I am curious why Republicans ignore Trump's wrong doing.

prodromos said:

No, neither does it support the narrative that Trump incited insurrection.

He didn't come close to suggesting any of his political opponents be taken out. He complained about weak Republicans and spoke about election corruption.

Click to expand...

Perhaps you could try to answer the question I posed to someone else: if Trump wasn't trying to prod them into doing something, where did the crowd get the idea to storm the capitol? Some of them showed up with weapons, which Trump knew about prior to taking the stage. What would Trump have expected to happen after he stood in front of a crowd that he knew was already roiling and juiced them up with a bunch of lies about a stolen election?

iluvatar5150 said:

Perhaps you could try to answer the question I posed to someone else: if Trump wasn't trying to prod them into doing something, where did the crowd get the idea to storm the capitol? Some of them showed up with weapons, which Trump knew about prior to taking the stage.

Click to expand...

iluvatar5150 said:

What would Trump have expected to happen after he stood in front of a crowd that he knew was already roiling and juiced them up with a bunch of lies about a stolen election?

Click to expand...

I'm not American, so I don't have a dog in this fight, however it is clearly apparent to me that the election was compromised, from the statistical anomalies to dead people voting to 'mail in ballots' that had no creases. Trump got more votes than the election that won his first term and yet somehow Biden got even more, 'just enough' votes materialised at the last minute to put him ahead.

iluvatar5150 said:

Not true. He was protesting on the street, which is perfectly fine. As far as I understand, he was legally carrying, which is also fine, albeit misguided.



Even if that's true (I'm not bothering to look it up), it's irrelevant, because we have video, from multiple angles, of this incident, in which he did not act aggressively against them.



That is just wildly untrue. Are you trying to lie to us or did you not watch the whole video?

Here's it is:

https://www.nbcwashington.com/video/news/local/video-shows-fatal-shooting-of-ashli-babbitt-at-u-s-capitol/2535527/

The swearing is all beeped out, so it should be fine with the mods.

The door is locked and barricaded with a pile of chairs. Babbitt is part of an angry mob outside the door that chases off a few police officers and then spends a solid 30 second breaking through the bulletproof glass. By any reasonable measure (especially that of the perspective of the people on the other side of the door), she is posing a threat. That is threatening behavior. If a mob was outside your front door trying to break in, you would call the police and you would be more than justified in shooting anybody who managed to break in.

I may not convince you, but I hope some other folks reading this watch this video and see just how divorced from reality your take is.

Click to expand...

First, the camera pans away from her as she is starting to climb through the door but otherwise exactly as I described. She was unarmed and in the process of climbing through the door. Exactly who was she a danger to? The only one IN danger was her.

I mean, tell me which second mark in the video that showed her to be a danger to someone else.

prodromos said:

Transcripts Show President Trump's Directives to Pentagon Leadership to "Keep January 6 Safe" Were Deliberately Ignored

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration

cha.house.gov

Nancy Pelosi Contradicts Her Own Narrative of January 6, HBO Footage Shows

U.S. House of Representatives Committee on House Administration

cha.house.gov

I'm not American, so I don't have a dog in this fight, however it is clearly apparent to me that the election was compromised, from the statistical anomalies to dead people voting to 'mail in ballots' that had no creases. Trump got more votes than the election that won his first term and yet somehow Biden got even more, 'just enough' votes materialised at the last minute to put him ahead.

Click to expand...

So the hapless democrats who really can’t seem to get or do anything right somehow pulled off this successful election fraud? I don’t think so.

prodromos said:

Trump got more votes than the election that won his first term and yet somehow Biden got even more, 'just enough' votes materialised at the last minute to put him ahead.

Click to expand...

The total number of voters typically goes up in every election. From 2004 to 2008, it went up by 9 million. It dipped 2 million in 2012, but went up 7.6 million in 2016, up 22 million in 2020, and up 9 million in 2024.

Also, Trump lost the popular vote in 2016. I don't know why it'd be a surprise that he'd lose it again in 2020.

A New Dawn said:

First, the camera pans away from her as she is starting to climb through the door but otherwise exactly as I described. She was unarmed and in the process of climbing through the door. Exactly who was she a danger to? The only one IN danger was her.

I mean, tell me which second mark in the video that showed her to be a danger to someone else.

Click to expand...

She was a threat as soon as she climbed through the glass. From the perspective of the people on the other side, the act of her breaching the barricade presents a threat..

Akita Suggagaki said:

So the hapless democrats who really can’t seem to get or do anything right somehow pulled off this successful election fraud? I don’t think so.

Click to expand...

Whatever narrative floats your boat.

Aldebaran said:

How? By simply existing? What exactly did she "threaten" to do? The "people on the other side" (in this case, a black cop with a gun and an itchy trigger finger) must have had real sensitivity issues if an unarmed woman equaled a reason to open fire.

Click to expand...

I don't generally like responding to questions with incredulity, but your position is so surprising to me that it's hard for me to believe that you're arguing in good faith. Virtually every conservative I know is familiar with, and supportive of, the castle doctrine, which, for those who are unaware, confers upon a homeowner the benefit of the doubt that, should an intruder enter their home, they are reasonable in fearing that that person means them serious bodily harm, and grants them the right to defend themselves with deadly force, without a duty to retreat.

I was curious to know if you'd ever discussed and expressed support for this rule, so I hit up the search function. And low and behold, you have. Granted, it was quite a while ago so you may not remember the specific conversations, but you're an intelligent guy, so I assume you still remember what the principle is and, if anything, your positions have shifted rightward over the years, so I doubt you've changed your tune:

Aldebaran said:

Oh, of course! But I won't be surprised if they try to keep this whole case against him alive by saying, "He shot a police officer doing his job and we can't have people thinking they can do that!" and will keep the guy's property while they file charges against him for shooting the cop. In my home state, we have a Castle Doctrine law that basically says a person has the right to defend himself in his own home when the person is fearing for his life. Of course, it excludes police officers from the pool of people we can defend ourselves against, even when they break into our homes in the middle of the night like a violent intruder would.

Click to expand...

Aldebaran said:

From what I've seen of police raids, they rarely announce who they are or what they're about to do in advance. At best, they'll yell, "POLICE, SEARCH WARRANT!" and then knock the door off the hinges. Problem is, if it's during the wee hours of the morning and everyone is in bed asleep, they're not going to hear that from inside their bedroom while the officers are outside the closed door of the house. They'll only wake up and know anything is going on once they're inside setting off flash-bang grenades, which sounds much like gunfire. With all that, who wouldn't fear for their life?

It happens far too often, and it's usually the homeowner who faces consequences. Here's a link (of of many such links) concerning that: Man Shoots at Intruders, Turns Out it was a No-Knock Raid. Now He Faces the Death Penalty | The Free Thought Project

Click to expand...

Aldebaran said:

Exactly! Forcing people to retreat (by law) is basically putting the law on the side of the person doing the attacking. Until recently, we even had a law in my home state where a person had the duty to retreat even in their own home! Thankfully, we now have the Castle Doctrine. Some people even have a problem with that.

Click to expand...

Aldebaran said:

I'm in Wisconsin too, and have been told the same thing; that we have a duty to retreat. If an intruder comes in and I have a means of fleeing my own home, I must do it. Although that wouldn't be tactically sound since I don't know if the burglars friends are outside. I'd be leaving the relative safety and familiarity of my home to be outside where I would become defenseless. But....that's how the laws supposedly were designed with the best interest of the good guys in mind.

Click to expand...

So, now that we know you're generally on board with the idea that you ought to be allowed to shoot someone who breaks into your house, because, ostensibly, they pose some kind of threat to you, let's apply that logic to the Babbit case:

She was part of a mob that broke through a barricade with the intent of pursuing elected officials. What did they intend to do when they reached those officials? I don't know. But they used makeshift weapons to violently gain entry to a secured area. That alone suggests nefarious, dangerous intent. The agent who shot her doesn't know whether or not she's armed; he just knows that she's pursuing people he's charged with protecting and that her mob used violence to deliberately and illegally achieve that end.

That's as much of a threat as posed by any burglar in your house. Why are you okay with shooting the burglar and not her?

Aldebaran said:

Now you're talking about her as "part of a mob" which is a dehumanizing statement. She was also a military veteran and a wife. See people as human.

Click to expand...

That was about the degree of seriousness I was expecting.

I think this conversation has probably run its course.

prodromos said:

Whatever narrative floats your boat.

Click to expand...

It is your unsupported narrative that is basically a page from Donald Trumps Big Lie.

iluvatar5150 said:

She was a threat as soon as she climbed through the glass. From the perspective of the people on the other side, the act of her breaching the barricade presents a threat..

Click to expand...

What a sad, sorry response. You proved my point. She was NOT a danger to anyone at that point and if an armed cop couldn’t handle a very small woman then maybe he shouldn’t have been on the force. AS I SAID EARLIER, a taser or a pair of handcuffs would have sufficed.