-->
@Swagnarok
Former President Donald Trump defended rioters' chants of "hang Mike Pence" during the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, saying it was understandable because they were angry the election was stolen.
Why as someone that hates Jan 6, is considering voting for Trump
Posts
Total:
79
-->
@Sidewalker
we could send out some drag queens and a few transvestites and they would run away screaming in terror.
So an antifa rally?
-->
@Greyparrot
Sure. Now go arrest him.
So you support the Jack Smith trial as well. Good to know.
So now that we agree on that much, are you going to stop pretending that the left's attempt to hold Trump accountable in accordance with the constitution amounts to some kind of declaration of war against Trump supporters?
-->
@Double_R
I won't support Jack Smith until he charges Trump for insurrection.
-->
@Greyparrot
I won't support Jack Smith until he charges Trump for insurrection.
Are you implying that the standard in order to exercise the 14th amendment is to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law by a unanimous jury vote of 12-0?
Also, since you missed the actual point:
So now that we agree on that much, are you going to stop pretending that the left's attempt to hold Trump accountable in accordance with the constitution amounts to some kind of declaration of war against Trump supporters?
-->
@Double_R
Are you implying that the standard in order to exercise the 14th amendment is to be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law by a unanimous jury vote of 12-0?
I would be perfectly happy with a criminal charge at this point. That way, the left can stop pretending Trump is an insurrectionist.
I would be perfectly happy with a criminal charge at this point.
Of course you would. I’m sure you don’t think Jefferson Davis was insurrectionist either because he was never charged.
Jefferson Davis was indicted, which means he was formally accused or charged with treason.
-->
@Greyparrot
Like I said, the Biden ad was purposely deceitful.
No; it was against the Jan 6 protestors, not against all Trump supporters.
Now, if you did invade the Jan 6 capital, then yeah; you are a piece of shit.
But that probably isn't the case.
-->
@ILikePie5
I don't know much about Haley other than she's a generic republican who is very pro war. I don't like war.
If it's Biden vs Rand Paul, I would easily vote for Rand Paul.
-->
@Sidewalker
I don't know about that, you give a real American a gun with only two bullets and put them in a room with Hitler, Mussolini, and Trump, they will shoot Trump twice.
Nope; they would spare Trump, kill the rest.
-->
@Double_R
The government failed to anticipate the size of the threat, that will not happen next time.
That's a good point; nobody was predicting the original Jan 6; now they would though; so it certainly won't be successful if Biden wins in 2024.
-->
@TheUnderdog
Jan 6 was not done by half the country; just the Jan 6 protestors that entered the white house.
It was left-wing insurrectionists who entered the white house, and it was before Jan 6 2021. I can't believe in three pages no one corrected you.
I agree with you; Jan 6 was terrorism.
It was the opposite. You've been subverted. The definition of "terrorism" given in modern dictionaries implies that every revolution was an act of terror.
Violence for political change is not "terrorism" it's as old as time and the origin of almost every nation-state including the United States of America.
Terrorism used to mean "violence targeting the general populace (or most innocent) for the purpose of disrupting civilized life through fear". You know, like 9/11.
There is a better argument that the Dresden bombings or the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in WW2 were terrorism than unarmed people attacking their own government building.
Trying to terrify purported tyrants has no meaningful difference from freedom-fighting. Governments should be terrified of popular uprisings. Things are better that way.
In Seattle where a section of the city was declared (by the insurrectionists) to no longer be part of the United States of America, that was sedition. It was not terrorism. When they attacked a federal court house that was political violence and revolutionary activity, it was not terrorism. When they firebombed random people's shops and cars and shot people for wearing a MAGA cap. That was terrorism.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It was left-wing insurrectionists who entered the white house, and it was before Jan 6 2021.
Nope. It was MAGA republicans.
Violence for political change is not "terrorism"
This is incorrect.
You know, like 9/11.
9/11 was violence done for political change; to get America to stop invading the middle east.
When they attacked a federal court house that was political violence and revolutionary activity, it was not terrorism. When they firebombed random people's shops and cars and shot people for wearing a MAGA cap. That was terrorism.
All of that is terrorism.
But if you believe the following 3 quotes:
It was left-wing insurrectionists who entered the white house
I agree with you; Jan 6 was terrorism.It was the opposite.
Governments should be terrified of popular uprisings
I think it's a contradiction, unless you believe that the government should be terrified of left wing uprisings but that Jan 6 was not a left wing uprising (even though you said from the 1st quote that Jan 6 was done by left wingers).
This is what happens when you just support the current thing (yes; the right has their own current things as well).
But I don't expect to change your mind because you have a party to stick too; my mind is free.
-->
@TheUnderdog
It was left-wing insurrectionists who entered the white house, and it was before Jan 6 2021.Nope. It was MAGA republicans.
This is incorrect.
Violence for political change is not "terrorism"This is incorrect.
I reject that definition as it is subverted.
You know, like 9/11.9/11 was violence done for political change; to get America to stop invading the middle east.
All trees are plants, but not all plants are trees.
When they attacked a federal court house that was political violence and revolutionary activity, it was not terrorism. When they firebombed random people's shops and cars and shot people for wearing a MAGA cap. That was terrorism.All of that is terrorism.
When a word means everything it becomes useless. In the same way that the trans lobby attempts to capture "gender discrimination" to wield cultural and legal power, those who use the word "terrorism" in this way are attempting to annex the negative reaction to the word by redefining it knowing that the emotional baggage will echo for a time.
If violence for a political aim is terrorism then some terrorism is good. Such as the terrorism that freed the world from feudalism and ended slavery in most of the world.
Between the options of accepting the subverted definition and having to fight an uphill battle with people who feel more than they think I choose to reject the subverted definition.
I think it's a contradiction, unless you believe that the government should be terrified of left wing uprisings but that Jan 6 was not a left wing uprising
There is no contradiction to speak of. Jan 6 was not terrorism and neither was the attack on the whitehouse. Attacking the government is never terrorism and government buildings qualify as "the government".
The government should be afraid of popular uprisings in general. The existence of popular uprisings at all means (in most cases) there is a serious problem that was created by government incompetence or malice.
In a democratic republic if any significant number of people are motivated to travel thousands of miles to attack a government building that means power has become too centralized. I do not think the theory of the founders is perfect, but that is their theory and why they explicitly wanted the population to be a dangerous factor in the estimation of any level of government.
Democracies are stable only so long as people believe a ballot works better than a bullet. The founds knew that, and it is a fact. So regardless of who is right morally or practically correct if you want the system to persist as intended without collapsing into a facade over some form of centralized tyranny you want governments to be terrified of popular uprisings and to respond to popular uprisings by decentralizing (in the case of the USA power back to the states, if it happens at a state level power back to the counties, etc.. etc...)
The CHOP was sedition, but sedition should be allowed. Washington state and the city of Seattle should never have been put into the position where they think their problems come from over 3000km away in DC. Trump was asked to declare CHOP an insurrection and send in the military. He did not. He was acting in accordance to the plan of the founders by deciding that whatever his motivations.
Calling it all terrorism and locking people up for protesting is the act of a centralized tyranny and our democracy will not survive it.
(even though you said from the 1st quote that Jan 6 was done by left wingers).
I did not.
But I don't expect to change your mind because you have a party to stick too; my mind is free.
Yet you use subverted definitions and get basic facts wrong. Constrained by the whims of other people is bad, constrained by logic is good.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
All trees are plants, but not all plants are trees.
What's your point?
When a word means everything it becomes useless.
Terrorism doesn't mean everything and I didn't say it did.
In the same way that the trans lobby attempts to capture "gender discrimination" to wield cultural and legal power, those who use the word "terrorism" in this way are attempting to annex the negative reaction to the word by redefining it knowing that the emotional baggage will echo for a time.
I don't believe the Matt Walsh types are terrorists.
If violence for a political aim is terrorism then some terrorism is good. Such as the terrorism that freed the world from feudalism and ended slavery in most of the world.
That's because the victors write the history books. Trump isn't history yet, so whether or not Jan 6 gets viewed as good or not has yet to be seen.
In a democratic republic if any significant number of people are motivated to travel thousands of miles to attack a government building that means power has become too centralized.
Or it means the mainstream media has become too powerful (with Jan 6; the mainstream media was Fox News and OAN).
The government should be afraid of popular uprisings in general.
What a weird way to defend BLM riots!
Jan 6 was not terrorism and neither was the attack on the whitehouse. Attacking the government is never terrorism
What was 9/11 then?
Democracies are stable only so long as people believe a ballot works better than a bullet.
Well, no matter what happens with the 2024 election; there is going to be violence in the streets.
(in the case of the USA power back to the states, if it happens at a state level power back to the counties, etc.. etc...)
What does states right have to do with Jan 6?
The CHOP was sedition, but sedition should be allowed.
I don't like US separatist movements.
(even though you said from the 1st quote that Jan 6 was done by left wingers).I did not.
Your quote responding to me:
Me: Jan 6 was not done by half the country; just the Jan 6 protestors that entered the white house.You: It was left-wing insurrectionists
But I don't expect to change your mind because you have a party to stick too; my mind is free.Yet you use subverted definitions and get basic facts wrong. Constrained by the whims of other people is bad, constrained by logic is good.
I'm constrained by facts and logic. You are constrained by Trump and the mainstream media (FOX and OAN edition).
-->
@TheUnderdog
All trees are plants, but not all plants are trees.What's your point?
Even if all terrorism was violence to affect a political change, that does not mean all violence to affect political change must be terrorism. 9/11 was terrorism because it used innocent people in planes to kill innocent people in private buildings with no conceivable hope of achieving military victory, rather the only possible point was to terrorized the general population.
If they had hijacked military/government planes and smashed them into military/governmental targets it would still be violence to affect a political change but it would no longer be terrorism.
When a word means everything it becomes useless.Terrorism doesn't mean everything and I didn't say it did.
You used a subverted definition that means more than it used to and thus became morally undetermined. The way you use the word, no wrongdoing is logically implied, those who subverted you simply hope that prejudices about the word carry on through momentum.
In the same way that the trans lobby attempts to capture "gender discrimination" to wield cultural and legal power, those who use the word "terrorism" in this way are attempting to annex the negative reaction to the word by redefining it knowing that the emotional baggage will echo for a time.I don't believe the Matt Walsh types are terrorists.
This is a non-sequitur.
If violence for a political aim is terrorism then some terrorism is good. Such as the terrorism that freed the world from feudalism and ended slavery in most of the world.That's because the victors write the history books. Trump isn't history yet, so whether or not Jan 6 gets viewed as good or not has yet to be seen.
Good and evil are objective. More specifically any claim of good and evil that is not objective is useless to discuss. Victors may write history books, but they are not always believed or objectively correct. If your thesis is that all political violence is terrorism until victory at which point it becomes a heroic war, that's a cynical dodge and not at all the point people will take when you say "Jan 6 was terrorism".
In a democratic republic if any significant number of people are motivated to travel thousands of miles to attack a government building that means power has become too centralized.Or it means the mainstream media has become too powerful (with Jan 6; the mainstream media was Fox News and OAN).
Or maybe a religion, mass hysteria, etc... etc... There are plenty of reasons people are angry for no good reason and blame the wrong people. Just because it's not always true doesn't mean it's not generally true.
The government should be afraid of popular uprisings in general.What a weird way to defend BLM riots!
What a non-sequitur. Just because nazis can vote doesn't mean defending democracy is defending nazis.
Jan 6 was not terrorism and neither was the attack on the whitehouse. Attacking the government is never terrorismWhat was 9/11 then?
Terrorism. Attacking the Pentagon was still terrorism because they took a bunch of innocent hostages with them.
Democracies are stable only so long as people believe a ballot works better than a bullet.Well, no matter what happens with the 2024 election; there is going to be violence in the streets.
Most likely, and calling some riots peaceful while calling others terrorism and then locking up everyone you can find on trumped up charges greatly contributed to that probability.
It gives a false sense of security to left-wing rioters and convinces right-wing rioters that there was no point in being unarmed if they'll be treated as if they were armed regardless.
(in the case of the USA power back to the states, if it happens at a state level power back to the counties, etc.. etc...)What does states right have to do with Jan 6?
The people at Jan 6 saw what was happening federally as an unprecedented injustice and threat to their rights. If the federal government wasn't constantly wielding enormous power over education, healthcare, the economy, and the public discourse, there would be no (perceived) life and death struggle for the presidency.
Left-tribers and right-tribers agree that having the wrong president is an existential threat. They have been acting like it was an existential threat for the last decade. That means violence and eventually war.
Abortion, taxes, "DEI", etc.. etc.. all become nationwide issues BECAUSE policy flows from DC. If the supreme court for instance had never centralized power by their original decision in Roe v Wade it would have remained a state issue. Then people would go riot at their state capitols, but not very many of them because states are on average much more unified.
It was the perception that Trump was a looming fascist threat that caused left-tribers to decide that cheating in the election was for the greater good. Although the perception of his racism is indeed manufactured it was manufactured by people getting rich off the enormous money flowing through the federal government.
If DC wasn't a wretched hive of scum and villainy Trump might never have been elected, if he was he would just be a kind of humorous celebrity president who threatened nobody. Furthermore without a hundred three letter agencies under his command, without the FBI to arrest people, unable to deploy troops without an insurrection, he would not have been a threat even if they believed he was evil.
The oval office has become the iron throne, and it was never meant to be that. Everyone is fighting for it because they see it as power to protect themselves and promote their own idea of the good. It is inevitable that people fight for power, but it was meant to be decentralized and democratic so that it was much more difficult to abuse power or mislead people.
The CHOP was sedition, but sedition should be allowed.I don't like US separatist movements.
That doesn't entitle you to mislabel them as terrorists.
Your quote responding to me:
My full quote and the context, emphasis added:
[TheUnderdog] Jan 6 was not done by half the country; just the Jan 6 protestors that entered the white house.[ADOL] It was left-wing insurrectionists who entered the white house, and it was before Jan 6 2021. I can't believe in three pages no one corrected you.[TheUnderdog](even though you said from the 1st quote that Jan 6 was done by left wingers).[ADOL]I did not.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
There you go; keep cheering for your party.
I didn't even read what you said, but I know it's dribble you got from the mainstream media (right wing edition (FOX and OAN)).
Keep on cheering for your party!
-->
@TheUnderdog
I didn't even read what you said
I think you did.
but I know it's dribble you got from the mainstream media (right wing edition (FOX and OAN)).
I don't need FOX and OAN to differentiate between two buildings over two kilometers apart.