What do you believe about January 6th?

[rjs330]

I’ve condemned the riots and looting that happened last year but (and maybe you’re unaware of this) but this thread isn’t about those incidents

Do it again so we can trust that you have. Completely condemn the BLM riots last year. Tell us the rioters should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Tell us there is no excuse for what they did.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Indeed -- and those criminals should be prosecuted, and their criminal connections investigated.



Well, when they are investigated, any connection to Donald (or lack thereof) will come to light, and we'll know the truth.

I agree that we should punish people accordingly but if we get the wrong people in charge of investigating I fear of a witch hunt being carried out on these people and them being brought up on trumped up charges and media leaks to try and put them in a worse light than reality is.

Fortunately, U.S. law explains what conspiracy is, so for people who understand the law, it's actually not that hard to tell.

"If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.

(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 701; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)"

See? Easy-peasy!

Yup.. nothing like a "broad" charge that can be abused to further hammer people if abused and ironically we have people who here in the forum that are mocked because they believe in conspiracies this will be interesting to see if we have another snipe hunt looking for Trump connections.

...obviously not that television is an inadequate teacher of U.S. Law.




Well, gosh... good thing that real-life law enforcement has more than 42 minutes a week (allowing for commercials) to get to the bottom of it.



Nobody who raided the Capitol and got caught by boasting about it on social media qualifies as "smart enough" for much of anything.



Criminals that smart are usually smart enough to not get caught.

But fret not -- the police are pretty smart themselves. They do this for a living, whereas there weren't too many career criminals at the riot.



And I trust the police are competent to separate the regular morons from the dangerous morons.



I find it unlikely that anyone participating in the Capitol riot was a paragon of mental health.

Again, fret not -- the police will be able to separate those who are dangerous from those who are only dangerous to themselves.

I still sort of chuckle that we have wobbling back and forth bringing out a suggested major conspiracy with Trump at the helm while pointing out how incompetent and stupid the protesters are and we have seen in this thread people wanting these protestors to be "made an example of". If these are like you insist too stupid to avoid being "caught" under interrogation then how can they be smart enough to conspire and accomplish anything as substantial as an insurrection of the capital? You can't have it both ways and throw the book. It is like giving the death sentence to the three stooges for trying to rob a lemonaid stand with an 8 year old guarding it and they fail at that.

 

[Oneiric1975]

Do it again so we can trust that you have. Completely condemn the BLM riots last year. Tell us the rioters should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Tell us there is no excuse for what they did.

It's hard to squeeze it in among all the STRONG JUSTIFICATIONS of Jan 6 on here.

 

[Sophrosyne]

And you've seen people saying that rioters who protest against police violence shouldn't be held accountable for damage done during the riots?

I've seen District attorneys publicly say they won' prosecute BLM protesters that are arrested. They arrested many and not charged them unlike the protesters at the Capital.

You are being awfully loose with your decree of BLM and Violence. BLM, qua BLM is not a violent movement. Yes people in riots did bad things and for that they should be held accountable. But the BLM movement is not, per se, a violent movement. In fact most of the protests are peaceful.

That being said, I have seen no one saying that a rioter who is involved in a protest against police violence who themselves do violence should NOT be held accountable.

I don't know where you are getting this idea.

I don't have enough eyes to roll on this one here.......

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

So, link to the posts that you claim did this. Ive read thought much of this thread and haven't found any. The poll results do not reflect people condoning, excusing or sympathizing with those that attacked the capitol. You are projecting.

No thanks. You cant seem to see what is right in front of you.
Certainly the poll results reflect 18% denial. If you cant see that, then we have nothing to talk about.

ok , here is one from the first page of 21. Post #20
"I think it was a minor incident that is (as usual) blown way out of proportion."

 

[Oneiric1975]

I've seen District attorneys publicly say they won' prosecute BLM protesters that are arrested. They arrested many and not charged them unlike the protesters at the Capital.

Haven't seen that.

I don't have enough eyes to roll on this one here.......

Of course you don't. But I would expect nothing less. Subtlety is often NOT the purview of the hardline partisan.

 

[Albion]

No thanks. You cant seem to see what is right in front of you.
Certainly the poll results reflect 18% denial. If you cant see that, then we have nothing to talk about.

What this poll does is present a biased question that hopefully will inflate the "yes" votes, but many readers are not willing to be used that way. As a result, this poll's "findings" are meaningless.

It would be interesting to see what the results would be if the question were not slanted, but I don't expect to see that one.

 

[Sophrosyne]

Haven't seen that.



Of course you don't. But I would expect nothing less. Subtlety is often NOT the purview of the hardline partisan.

In reality I don't think you will bother to research BLM rather is it easier to just listen to the parrot trainers in the media and believe them about BLM than to use intellectual honesty and approach them as if you know nothing about them and start from scratch and dig in areas that don't support them for the dirt on them. People that are cautious don't look for the good in people but look for the possible evil in them to make sure that they are truly good and it isn't just a facade.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

By what standard to you claim that. Need I point out the BLM protests have shouted "what do we want, dead cops, when do we want them, now" or "you shoot us, We shoot you. Those protests also involved trespass and destruction of property along with several felonies AND yet those were classified as "peaceful protests" as I posted, where have our values gone?

Whataboutism is inherently dishonest...

 

[Albion]

Okay. Whenever the word is used these days, it seems to be intended as a quick and easy way to excuse hypocrisy. So I guess that would be considered a form of dishonesty.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

What this poll does is present a biased question that hopefully will inflate the "yes" votes, but many readers are not willing to be used that way. As a result, this poll's "findings" are meaningless.

It would be interesting to see what the results would be if the question were not slanted, but I don't expect to see that one.

How would you word an "unslanted" question?

 

[Sophrosyne]

Okay. Whenever the word is used these days, it seems to be intended as a quick and easy way to excuse hypocrisy. So I guess that would be considered a form of dishonesty.

Elitism is another word to describe the use of the word at times.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If that is the definition, and we all acknowledge it, there is no controversy here. The event in question does not qualify as an insurrection.

Because it wasn't done successfully, or because it wasn't done competently?

 

[Sophrosyne]

dubble

 

[Oneiric1975]

In reality I don't think you will bother to research BLM

Show me in the BLM mission statement where they support violence. Thanks.

People that are cautious don't look for the good in people but look for the possible evil in them to make sure that they are truly good and it isn't just a facade.

Ummm, that does NOT sound like a very Christian approach.

But what would I know, eh?

 

[Sophrosyne]

Show me in the BLM mission statement where they support violence. Thanks.

That is a rather ridiculous request. People are very unlikely to admit they support criminal acts publicly if BLM outright said they support violence they could lose a lot of their hoodwinked followers that don't think they are criminals but rather some sort of "advanced" protesters.

Ummm, that does NOT sound like a very Christian approach.

But what would I know, eh?

It is a Christian approach. If you are going to "yoke" or associate yourself with someone you need to be sure that their beliefs are the same as yours and to find that out for sure you have to research what they truly believe.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I agree that we should punish people accordingly but if we get the wrong people in charge of investigating I fear of a witch hunt being carried out on these people and them being brought up on trumped up charges and media leaks to try and put them in a worse light than reality is.

The people in charge of the investigation would be a bipartisan committee of Congress. Do you trust the people you vote for?

Yup.. nothing like a "broad" charge that can be abused to further hammer people if abused and ironically we have people who here in the forum that are mocked because they believe in conspiracies this will be interesting to see if we have another snipe hunt looking for Trump connections.

You seem utterly fixated on two fears:

1. That any such investigation will invariably lead to Donald
2. That such a turn of events could only possibly be the result of a witch hunt.

I still sort of chuckle that we have wobbling back and forth bringing out a suggested major conspiracy with Trump at the helm while pointing out how incompetent and stupid the protesters are and we have seen in this thread people wanting these protestors to be "made an example of".

The only person who ever accused Donald of attracting the best and brightest was Donald himself. Everyone else knows better.

If these are like you insist too stupid to avoid being "caught" under interrogation then how can they be smart enough to conspire and accomplish anything as substantial as an insurrection of the capital?

How smart do you have to be to follow an order? Considering the nature of the plan, stupidity would be a prerequisite for going along.

Almost makes you feel sorry for Donald that he couldn't even attract useful idiots.

You can't have it both ways and throw the book. It is like giving the death sentence to the three stooges for trying to rob a lemonaid stand with an 8 year old guarding it and they fail at that.

I don't recall anyone calling for the death penalty, but I do appreciate the melodrama as an amusing substitute for a cogent argument.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

That is a rather ridiculous request. People are very unlikely to admit they support criminal acts publicly if BLM outright said they support violence they could lose a lot of their hoodwinked followers that don't think they are criminals but rather some sort of "advanced" protesters.

It is a Christian approach. If you are going to "yoke" or associate yourself with someone you need to be sure that their beliefs are the same as yours and to find that out for sure you have to research what they truly believe.

BLM is both a sentiment as well as an organization. Anyone carrying a sing that says BLM is not necessarily a member of the organization nor supports it. But that has nothing to do with busting into the capitol on January 6th.

 

[Sophrosyne]

The people in charge of the investigation would be a bipartisan committee of Congress. Do you trust the people you vote for?

I don't trust the people who have control of Congress and the Senate which is currently the left.
After the Trump impeachment in congress I think "trust" is laughable rather the impeachment investigation was rather a witch hunt and it will likely be the same with any sort of "investigation" that in the end hinges upon what narrative the left has decided upon

You seem utterly fixated on two fears:

1. That any such investigation will invariably lead to Donald
2. That such a turn of events could only possibly be the result of a witch hunt.



The only person who ever accused Donald of attracting the best and brightest was Donald himself. Everyone else knows better.

Not fixated and not feared but the left is the one who fears Trump and they have shown that they will go all out bending and breaking rules and values once relied upon to get at him. They won't be able to resist doing anything and everything that they think they can get away with to get at Trump. They want to pin a crime on him such that they can use it to ban him from ever holding a political office again they fear him so much.

How smart do you have to be to follow an order? Considering the nature of the plan, stupidity would be a prerequisite for going along.

Not sure if that is a good argument at all as you cannot judge intelligence when it comes to criminal acts sometimes the smarter people think they can get away with more and are more emboldened to resort to crime and sometimes the stupid think they will never get caught too they can both use logic in their minds to justify their decisions to do wrong or right. Unless these people were getting paid it is more unlikely they would want to risk a severe prison sentence unlike BLM which are paid nicely for the risk of being caught I've heard.

Almost makes you feel sorry for Donald that he couldn't even attract useful idiots.

At least he doesn't have to pay to have them protest like BLM often does.

I don't recall anyone calling for the death penalty, but I do appreciate the melodrama as an amusing substitute for a cogent argument.

It is a bit over the top but then we have had public figures on the left given the high five by others for their death threats in the past on Trump so wanting his supporters to be executed wouldn't be an astronomical stretch for the left. We have had people in the thread here equate the protest as an insurrection and treason and you do know that the what the penalty for treason can be.......

 

[Sophrosyne]

BLM is both a sentiment as well as an organization. Anyone carrying a sing that says BLM is not necessarily a member of the organization nor supports it. But that has nothing to do with busting into the capitol on January 6th.

BLM the "sentiment" is noble but like anything the left has poisoned it to the point that the BLM organization is nothing but a radical extremist domestic terrorist organization hiding under the facade of "we care for blacks".
They are all treated as if they are doing great things and noble and peaceful while those at the top rake in over a billion dollars and give back nearly nothing to help the black community. Those who are devastated by their protests (riots) are ignored and even marginalized by them. BLM would be better suited to stop all their protests and start rebuilding black neighborhoods that are slums and help protect local black businesses so that blacks don't have to drive to safer mostly white neighborhoods to buy stuff they need. They need to encourage blacks to treat each other right and teach black boys to grow up to be responsible fathers.
But they take their billion dollars and pay protesters and lawyers instead.