We know President Donald Trump had nothing to do with the breach of the capital on January 6, 2021. It is now possible it was planned by federal agents. This whole thing stinks.
"Some of those key individuals who planned the riot at the U.S. Capitol on January 6 likely were federal agents, or informers, according to a new report that documents multiple "unindicted co-conspirators" who are being cited in federal charges against some of the defendants stemming from the violent episode.
Yet the "unindicted co-conspirators," who allegedly committed many of the same acts as those who now are facing serious charges, are not being charged."
https://www.wnd.com/2021/06/undercover- … itol-riot/
There almost always are "underlying factors" in these things. So I wouldn't be surprised.
You guys never get enough of your improbable, back door conspiracy theories. This one was was cooked up by Tucker Carlson?
Improbable? Conspiracy? No, Tucker Carlson has facts of a case and asks valid questions.
“according to a new report that documents multiple "unindicted co-conspirators" who are being cited in federal charges against some of the defendants stemming from the violent episode. “
Yet the "unindicted co-conspirators," who allegedly committed many of the same acts as those who now are facing serious charges, are not being charged.
"Why is the administration hiding more than 10,000 hours of surveillance tape from the U.S. Capitol? What could possibly be the reason for that? Even as they call for more openness. We need to get to the bottom of it. “
It just seems to me that the Right have their eyes wide shut when it dismisses the obvious. But, I guess you can follow that rabbit into the rabbit hole as you have so many others....
LOL You mean like Trump conspiring to overthrow the government with a handful of unarmed idiots and reinstate himself into the White House? Conspiracies like that one?
The men were not totally unarmed and they were dangerous and deliberate idiots. Conservatives keep digging around for an alternate explanation for the rightwinged rabble that attacked the Capital.
According to the nutty right wing QAnon, Trump is to be reinstated as President in August, did you hear that one?
Yeah, I know. They had bats and fire extinguishers. Totally reasonable WMD needed to overthrow a government.
I provided a reason the day it happened: that a year of violent riots encouraged and were the root of just another riot. Of course, that leaves Trump out of the blame picture and that was unacceptable to left wingers that demand he caused every bad thing that ever happened so another "explanation" had to be "discovered" that applied blame to the Demon Trump.
I suspect that if you find the right soothsayers, with the right crystal balls, you will find even more people making that prediction. All are about as intelligent, and honest, as the idiots of QAnon.
It is at least good to know that there remains no contention regarding QAnon and its true nature.
When you attack the Capitol building while it is in session and threaten lives, I would be hard pressed to dismiss this all as a prank.
When you take over city blocks and refuse to allow police, fire, etc. in (even residents without ID) I would be hard pressed to dismiss it as a prank. When you riot every night for over 3 months I would be hard pressed to dismiss it as a prank. When you break down fences/gates and march through private property in order to scream imprecations at a politician I would be hard pressed to dismiss it as a prank.
There was a great deal that happened last year that cannot be dismissed as a prank. Having said that, a large number of rioters (protestors, call them what you wish) were there only for an adrenaline rush or for fun.
I must admit, this is one of the few things I've read that gave me some insight into a reasonable perspective about how some people are feeling. Whether people are right or wrong about their beliefs, if they believe they are fighting for something or that their rights are being taken away, then rioting appears to be an acceptable answer. So basically, if you can convince people their rights are being denied, you can convince them to riot.
Rioting may be justified when people don't get their way...to those that do not accept the rule of law. Or at least that rule as it applies to them; the still expect it to apply to everyone else, particularly after they get the law changed to what they want.
Do you believe rioting is ever justified? Are protests ever justified?
Rioting - using terrorist methods of harming innocent people to cause fear and draw attention - is NEVER justified in a country of laws.
Peaceful protest, designed and run to minimize interference with other's lives, is nearly always justified. When it becomes a matter of interfering as much as possible then it is not.
Fair enough. I guess I shouldn't have said rioting. When riots happen, no matter who is behind them, it can't be justified when innocents get caught in the crossfire. Maybe the word "violence" would have been better.
Yes, it is a slippery slope, but if you belong to a group and violence has so repeatedly been used against you so often in an unjustifiable way, it's hard to remain non-violent.
Let's face it, no matter who you are and how much you might support a position, if other people who support that position turn violent and burn down your house, you're not going to be sympathetic.
Guess you didn't see the Senate report on the January 6 Capital breech.
"According to the nutty right wing QAnon, Trump is to be reinstated as President in August, did you hear that one?"
Which is reported by nutty left wing publications to nutty left wingers who fall for such propaganda.
Do you really feel the Jan 6th protest turned riot was planned? It may have been loosely planned, but it would seem realistic if a group hoped to commit an "insurrection" they would have showed up armed... It is very plausible that anyone could have shown up with a gun. Not anyone pulled out a gun but one policeman, and he shot a protester. Which I must mention --- could you imagine if a policemen shot and killed a protester at last summer riots?
My common sense tells me this was a crowd that got out of hand due to some trouble makers in the crowd. Yes, that came to cause trouble.
Very similar to what we saw all summer in Seattle and Portland.
It is more concerning to me that we have citizens that would commit violence in our streets, and at our Capitol. I don't care if they are on the right or left.
Do you need a gun for a crowd through its behavior to not be a threat for completely un prepared people inside? They vandalize and committed mayhem, who knew what was to occur next, yet conservatives always excuse it as the act of a raucous individual or two.
Remember the St. Louis couple who stood on their property threatening B LM. protesters on the street? I don't recall if any of the protesters were armed. But conservative oriented rags justified their response, while saying that mainstream media overreacted regarding the magnitude of January 6th?
I complain about any shooting where the use of lethal force to subdue someone is not necessary. Can we say that the officer was not justified in his use of lethal force against any of these "patriots"? If I recall, a security officer was assaulted and killed by members of the mob.
Unprepared people? You mean the ones surrounded by police/security to the point that they turned down additional troops?
You may not feel that brandishing a weapon in response to violence and destruction of private property is justified, but if so you and I have very, very different concepts of self protection.
No, you complain about every shooting of a black man by a white cop. Any necessity of the force used is ignored; you complain before you could possibly know how much force was reasonable.
But the capital police failed only in not using more lethal force than they did. So did the ones in Portland, Seattle and all the other riots where massive property damage happened.
Obviously those unprepared people in the Capitol were not prepared for the scope and threat of violence threatened by the mob.
None of the BLM marchers were armed and inspite of the fact that they may have entered a gated community uninvited as they were there to protest the activities of the Mayor, it does not give Bonnie and Clyde the option to pull guns on the crowd without direct provocation.
I complain about people like you that are quick to excuse any of these shootings, always giving the cops the benefit of the doubt when evidence suggests that such a benefit is unwarranted. Quid pro quo?
I do agree with you, however, that more aggressive actions were needed to control the January 6th mob, even if it meant another fatility or two.
That's not true; they were informed well before the riot that more security was needed. They were obviously physically unprepared, but they knew and should have been ready.
The law disagrees with you; it is not a crime to have a weapon in the face of a destructive mob of rioters (and yes, they were "rioters" the moment they broke down the gate to the community and entered private property). Or even marched, without a permit, as a mob TO the gate if you want to stretch it only a little.
Nor is it true that I'm quick to make excuses for police shootings; rather my mantra, over and over, has been to "wait until we have all the evidence before convicting what could be an innocent person".
Yes - the Jan 6 riot. And the months long one in Portland. And the actual "insurrection" in Seattle. And the riots in Minneapolis. And, and, and. We have allowed rioting to become an everyday affair in our country and it cannot be allowed to continue. Jan. 6 is an obvious reason for saying that.
She had a name Ashli Babbitt she was a 35-year-old Air Force veteran. Ms Babbitt was a veteran of the US Air Force who had served two tours in Afghanistan and Iraq.
So, "Can we say that the officer was not justified in his use of lethal force against any of these "patriots"? "
"The Department of Justice said Wednesday that it will not pursue criminal charges against the police officer who fatally shot a woman participating in the Jan. 6 pro-Trump invasion of the U.S. Capitol.
The DOJ’s press release said that “the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer did not reasonably believe that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber.”
“Acknowledging the tragic loss of life and offering condolences to Ms. Babbitt’s family, the U.S. Attorney’s Office and U.S. Department of Justice have therefore closed the investigation into this matter,” the press release said. Source https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/14/officer … -says.html
The officer was not charged...
Ms. Babbitt got indoctrinated into a cult. Although the person most directly responsible for her death was whoever fired the gun. The person next most responsible for her death is Donald Trump. Trump is something akin to David Koresh or Jim Jones. He evangelizes his unique brand of lies and people will do anything in defense of those lies. Even die. To many, Ms. Babbitt is a martyr.
Despite everything, Trump continues to promote those lies and encourage more violence. He call to be reinstated in August is the promotion of a coup.
She has a name, just as George Floyd has a name. Both were killed by a police officer.
The DOJ’s press release said that “the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer DID NOT REASONABLY BELIEVE that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber.”
No threat at all, but she was shot, she had no criminal record, she was not fighting with the police, she was not high on drugs...
She was protesting and was climbing through a window. If she was Black we would have a problem would we not? Her life mattered. She made a mistake by joining in a protest... No more no less.
Let's not try to make the Floyd situation the same as the one for Bobbitt, Sharlee.
There was no reason to choke an man to death that was already under restraint by 3 other officers.
But, Who is to say that facing a raging rabble of a mob, outnumbered as such, would not be reacted to by the use of lethal force? Ms. Bobbit was part of the mob and was the unfortunate one on the receiving end of a bullet.
She wasn't a single person climbing through, but was one of a murderous mob that were all doing the same and whose level of threat could not be ascertained or contained.
Let's not compare pineapples with hand granades.
There was no reason to shout Ms. Bobbitt the policemen admitted that very sentiment.
"The DOJ’s press release said that “the investigation revealed no evidence to establish that, at the time the officer fired a single shot at Ms. Babbitt, the officer DID NOT REASONABLY BELIEVE that it was necessary to do so in self-defense or in defense of the Members of Congress and others evacuating the House Chamber."
"whose level of threat could not be ascertained or contained."
However, the officer claimed there was no threat...
I can't imagine what we would have witnessed if this woman was black.
Floyd should not have been killed in such a manner, neither should Ms. Bobbet.
This officer should not have shot this woman, but no one questioned his action. No other officer used a weapon on that day. Only him, shooting a woman that at the time was climbing through a window. She was not armed. The video shows the officer many feet away from the door and just pointing and shooting her...
Perhaps she got exactly what President Trump wanted her to get.
In a recently released book, President Trump argued vehemently for military leaders to shoot protestors.
https://keyt.com/politics/cnn-us-politi … rotesters/
Back to Trump... I was pointing out the shouting of a woman at a protest.
A policeman admitted she possessed no threat, but for some reason shot her, and was not prosecuted.
And at this point, you deflect and assume Trump may have wanted her or someone to be shot.
It appears from Milley's statements that Trump certainly made some shocking violent statements. Bad on him...
As I said this woman had a name, and death was unnecessary, as was George Floyd's death. She died at the hands of a police officer that had no reason to shoot her. He is still on the job.
If this protester was black, this cop would have been arrested and sitting in jail for murder. Can't imagine if a police officer said I did not feel threatened or that this woman even posed a threat, but just shot her. And that woman was black...
I don't care about Trump or what he said --- this conversation was about a woman that was at a protest and was shot by a cop for no reason! I had hoped to point out hypocrisy, a double standard.
You have every right to share your opinion on all Trump. But I was concentrating on the woman that was shot at the Capitol riot. I have no idea what possessed her to attend the protest if it was Trump or some other reason. We will never know.
I thought it was all Antifa in MAGA hats conducting a trial by fire. After all, MAGA patriots wouldn't scream "kill Mike Pence".
Mike, my take on this is that Donald Trump of course had nothing to do with it but it was a spontaneous reaction by the mass of people who felt that Trump had been cheated by fraud and forgery from his victory. Unfortunately, the clock cannot be put back and so there is no choice but to lump all that has happened. I don't think any federal agents were involved in it as it was something spontaneous and an expression of support for Trump.
But, this was unprecedented. Have we not had close elections before without riff raff storming the Capitol building defasing with every sort of vandalism and defouling?
This is what support for Trump means?
The January 6 breech of the US Capital building was planned long in advance of the election. The capital police knew about it as well as intelligence agencies. If you don't believe me, here is a link to the senate report and you can read it for yourself.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/08/politics … index.html
Did you see where an Oregon legislator has been removed by the rest of the congress because he let rioters into a closed session of congress there? We may not have had violence in DC before, but the rest of the country is no stranger to it.
According to a Senate report, the breech of the Capital building on January 6 was planned well in advance. It was known about by the Capital police and other intelligence agencies. Here is a link to the report if you would like to read it.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/06/08/politics … index.html
No, it wasn't and unless you were there you cannot say this.
I do know someone who traveled to the grounds because President Trump requested support for that day.
What happened was a lack of police and the invasion of true-supporter lookalikes who led/forced the crowd of Trump supporters into the capital building.
My friend said that afterwards, all the fakers had thrown their red MAGA masks into the trash.
If you look at any video taken by eye witnesses you will see who the bad guys were. It was so clear to me. And then my friend verified what I had seen in the videos. He was there.
I'm sorry, you are completely wrong about this. The whole January 6 debacle was organized by a group of sentient cockroaches operating out of the basement of a Chick-fil-A outlet on Mars, where they also operate rutabaga farms.
I bet the democrats are cringing at the fact that they wanted a congressional investigation. If true, there’s going to be egg on a whole lot of faces.
"Confirmed: Disguised Leftists Infiltrated Trump Crowd on Jan. 6, Said They Told FBI How to Infiltrate MAGA"
Recently released videos prove what conservatives have been saying for months now: Trump supporters were not the only ones at the Capitol on Jan. 6.
Two leftists infiltrated the Jan. 6 mob that stormed the Capitol and later said they told the FBI how to “infiltrate Trump rallies.”
The two men are Walter Masterson and Peter Scattini and a quick look skim through their respective Twitter feeds shows that they are, indeed, leftists.
https://www.westernjournal.com/confirme … mVClWsjEkg
So two leftists caused the whole insurrection? Your insistence on finding others to blame for the attempted overthrow of our government is both sad and hilarious all at the same time.
Either the protestors were violent insurrectionists or the biggest bunch of gullible idiots to ever walk the planet, at least according to your astute analysis.
One of the reasons we know you're wrong is President Trump's continued talk of overthrowing the government. Unless, perhaps, Trump is a closet leftist too.
As the effort to overthrow the strongest military complex the world has ever seen was armed with a few baseball bats, pepper spray, a police shield and a flagpole I'd have to say they were "the biggest bunch of gullible idiots to ever walk the planet". (Sorry, I forgot they also had a fire extinguisher.)
IF the majority had that as a reason to be there and not just another lark like we saw all year long.
While it may be useful to exaggerate a riot into a full blown "insurrection" and attempt to overthrow the US government, the facts simply do not support such a stance. Not unless that they were those "gullible idiots" mentioned, anyway.
The intent of the protestors was to confront and kill government officials and "hang Mike Pence". While their ultimate success could certainly be questioned, if you couple it with President Trump's efforts to use the U.S. Justice Department to overturn the election, the combined effort, both promoted by President Trump, certainly looks like an attempted coup. That it did not succeed doesn't mean it wasn't a coup.
Crank, it looks like an attempted coup to those that will twist anything they see into something evil by Donald Trump
To people that actually look at what happened, who look at our countries fascination and encouragement of violent riots, who question an unarmed attempt to overthrow the government, who look at the videos of idiots swinging from wall ornamentation or selfies of idiots with feet on Pelosi's desk...to people whose goal is to understand rather than to hang Trump it isn't an insurrection at all. It's a bunch of idiots playing games and having fun, just as we saw for months last year.
Maybe the real intent was to intimidate Mike Pence into not validating the election results. Could this be considered an attempted coup? Certainly not a classic/violent military coup as many on the left make it out to be, though perhaps you could call it a coup if you think Pence not validating the results would have been unlawful and he was indeed physically intimated into the decision?
Coup: "a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government."
As the intent expressed was to "stop the steal" (or some other wording meaning the same thing) I'd have to say that the rioters, or at least those that were not there for a lark, wished to promote the rule of law that was being broken.
That you, I and most of the country deny there was significant amounts of lawbreaking that happened at all does not change that the "coup", or "insurrection" was an attempt to enforce the laws of our country and the constitution.
On top of that as we have repeatedly (number in the thousands) allowed and actively encouraged the type of violence the capital rioters used, in direct violation of the law, is it reasonable to assume that it is no longer considered a crime to move from a peaceful protest to destructive rioting? That would mean that neither "coup" nor "insurrection" applies as there was no illegal violence or unlawful seizure of power from a government.
The thing was, the laws were enforced. All the votes were counted and recounted and recounted again. All court cases attempting to prove fraud had been resolved and ruled that no evidence of fraud existed. No evidence at all had been brought forth to establish the basis for the rally, other than President Trump insisting that there was fraud, which got his supporters riled up.
But as you have pointed out, the basis now for rioting doesn't appear to be respect for the rule of law, but agitation that one's own sense of right and wrong has been violated or that I just don't like the outcome of what's happened or that a politician suggests that violence is justified.
Do you think the rioters agree with you? That they think the courts addressed their concerns appropriately by simply throwing the cases out because they were not filed on time? That all the witnesses were heard and their testimonies investigated? Understanding that I have no crystal ball to read their minds, I don't believe that they DO agree.
But yes, we are teaching our people that rioting and violence is an acceptable method of addressing grievances, that if they don't get what they want that rioting is an acceptable method of getting it.
Thanks. Intent is much of the law as I understand anyway. So, yeah, if there is reason to believe the people had any valid reason to think th intent was lawful (I am not sure about this), then I can agree with your assessment that coup or insurrection does not apply here.
"On top of that as we have repeatedly (number in the thousands) allowed and actively encouraged the type of violence the capital rioters used, in direct violation of the law, is it reasonable to assume that it is no longer considered a crime to move from a peaceful protest to destructive rioting? "
At this point, I guess it is reasonable to assume that it is no longer considered a crime if the powers that be agree with your cause.
I now read cranks answer and they look very similar. Basically, I think the entire incident should be placed into context of the current violent atmosphere, and that many participants should be given leniency do to that and due to the fact that, whether right or wrong, they were being fed the idea that the election was illegal.
As to the federal agent theory, I still haven't looked into that enough to see if any credibility. There sure are a lot of theories about many things these days.
I would vehemently disagree that rioters be given leniency to do as they wish - it is that exact philosophy that gave rise to what we saw.
But their intent DOES, seems to me, remove the crime from the area of an insurrection or coup. But it WAS highly illegal and rioters should always be punished. Of course it is always preferable to prevent the rioting in the first place!
"But their intent DOES, seems to me, remove the crime from the area of an insurrection or coup."
Removing it from the area of insurrection or coup would be part of the leniency I referred to.
Maybe I could rethink my wording on "in context of the current violent atmosphere."
There were people upset that the first person sentenced, an Indiana woman, only received three years probation for her role. Apparently, she spent about ten minutes in the Capitol and did not actually riot. I think this misdemeanor sentence was reasonable.
I sense that, to some people these "white trash" have no excuse, while other people do. So, maybe in mind, I should give them the benefit of the doubt so to speak. You are correct, in that lawlessness must be dealt with appropriately.
I would disagree with the Indiana woman. She participated in a riot, committing crimes that furthered and encouraged the riot. If she and 500 more people had simply refused to participate, not entering the building, it might have gone far different. Just her presence encouraged and aided the rioters in their destruction.
I don't agree at all here. Her sentence was fair in my mind. We can get to a point when the punishments seem to reflect an authoritarian society and actually lend credence to ideas of revolution and perhaps more violence. A strong government, comfortable in its standing, should not have to go overboard to deter aggression. She did not riot, she trespassed some would say with the encouragement of the President.
I'm unaware of her sentence - that may be our only difference. I agree that she should not be sentenced the same as those that broke down the doors or damaged the interior, but she WAS there, inside the capital during a riot. This requires punishment, IMO, but not to the level of others. Something more than mere trespassing, but less than those that actually caused damage. As I see it, anyway.
I'll add that encouragement, from the ex-president or anyone else, is not an excuse. We are ALL responsible for our own actions, and "He made me do it" is not an acceptable excuse.
I appreciate your emphasis on personal responsibility.
However, it is a crime to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. And whether it's Maxine Waters or Donald Trump, encouraging a mob to attack people and property should be met with criminal prosecution.
I kind of see the woman as providing the megaphone for someone else to yell "fire". She didn't call out but she certainly helped make it happen.
Again with the Trump encouraging the break in and destruction, though...while his statements were very, very clear that there was to be no violence. When will you guys accept that he did NOT call for violence? A march, yes, and probably an illegal one (no permit), but he was absolutely asking for a peaceful march.
Although I do hear that some of the rioters, seeking to mitigate their punishment are saying he DID call for violence. Haven't seen anything but their testimony, though. No recordings, etc.
Here are Trump's exact words:
"If you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."
"We are going to the Capitol."
"We will never give up. We will never concede. It doesn't happen."
"We will stop the steal."
"We won this election and we won it by a landslide."
"Peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
Giuliani's words at the same rally:
"If we are wrong we will be made fools of, but if we're right a lot of them will go to jail. So let's have trial by combat."
There's more, but probably kind of pointless. I don't think having one sentence in an entire speech about being peaceful negates the rest of the speech. It just provides legal cover.
Unfortunately there isn't a single statement in your list from Trump that advocates violence. On the other hand, there IS at least some indication that he did NOT want violence.
So where does the claim that he advocated violence come from? The statements that don't mention it or those that deny violence? Does "We are going to the Capitol." indicate that Trump said to break down the doors and murder people?
I'm just not seeing any call to violence, but DO see calls for peaceful work to "stop the steal". Given that I cannot conscientiously say that Trump called for violence.
All your statements are factual Trump quotes. What's missing is the context in which they were said. Before and after sentences that actually form meaning when put into a speech. Context is where the media hook people. If one listens to full context one can more often be able to understand what one is trying to convey.
We may disagree a bit on the sentence. I also feel that Trump does bear some responsibility as I do see cranks point here. Of course, if we are going to say Trump bears some responsibility, we have to add Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, etc., to the list. Some of their statements, were more clearly a call to violence than were Trumps.
Oh, I think a great many people bear some responsibility. Most state governors and many city mayors. Police districts and the top of the heap there. Media bears some. Politicians voting to reduce police presence or calling out not to use the national guard in a riot. Mayors that join the rioting.
There are thousands of people that share the responsibility for the rioting, whether at the Capital or elsewhere. I see the Capital riot as just another riot, not something radically different or scary, except that it frightened top politicians that until then were content to let the little people fend for themselves.
But the bottom line is that we are ALL responsible for our actions. No one held a gun to the heads of those rioters; they did it all on their lonesome, and trying to shift the blame to someone else doesn't work. At least IMO; we don't allow the defense of "He made me do it!" to the highway shooter that was angry at being cut off, and we should not allow it for rioters.
"But the bottom line is that we are ALL responsible for our actions."
Bingo. All kids should learn this early on, though it seems we are going in the opposite direction with this, especially as we divide ourselves into certain groups of people.
This exact phrase was pounded into my head years ago after getting in some trouble that I felt was vastly overblown. It really stuck in my mind. I still do think it was vastly overblown, and that the lies, etc., done by others did not help my position, but ultimately, I put myself in a bad spot, and only I am responsible for my emotions, how I react, etc.
So, basically, we may disagree on specifics of punishments...all Americans should agree that if you do a crime then you do the time so to speak. That goes for illegal immigration as well.
""But the bottom line is that we are ALL responsible for our actions."
"Bingo. All kids should learn this early on, though it seems we are going in the opposite direction with this, especially as we divide ourselves into certain groups of people."
Coincidentally, I recently heard some pundit blurb that spoke to this issue. It referenced the `Affluenza' defense'.
Your comments are showing your age hard sun. You will be sounding like us old dinosaurs before you know it. ;-)
Oh wow. They are actually advertising the affluenza defense! One of those not so helpful group divisions.
I first heard of affluenza in a college course i reference to the environment and how most people suffered from "affluenza" that manifested itself in our consumption habits and this made Earth sick. They twisted that around a bit sense then.
Ha. yeah. I am pushing 50 now. Not quite AARP eligible though
In this time of "victimhood" and "He made me do it!" it's pretty hard to convince so many people that they really are responsible for their actions. Perhaps they will never learn that basic fact of nature.
What's obvious here is that these were right-wingers posing as left-wingers posing as right-wingers.
I don't readily laugh at every "conspiracy" as some of them, even lately, turn out to be true. I found that Tucker Carlson can sometimes find some truth just as even Rachael Maddow can sometimes do.
I do know that I agree that Jan 6 would not have happened without all the rioting previous in the year. More specifically, I feel like it would not have happened without the left wing encouragement of this rioting. Democrat politicians and the MSM absolutely encouraged BLM rioting, and we cannot even provide direct quotes, with context, on FB without the fact checkers providing an excuse for the instigators. These are the types of actions that had me ashamed to say I leaned toward Democrats in voting.
Well said... You need to consider the Democratic party has changed over the past actually couple of decades. It at this point is unrecognizable to me.
Yeah. It has changed a lot even since Trump was elected. The drive to be, and say, the opposite of him helped push the Dems to ridiculousness.
Yes, it did, and now we have a segment of our society pointing a finger at the right making claims we are subversive Nazis, communists. Almost can hear them screaming "get them!"
And the funny thing is it is them that seem to be seeking a Totalitarianism or political system that prohibits opposition parties, restricts individual opposition to the state and its claims, and exercises an extremely high degree of control over public and private life.
I mean one only need to look at the bills Boden s trying to push, Government control over voting laws, rich to be heavily taxed, a green deal wherein realty will cost the loss of so many jobs, dividing the country portraying black citizens as unable to even control their own lives, even when it comes to getting themselves to the polls.
It would seem they need a better leader than Old Joe. One must keep a sense of humor.
"No matter how carefully a project is planned, something may still go wrong with it. The saying is adapted from a line in “To a Mouse,” by Robert Burns: “The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men".
I think many that voted for Joe's agenda are becoming aware it failing, and so quickly.
by Readmikenow 14 months ago
Guess what? President Donald Trump is not responsible for the January 6th breach of the Capital building. It was planned long before he gave his speech. At last, the truth comes out. "A Senate investigation of the January6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol has uncovered...
by Readmikenow 13 months ago
It seems that the speech of President Donald Trump may not have been the cause for the protest at the Capital. Of all places, CNN broke a story that is was actually planned BEFORE the speech took place. Could CNN have accidentally committed an act of journalism?"Investigators...
by sabrebIade 12 years ago
Federal agents and Hollywood team up to stop internet counterfeiting and piracy.Bridget CamposAt a news conference on Wednesday at one of the soundstages of Disney Studios, U.S. officials announced a recent raid against pirating movies and internet counterfeiting, called â��Operation in Our...
by Sharlee 13 days ago
The House committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol will hold the first of at least a half-dozen public hearings this week, having already promised stunning revelations that would lay bare just how dangerously close the U.S. came to losing its democracy. So, will you tune in? ...
by Don W 3 years ago
Not that Special Counsel. Mueller's office is the Special Counsel's Office. This is from the Office of Special Counsel, which is different. It issued a report on May 30. Is it as ambiguous as the one from the other Special Counsel?"The U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC) calls on...
by Allen Donald 19 months ago
This is your President:a man who claims fraud in the 2016 election and organizes a committee to find fraud which fails and disbands.a man who again claims fraud in the 2020 election before the election even happens and does not commit to the peaceful transfer of power.a man who claims fraud after...
Copyright © 2022 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of Maven Coalition, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|