No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day
-
This summer, the New York Times decried an editorial by Senator Tom Cotton calling for federal troops to protect federal properties in Portland and other cities.
Today, the media is praising the presence of the military in the "peaceful transfer of power."
This summer Speaker Pelosi decried "Federal stormtroopers" called in to quell riots.
This week Speake Pelosi is grateful for the presence of the National Guard in DC.
@george-k said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
This summer, the New York Times decried an editorial by Senator Tom Cotton calling for federal troops to protect federal properties in Portland and other cities.
Today, the media is praising the presence of the military in the "peaceful transfer of power."
This summer Speaker Pelosi decried "Federal stormtroopers" called in to quell riots.
This week Speake Pelosi is grateful for the presence of the National Guard in DC.
Peaceful transfer of power honoring the will of the people is good.
Suppressing the exercise of Constitutional rights is bad.
Agents with no identification kidnapping citizens off the streets into unmarked vans is downright outrageous. Ditto deploying armed forces to clear out citizens exercising Constitutional rights from federal property for a photo op.
-
This summer, the New York Times decried an editorial by Senator Tom Cotton calling for federal troops to protect federal properties in Portland and other cities.
Today, the media is praising the presence of the military in the "peaceful transfer of power."
This summer Speaker Pelosi decried "Federal stormtroopers" called in to quell riots.
This week Speake Pelosi is grateful for the presence of the National Guard in DC.
@george-k said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
This summer, the New York Times decried an editorial by Senator Tom Cotton calling for federal troops to protect federal properties in Portland and other cities.
Today, the media is praising the presence of the military in the "peaceful transfer of power."
This summer Speaker Pelosi decried "Federal stormtroopers" called in to quell riots.
This week Speake Pelosi is grateful for the presence of the National Guard in DC.
A city experiencing perpetual unrest is not the same as a credible threat to the very thing that makes our government work.
I still give it a hypocrisy score of 3/5.
-
@george-k said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
This summer, the New York Times decried an editorial by Senator Tom Cotton calling for federal troops to protect federal properties in Portland and other cities.
Today, the media is praising the presence of the military in the "peaceful transfer of power."
This summer Speaker Pelosi decried "Federal stormtroopers" called in to quell riots.
This week Speake Pelosi is grateful for the presence of the National Guard in DC.
A city experiencing perpetual unrest is not the same as a credible threat to the very thing that makes our government work.
I still give it a hypocrisy score of 3/5.
@aqua-letifer said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
@george-k said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
This summer, the New York Times decried an editorial by Senator Tom Cotton calling for federal troops to protect federal properties in Portland and other cities.
Today, the media is praising the presence of the military in the "peaceful transfer of power."
This summer Speaker Pelosi decried "Federal stormtroopers" called in to quell riots.
This week Speake Pelosi is grateful for the presence of the National Guard in DC.
A city experiencing perpetual unrest is not the same as a credible threat to the very thing that makes our government work.
I still give it a hypocrisy score of 3/5.
Now, you're just arguing price.
“Cry havoc and let slip the DOGE of war!”
Those who cheered as J-6 American prisoners were locked in solitary for 18 months without trial, now suddenly fight tooth and nail for foreign terrorists’ "due process". — Buck Sexton
-
Credible threat is the part that I have trouble with.
The Brad
-
@aqua-letifer said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
@george-k said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
This summer, the New York Times decried an editorial by Senator Tom Cotton calling for federal troops to protect federal properties in Portland and other cities.
Today, the media is praising the presence of the military in the "peaceful transfer of power."
This summer Speaker Pelosi decried "Federal stormtroopers" called in to quell riots.
This week Speake Pelosi is grateful for the presence of the National Guard in DC.
A city experiencing perpetual unrest is not the same as a credible threat to the very thing that makes our government work.
I still give it a hypocrisy score of 3/5.
Now, you're just arguing price.
@jolly said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
@aqua-letifer said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
@george-k said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
This summer, the New York Times decried an editorial by Senator Tom Cotton calling for federal troops to protect federal properties in Portland and other cities.
Today, the media is praising the presence of the military in the "peaceful transfer of power."
This summer Speaker Pelosi decried "Federal stormtroopers" called in to quell riots.
This week Speake Pelosi is grateful for the presence of the National Guard in DC.
A city experiencing perpetual unrest is not the same as a credible threat to the very thing that makes our government work.
I still give it a hypocrisy score of 3/5.
Now, you're just arguing price.
So making allowances for politicians is only legit if you're doing so for the ones you like?
-
Credible threat is the part that I have trouble with.
@lufins-dad said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
Credible threat is the part that I have trouble with.
Oh really? They weren't trying to stop the election from happening?
-
@lufins-dad said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
Credible threat is the part that I have trouble with.
Oh really? They weren't trying to stop the election from happening?
@aqua-letifer said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
@lufins-dad said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
Credible threat is the part that I have trouble with.
Oh really? They weren't trying to stop the election from happening?
There was a 0.0% chance that the election results got overturned or that the riot leads to a mass uprising that casts aside the laws and rules of this nation. Oh, they delayed it, and there were sincere threats to some individuals, but the election results and our laws and rules were never under a credible threat, no.
The Brad
-
Haven’t seen any report about violent protests breaking out today in the USA so far. No news is good news, right?
@axtremus said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
Haven’t seen any report about violent protests breaking out today in the USA so far. No news is good news, right?
What are you talking about? NY was harrowing.
Only non-witches get due process.
- Cotton Mather, Salem Massachusetts, 1692
-
@aqua-letifer said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
@lufins-dad said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
Credible threat is the part that I have trouble with.
Oh really? They weren't trying to stop the election from happening?
There was a 0.0% chance that the election results got overturned or that the riot leads to a mass uprising that casts aside the laws and rules of this nation. Oh, they delayed it, and there were sincere threats to some individuals, but the election results and our laws and rules were never under a credible threat, no.
@lufins-dad said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
@aqua-letifer said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
@lufins-dad said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
Credible threat is the part that I have trouble with.
Oh really? They weren't trying to stop the election from happening?
There was a 0.0% chance that the election results got overturned or that the riot leads to a mass uprising that casts aside the laws and rules of this nation. Oh, they delayed it, and there were sincere threats to some individuals, but the election results and our laws and rules were never under a credible threat, no.
Credible means able to be believed.
-
@lufins-dad said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
@aqua-letifer said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
@lufins-dad said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
Credible threat is the part that I have trouble with.
Oh really? They weren't trying to stop the election from happening?
There was a 0.0% chance that the election results got overturned or that the riot leads to a mass uprising that casts aside the laws and rules of this nation. Oh, they delayed it, and there were sincere threats to some individuals, but the election results and our laws and rules were never under a credible threat, no.
Credible means able to be believed.
@aqua-letifer said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
@lufins-dad said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
@aqua-letifer said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
@lufins-dad said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
Credible threat is the part that I have trouble with.
Oh really? They weren't trying to stop the election from happening?
There was a 0.0% chance that the election results got overturned or that the riot leads to a mass uprising that casts aside the laws and rules of this nation. Oh, they delayed it, and there were sincere threats to some individuals, but the election results and our laws and rules were never under a credible threat, no.
Credible means able to be believed.
Yes, and there was no believable threat that the election results would be overturned, not counted, or discarded. There was no threat that these people would stop the certification process, and no threat that come tomorrow the Donald would still be President. Do you honestly believe there was?
-
@aqua-letifer said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
@lufins-dad said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
@aqua-letifer said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
@lufins-dad said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
Credible threat is the part that I have trouble with.
Oh really? They weren't trying to stop the election from happening?
There was a 0.0% chance that the election results got overturned or that the riot leads to a mass uprising that casts aside the laws and rules of this nation. Oh, they delayed it, and there were sincere threats to some individuals, but the election results and our laws and rules were never under a credible threat, no.
Credible means able to be believed.
Yes, and there was no believable threat that the election results would be overturned, not counted, or discarded. There was no threat that these people would stop the certification process, and no threat that come tomorrow the Donald would still be President. Do you honestly believe there was?
@lufins-dad said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
There was no threat that these people would stop the certification process
I thought there were reports that are coming out that there was a lot of talk from people they have arrested that indicated they were ready to use violence and guns and things like that and people who, they felt, would not change the election
-
@lufins-dad said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
There was no threat that these people would stop the certification process
I thought there were reports that are coming out that there was a lot of talk from people they have arrested that indicated they were ready to use violence and guns and things like that and people who, they felt, would not change the election
@taiwan_girl said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
@lufins-dad said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
There was no threat that these people would stop the certification process
I thought there were reports that are coming out that there was a lot of talk from people they have arrested that indicated they were ready to use violence and guns and things like that and people who, they felt, would not change the election
I’m not saying there weren’t threats of violence. I am saying that there was no threat that our government, the election, and our rule of law were going to overturned. There was no threat that Donald would be a president today and no believable threat that Biden wouldn’t.
The Brad
-
@taiwan_girl said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
@lufins-dad said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
There was no threat that these people would stop the certification process
I thought there were reports that are coming out that there was a lot of talk from people they have arrested that indicated they were ready to use violence and guns and things like that and people who, they felt, would not change the election
I’m not saying there weren’t threats of violence. I am saying that there was no threat that our government, the election, and our rule of law were going to overturned. There was no threat that Donald would be a president today and no believable threat that Biden wouldn’t.
@lufins-dad said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
I am saying that there was no threat that our government, the election, and our rule of law were going to overturned.
Didn't you say in the Antifa thread that you started that how successful someone is in breaking the law doesn't determine how illegal the activity is?
Please love yourself.
-
PORTLAND, Ore. — About 150 self-described anarchists dressed in black — many also wearing helmets, balaclavas and gas masks — gathered in a parking lot just east of downtown Portland Wednesday afternoon for an Inauguration Day rally.
Their political views were hard to pin down.“We are ungovernable,” read a banner laid out on the pavement.
Before the day was over, windows were shattered at the state Democratic Party headquarters, and police in riot gear were chasing demonstrators into the darkness.
...There is property damage, but does not read like there is any injuries.
-
@lufins-dad said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
I am saying that there was no threat that our government, the election, and our rule of law were going to overturned.
Didn't you say in the Antifa thread that you started that how successful someone is in breaking the law doesn't determine how illegal the activity is?
@aqua-letifer said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
@lufins-dad said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
I am saying that there was no threat that our government, the election, and our rule of law were going to overturned.
Didn't you say in the Antifa thread that you started that how successful someone is in breaking the law doesn't determine how illegal the activity is?
I actually said success or failure doesn’t change the morality of the act. It does have a difference in legal ramifications, though. Attempted murder carries a lesser weight than murder.
I don’t see where that matters in my argument? Many of these men and women absolutely can and should be charged with Sedition, Treason, and any number of felonies including Domestic Terrorism. That doesn’t change the fact that there was no chance that they posed an actual threat to the election. Do you honestly believe Biden wouldn’t be President right now if the idiots had reached Pence/Pelosi/Schumer/etc...? I don’t. I don’t give the asshats that much credit.
They can make a threat against the transition , but it’s not credible as they don’t have the ability to actually pull off their threat. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be punished to the fullest extent, but let’s not get weak in the knees thinking these idjits could have succeeded.
-
@aqua-letifer said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
@lufins-dad said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
I am saying that there was no threat that our government, the election, and our rule of law were going to overturned.
Didn't you say in the Antifa thread that you started that how successful someone is in breaking the law doesn't determine how illegal the activity is?
I actually said success or failure doesn’t change the morality of the act. It does have a difference in legal ramifications, though. Attempted murder carries a lesser weight than murder.
I don’t see where that matters in my argument? Many of these men and women absolutely can and should be charged with Sedition, Treason, and any number of felonies including Domestic Terrorism. That doesn’t change the fact that there was no chance that they posed an actual threat to the election. Do you honestly believe Biden wouldn’t be President right now if the idiots had reached Pence/Pelosi/Schumer/etc...? I don’t. I don’t give the asshats that much credit.
They can make a threat against the transition , but it’s not credible as they don’t have the ability to actually pull off their threat. That doesn’t mean they shouldn’t be punished to the fullest extent, but let’s not get weak in the knees thinking these idjits could have succeeded.
@lufins-dad said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
let’s not get weak in the knees thinking these idjits could have succeeded.
https://nodebb.the-new-coffee-room.club/topic/6700/what-the-hell-were-they-thinking?_=1611231206742
On a related note, Speaker Pelosi wanted machine gun nests set up:
Acting DHS Deputy Secretary Ken Cuccinelli told Fox News’s “The Story with Martha MacCallum” on Tuesday that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi requested more National Guards be sent to Washington, D.C., even requesting “crew-manned machine guns”
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@taiwan_girl said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
@lufins-dad said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
There was no threat that these people would stop the certification process
I thought there were reports that are coming out that there was a lot of talk from people they have arrested that indicated they were ready to use violence and guns and things like that and people who, they felt, would not change the election
I’m not saying there weren’t threats of violence. I am saying that there was no threat that our government, the election, and our rule of law were going to overturned. There was no threat that Donald would be a president today and no believable threat that Biden wouldn’t.
@lufins-dad said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
@taiwan_girl said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
@lufins-dad said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
There was no threat that these people would stop the certification process
I thought there were reports that are coming out that there was a lot of talk from people they have arrested that indicated they were ready to use violence and guns and things like that and people who, they felt, would not change the election
I’m not saying there weren’t threats of violence. I am saying that there was no threat that our government, the election, and our rule of law were going to overturned. There was no threat that Donald would be a president today and no believable threat that Biden wouldn’t.
They could conceivably have killed large numbers of senators and house reps. A few of them would probably have liked that. If that's not a real threat to democracy, I don't know where you draw the line. It's not just about Trump and Biden. If they start killing senators, the country has gone to the dogs.
-
@aqua-letifer said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
@lufins-dad said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
Credible threat is the part that I have trouble with.
Oh really? They weren't trying to stop the election from happening?
There was a 0.0% chance that the election results got overturned or that the riot leads to a mass uprising that casts aside the laws and rules of this nation. Oh, they delayed it, and there were sincere threats to some individuals, but the election results and our laws and rules were never under a credible threat, no.
@lufins-dad said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
Oh really? They weren't trying to stop the election from happening?
There was a 0.0% chance that the election results got overturned or that the riot leads to a mass uprising that casts aside the laws and rules of this nation.
LuFin took the words right off my keyboard. Even those dodos couldn't have had a realistic objective of stopping the election. When all is said and done, I suspect their actions will be seen as a vague and inchaotive tantrum designed to enhance testicular bragging rights. Which we wish them joy of in the penitentiary.
-
The fact that you had a Head of State who is willing to encourage a mob should be very concerning. The fact that the mob was made up of a bunch of moronic incompetents is beside the point.
-
The fact that you had a Head of State who is willing to encourage a mob should be very concerning. The fact that the mob was made up of a bunch of moronic incompetents is beside the point.
@doctor-phibes said in No Violent Protest on Inauguration Day:
The fact that you had a Head of State who is willing to encourage a mob should be very concerning. The fact that the mob was made up of a bunch of moronic incompetents is beside the point.
The fact that we had years of encouraged violence or at minimum tolerated on TV had no impact , eh? Look in the mirror when you are looking for all the reasons.
