How does this end

[Guy in Shorts]

We were sold a bill of goods for the last three years that Trump stole the 2016 election yet will are told to believe without question this election was on the up and up. The swamp monsters want to Tonya Harding the Donald so his chances of every bothering them again are greatly diminished.

[easyrider16]

I thought you believed this election was on the up and up? Have you changed your mind?

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

[daytripper]

Isn't this a little different ? Anyone who went to that rally to support Trump signed on to the insane notion that the election was somehow illegitimate because their guy lost. It might not be criminal culpability, but there seems to be some level of responsibility there for this debacle.

Frankly I think anyone who still buys into the notion that this election was illegitimate is to some degree culpable. I think we've been saying on here for months that Trump's refusal to concede could lead to violence. Well, here we are.

people have their right to free speech no matter how insane the speech is (so long as not direct threats). so just showing up to the protest... whatever. you look like an idiot and most of the country is pointing and laughing at you for thinking the election was stolen despite 60 thrown out lawsuits for a lack of evidence. but the second they interfered with government business of transitioning power as decided by the electorate, they became terrorists.

it is WAY different than BLM protests. BLM protests were protesting against being murdered by the police state. this "stop the steal" sh*t is standard sore loser reaction upgraded with good old fashioned fascism.

Same sh*t as the BLM protests. The idiots on both sides should be locked up. People were killed in both protests, it was the same sh*t.

[easyrider16]

Except one sought to overturn a lawful election while the other sought to protect civil rights. Kind of a big difference, there.

Not saying these bozos didn't have the right to peacefully protest. But I think it's a false equivalence to the BLM protests given the goals of the respective parties.

[XtremeJibber2001]

FBI Tracks Down Ex-Navy SEAL Who Boasted on Video About ‘Breaching the Capitol’
https://www.thedailybeast.com/adam-newb ... he-capitol

A retired Navy SEAL has landed himself in a whole lot of trouble with the FBI after he posted a video boasting about how “proud” he was hours after “breaching the Capitol,” according to ABC News. Adam Newbold, 45, is a retired reserve SEAL special-warfare operator who says he now uses his expertise to train civilians and police in tactical shooting. In the video, Newbold said the riots were part of a “positive revolution,” and described how rioters had to “destroy doors and windows” to gain access to the Capitol building. Well, a week later, he’s not quite as bold. “I am cooperating with the FBI,” he told ABC News, confirming the bureau has asked him for a second interview. “My life now has been absolutely turned upside-down,” he told the network. Expressing regret about his actions, he said: “It accomplished nothing. What the hell was it all for?”

[daytripper]

Except one sought to overturn a lawful election while the other sought to protect civil rights. Kind of a big difference, there.

Not saying these bozos didn't have the right to peacefully protest. But I think it's a false equivalence to the BLM protests given the goals of the respective parties.

Same end result, makes it the same sh*t. Innocent people died in both, it doesn't matter who had a better or worse cause.

[XtremeJibber2001]

Except one sought to overturn a lawful election while the other sought to protect civil rights. Kind of a big difference, there.

Not saying these bozos didn't have the right to peacefully protest. But I think it's a false equivalence to the BLM protests given the goals of the respective parties.

Same end result, makes it the same sh*t. Innocent people died in both, it doesn't matter who had a better or worse cause.

One required a letter from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of our military to our troops and one did not. One required national guard to sleep on the floor of the Capitol and one did not. One required our congress members to walk through metal detectors for their safety and one did not. One required impeachment and one did not.

It's not about death. It's not who had a better cause. It's about our Democracy - America or Trumpism.

[daytripper]

I respectfully have to disagree, they are the same thing in my eyes.

[deadheadskier]

We were sold a bill of goods for the last three years that Trump stole the 2016 election yet will are told to believe without question this election was on the up and up. The swamp monsters want to Tonya Harding the Donald so his chances of every bothering them again are greatly diminished.

Both were investigated and proven to be inconsequential in the outcomes.

Major differences in accusations as well. The Democrats accused the Trump campaign itself with colluding with Russia to influence the outcome. They had good reason to with the Trump Tower meeting and Manaforts nefarious history. Bannon and Stone as well. However, very few people were claiming that the votes counted were fraudulent. I personally accepted he won, but questioned Trump ties to foreign actors.

There is your difference. Trump fully questioned the legitimacy of the votes with no meaningful proof. The claims were deemed asinine by the courts, DOJ and election officials. It's incredibly dumb to believe fraud turned the 2020 election. If the Democratic party and RINOs were that good at the fraud game, many many more Ds would have also won down ticket. How is it that you can't see that?

And the absolute crazy town behavior from Trump and his inner circle since the election should have consequences. Absolutely no one who acts in such a way as he has should be eligible for future office. If Obama / Clinton had done 10% of what Trump has done following the 2016 election, you'd be calling for their heads and you know it. Hell conservatives already were the entire four years with requests that they Swing. Some of them good friends of yours I might add.

[Stormchaser]

I respectfully have to disagree, they are the same thing in my eyes.

The difference to me, is that nearly every single elected member of our national government was inside that building when it was over run - Republican and Democrat, Vice President included. If something horrible happened inside the Capitol building, the President (any President, not just DJT) would have been the only elected official standing. We're not talking about terrorizing some federal courthouse or police station here... Endangering the entirely of our federal government simply cannot be tolerated and is wholly unacceptable in a democracy.

[easyrider16]

Yeah I have to agree with Stormchaser. This wasn't the same end result. It wasn't just people getting hurt, vandalism, and looting. It was an attack on our democratic institutions and it was encouraged by the sitting President. That's a bigger deal by far than a protest that turned violent.

You can try to say that it's similar to the Portland Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone thing, but those protestors weren't trying to overthrow the government and didn't attack any seat of government. The CHAZ wasn't even that close to the City Hall, and was in a completely different city than where the Oregon legislature sits. I don't think it's the same.

Also, intent makes a big difference in criminal culpability. If a man is caught by police walking to his neighbor's house with a screwdriver to help him fix the lawnmower, he's not guilty of a crime. If the same man is caught by police walking to his neighbor's house with a screwdriver to try and break into his car and steal his stereo, he's guilty of carrying burglarious tools and can be prosecuted. There are lots of other examples - the difference between manslaughter, murder, and premeditated murder is entirely state of mind even though the end result is the same, a dead victim. People's motivations make a big difference.

[asher2789]

Except one sought to overturn a lawful election while the other sought to protect civil rights. Kind of a big difference, there.

Not saying these bozos didn't have the right to peacefully protest. But I think it's a false equivalence to the BLM protests given the goals of the respective parties.

Same end result, makes it the same sh*t. Innocent people died in both, it doesn't matter who had a better or worse cause.

one is treason and sedition - attempting a violent overthrow of democracy, a coup d'etat; one is a fight for civil rights where the police were the instigators of the violence, both as a catalyst for protest and in response to the protests.

[asher2789]

Yeah I have to agree with Stormchaser. This wasn't the same end result. It wasn't just people getting hurt, vandalism, and looting. It was an attack on our democratic institutions and it was encouraged by the sitting President. That's a bigger deal by far than a protest that turned violent.

You can try to say that it's similar to the Portland Capitol Hill Autonomous Zone thing, but those protestors weren't trying to overthrow the government and didn't attack any seat of government. The CHAZ wasn't even that close to the City Hall, and was in a completely different city than where the Oregon legislature sits. I don't think it's the same.

Also, intent makes a big difference in criminal culpability. If a man is caught by police walking to his neighbor's house with a screwdriver to help him fix the lawnmower, he's not guilty of a crime. If the same man is caught by police walking to his neighbor's house with a screwdriver to try and break into his car and steal his stereo, he's guilty of carrying burglarious tools and can be prosecuted. There are lots of other examples - the difference between manslaughter, murder, and premeditated murder is entirely state of mind even though the end result is the same, a dead victim. People's motivations make a big difference.

funny how the "law and order" crew seem to fail to understand this vital part of law and order...

[asher2789]

We were sold a bill of goods for the last three years that Trump stole the 2016 election yet will are told to believe without question this election was on the up and up. The swamp monsters want to Tonya Harding the Donald so his chances of every bothering them again are greatly diminished.

Both were investigated and proven to be inconsequential in the outcomes.

Major differences in accusations as well. The Democrats accused the Trump campaign itself with colluding with Russia to influence the outcome. They had good reason to with the Trump Tower meeting and Manaforts nefarious history. Bannon and Stone as well. However, very few people were claiming that the votes counted were fraudulent. I personally accepted he won, but questioned Trump ties to foreign actors.

There is your difference. Trump fully questioned the legitimacy of the votes with no meaningful proof. The claims were deemed asinine by the courts, DOJ and election officials. It's incredibly dumb to believe fraud turned the 2020 election. If the Democratic party and RINOs were that good at the fraud game, many many more Ds would have also won down ticket. How is it that you can't see that?

And the absolute crazy town behavior from Trump and his inner circle since the election should have consequences. Absolutely no one who acts in such a way as he has should be eligible for future office. If Obama / Clinton had done 10% of what Trump has done following the 2016 election, you'd be calling for their heads and you know it. Hell conservatives already were the entire four years with requests that they Swing. Some of them good friends of yours I might add.

more to the point - how is it that their own elections are legitimate, but on the exact same ballot the presidential election is illegitimate? how stupid do these people think we are? 60 lawsuits and not a shred of evidence. the seditious claims of "fraud" aren't worth entertaining with a response anymore.

[easyrider16]

Tell you what, what is happening to Trump is an object lesson in why not to be a sore loser. Multiple business partners have pulled out of his business, including Deutsche Bank, the PGA tour, and others. He's persona non grata in the Republican party. And now, another impeachment trial looms, not to mention a criminal investigation and the possibility of charges.

You can call it politics if you want, but he brought this all on himself. If he had just conceded in November like a reasonable person, none of this would have happened. Learn from his mistakes. Don't be a sore loser!