I suppose you'll wriggle further and say you meant firearms offences as in gunning down cops or spraying the House chamber with bullets from an AR-15 or something, but I found 2 with a 30 second search on Google.... https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/...and-assaulting-law-enforcement-officers-jan-6 https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/pr/texas-man-sentenced-prison-actions-related-capitol-breach
Trump told of possible criminal charges for paying off Stormy Daniels – report The ex-president has been given a chance to testify next week before a grand jury listening to evidence in the possible case FWIW I really like Stormy Daniels - I'd better clarify that - not her 'work' but how she dealt with interviewers when the Trump story broke. A particular highlight was her interview with Bill Maher opening his Real Time show back in 2018. He attempted, I presume, to 'sl*t-shame' her only discover that she was an incredibly erudite and intelligent woman who totally pwned the ludicrous Maher. I've searched for the full interview but, unsurprisingly, it's not on Maher's various SM pages.
No. That is a good point. But again, I do not think it improves the position of your argument one tiny bit. In fact, given how things turned out, (Security 1 - 0 MAGA) I might suggest that it actually does it more harm by showing there was the capacity to use fire-arms, but, thank goodness, it was not used. Except to kill an unarmed woman (I suppose you are going to tell me she was carrying a stick next) who was not even aware her killer was present in the room. Kind of suggests that it was not the intention, doesn’t it? But then, only two armed men out of a total of 950 arrested in over two years. In America. In DC even, where, in general, it is not illegal to carry a gun. That in itself is a stunning statistic. And whilst you wriggle further in an effort to call this an armed and bloody insurrection, you continue to show just how underwhelming such a claim can be. Are you being serious now?
Regarding the convictions, both of these guys were correctly prosecuted. They represent the people present who have been condemned for their actions. Video footage demonstrates their crimes. Regarding their weapons. One of them, it appears, disarmed himself after entry to the Capitol, which in itself is a wreckless enough and dangerous act (ipso, he should not have been carrying it in the first place) and the other was carrying his loaded weapon throughout. Neither were prosecuted for brandishing a fire-arm. Both, quite rightly, were prosecuted and sentenced for their unacceptable behaviour. Even they did not make use of fire arms to achieve an insurrection.
Is that a record? That is twice a poster has been corrected in a day in the politics section, and they responded respectfully and without insult! They didn’t deny the corrections or double down on their own position regarding incorrect facts. They even said thank you! didn’t ignore the posters who corrected them or slink off for a couple of weeks only to come back as if nothing happened. Isn’t it refreshing. Annoying at the same time for those more negatively inclined (e.g. you lot), but still refreshing. I wonder if more people on here can learn to act in such a mature manner.
It’s only you setting the standard that lots of guns must be required for an organised attempt to violently interfere with the working of Government. That’s rarely the case anywhere in the World, even in Romania for example, when violent overthrow was achieved Clearly, the protestors were not of one mind. Some had well thought out intentions to hurt others and prevent the business of Congress going ahead in recognising Biden’s victory. Others followed a crowd for the rush, whatever, but most knew the purpose was to interrupt by force. Trump directed them to make that interruption on his behalf and was slow to call them to quit when the violence became apparent. And very violent it was. I know its embarrassing for you that you support such a violent and shoddy political direction, but don’t embarrass yourself further by making daft excuses for it.
Your behaviour has been awful for years and you should be banned. This supercilious, self-congratulation fools no one.
What are you talking about? The BLM riots that burned down churches, court houses and police stations? The violent attacks on the police training facility by antifa last week? The guilty, rightly, should be prosecuted. Thankfully, withheld footage is now available showing that the majority of people in the Capitol were not acting violently, were in some cases stopping mysterious but identifiable actors intent on destruction (who have not been arrested or charged) from doing damage, were calling for order and respect, and were being guided around by security. Your reasons for wanting to prevent people from seeing such things is well understood. Now. Seeing as you are questioning my behaviour on here with your usual lack of evidence. Can you explain why it is OK for you to defend any-Semitism whilst smearing others, when you are the only person who has actually done so on the forum? I have been asking for some time now.
Here is a full list of the police and security personel who officially died as a result of the deadly Jan 6 riot... List ends. The Dems will still be blaming it when the officers start dying of old age. "Who knows how much longer they may have lived if they hadn't been subject to Jan 6." And you say it is everyone else that is making up rubbish. You cannot be taken seriously.
Will @iamofwfc deplore this hateful ridiculing of police officers who were injured and subsequently died or took their own lives? Dozens more were injured as we know. Or will he enjoy and join in the ridicule of the Police?
@iamofwfc joins in the ridicule of Police dismay about hundreds of them being injured, with four subsequent suicides. Shameful.
Why are you lying in order to smear me Moose? You are making up rubbish again. Where do I say that policemen were not injured, or say that violent rioters should not be prosecuted for doing such things? In fact, I specifically say that there were violent people who were there and who should be prosecuted. But without a shadow of doubt, and supported by conclusive, factual and official evidence, NO POLICE OFFICERS DIED ON THE DAY OR FROM INJURIES RECEIVED ON THE DAY. That is what you are arguing against. You know it,but you can't let go of it. That, at least, gives credence to my thoughts on how people like you are equivalent to flat earthers. So you insult and criticise me and others on the forum, despite me making a factually correct argument. Yet you openly defended anti-Semetism in the Labour Party (as 'not as bad as the tories') and the most disgustingly offensive racial comment that has been made on the forum, and think it is perfectly OK. You are not in a position to attack others for bigotry without expecting criticism of your own actions. Explain yourself. Otherwise we will have to consider the likelyhood that youare a bigot attempting to deflect from your own behaviour (as per your own words) by projecting them on to others (by lying about what they have said). You are acting pathetic.
Four subsequent suicides? Sounds like you are paraphrasing the the old Viz (or was it Oink) curse of Dad's Army gag. How many police suicides have there been of officers who participated in defending against the BLM and fa riots (may as well starting calling antifa by a more appropriate name)? Until you can quote that as an important factor in the outcome of public rioting, I will not take your desperate reaching, for a reason to call Jan 6 deadly, seriously. Especially when you completely ignore the death of a woman shot without warning and the three other Trump supporters who died ON THE DAY. At least one of those had been struck by the police, possibly for good reason. I don't think I have even mentioned that before, because the coroner said natural causes and I accepted it. Your callous disregard for that loss of life (presumably it is OK for them to die if they disagree with you) is noted. Should I now list everyone who liked your posts as well. They may enjoy your attacks on Hooter as entertainment, but I doubt that anyone actually agrees with you. You are welcome to act like a child. Just don't kid yourself that no one is noticing.
I don’t know how many police injuries or suicides are consequent to other riots. But I wouldn’t sneer at them for it, ridicule their injuries and pretend the thing was no big deal like you and @iamofwfc
Any more childish arguments on this thread and name calling and it will be closed. If you don't like what each other are saying, please put that person on ignore. It is getting to the point now where harsher words are going to be said and sombody is going to end up being banned. Please guys, debate but do not start petty arguments that should of been left behind in the playground.
Fair enough and I will, but I have spent months ignoring Hooter, yet he chooses to police every comment I make and infer views I don’t have. @iamofwfc then applauds that. Trolling like that shouldn’t be acceptable in an online community.
You littttlee Liaaar Show me where I said any such thing, or go and complain to the mods that @Moose is lying about other members (a bannable offence according to @Moose) and won't explain himself. I have no problem with you. I am just asking you to live up to your own standards. You are acting like a bigot. You are lying about what I said. That appears to be what you are though. If you stop trying to smear me and others, as bigots, with lies, I will stop pointing out your actual bigotry on this forum.
Sorry Skyla. I know it is a pain. As you can see, if you read the threads (don't blame you if you don't) all I have been doing to upset Moose is ask him to justify what he says. I have not said anything to him that was not a response to an insult or potential falsehood that I have asked him to explain. I invite anyone to check that for themselves. His descriptions of my post do not reflect what I have said. I have no problem with him saying it, but if he does, on a discussion forum, I expect to be able to reaspond. I believe I have justified everything I said to him and put it there for people to judge for themselves. I think that is an adult and mature approach. I do not think that ridiculing his childish insults and empty attacks on me is improper. I struggle to see why, when he is calling me anti-Semitic, I should not ask him to explain beyond "because I think so" or justify his defence of Labour on that subject. That is critical discussion, and most people are able to engage in it without insult or smear. And I think he may not be entirely forthcoming when he has said he has been ignoring me for months, as you can see for yourself. I am sorry. But I am unsure how I should react otherwise when lies are told about me and I get smeared as a racist for no reason. I don't want anyone banned, so responding with facts is all I have. If you think I have been unreasonable, I would value your opinion.
If you put him on ignore you won't know he's doing it though. No one takes him seriously and everyone can see what he is, it isn't like you need to defend yourself. Best thing anyone can do is deny him the oxygen of attention. Responding just makes him post more.
Why don't you explain what I am Arakel? Why should any poster on here, me included, be exempt from criticism based on what they actually said? That is not an unreasonable thing to ask.
It’s the Wokey Wokes innit? And yet Conservative commentator Bethany Mandel seems stumped by a simple question about it. https://twitter.com/vanguard_pod/status/1635749284355211264?s=46&t=oqOMSJXE_g7J5C7kNPG9LA
It's honestly pretty funny if you ask people who throw the word around like candy to define it. They'll all give wildly different answers, almost like they've been conditioned to kneejerk against it without quite knowing why. If you can't properly define a word you're throwing around, you probably shouldn't be using it....ESPECIALLY on a national media interview.
She made the charitable mistake of attempting to be polite. Modern wokeism is simply using virtue signalling and victimhood to achieve politically ideological goals. It is a method, but she was trying to describe a movement. Very silly mistake. I mean, who on here would describe themselves as woke? Yet all of you have expressed support for woke causes.
Meanwhile, in a parallel universe: Trump wants to be handcuffed for court appearance in Stormy Daniels case, sources say People close to former president said to be unsure whether he is serious about wanting to do a perp walk
One thing you can say about Trump is that he knows how to play the populist gallery. Of course his enemies will relish the thought of him being arrested and presented in court in handcuffs. But he knows his believers will just see it as confirmation of the political persecution of their beloved leader. He will be playing the victim and it will almost certainly strengthen his core support who believe the "elites" are out to get him. It will be the same with Johnson today.
Not connected to Jan 6th but the ongoing rumours of being arrested but the thought of this coming true is hilarious. C+p from BBC "Can he still run for president? An indictment or even a criminal conviction would not prevent Mr Trump from continuing his presidential campaign if he so chooses - and he has given every indication that he will keep pushing ahead regardless of what happens. In fact, there is nothing in US law that prevents a candidate who is found guilty of a crime from campaigning for, and serving as, president - even from prison." Trump to be the first President to run the USA from the county jail. Given how ****ed up everything has been since god knows when in history there would be no surprise from me if it happened, this surreal timeline is crazy!
Trump off to Waco tomorrow to launch his campaign rallies. The choice of Waco, obviously symbolic for his movement that believes it challenges the state. Niece Mary is not impressed.
More reporters turned up than Trump supporters at the court for the indictment. More anti Trump protesters turned up than Trump supporters. Perhaps it is not a case of Trump knowing what his "ultra violent MAGA supporters" will do (clearly they are fully aware that this was being set up for an ambush) but that, even more so, he understands what his crazed lunatic detractors (inluding members of the press and politicians) will do, and how they reveal their sexual excitement at "Trump Prosecution Porn". The case isn't looking so solid right now. The two primary witnesses are going to have to explain why they are now going to contradict their own previous signed testimony that has arisen since the DA leaked his intent to indict, and the grand jury hasn't met again since. No matter. It's New York and a New York jury could find Trump guilty, even without evidence. Not sure it will stand up on appeal though.
More horrific footage from the bloody and murderous insurrection on Jan 6. This one includes the tannoy communications used to desperately control the crowd... Please note. No police officers were killed in the making of this video.
It's a mark of how f**ked up things have become that people aren't shocked that a school was shot up, but by the fact the shooter was female.
