looking for Tuberville and had been given the wrong number.
Lee, keeping the President on hold, went to find his colleague and handed
Tuberville his phone, telling him the President was on the line and had been
trying to reach him.

Tuberville spoke with Trump for less than 10 minutes, with the President
trying to convince him to make additional objections to the Electoral College
vote in a futile effort to block Congress' certification of President-elect Joe
Biden's win, according to a source familiar with the call. The call was cut
off because senators were asked to move to a secure location.
Click to expand...


******* classic!

SNL skit anyone.
 
Darat said:
Again another lie - you’ve made it clear in the threads that have got under your skin so much you want to paint your false equivalency in this thread - that you disagree with that use of the word.

So you are not only lying multiple times but being a hypocrite when you do so.
Click to expand...
I am reverting to a previously held position.
One that the poster I was responding to seems to agree with.
The use of the term "execution" in instances such as the one being discussed is wrong, unfounded, and indicative of a bias that blinds one from making a reasoned argument.

Neither dishonest, nor hypocritical. In spite of your unfounded accusations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom