OMG, look at the ******* poll. 80% of Republicans condemn the 1/6 riot at the capital.
Do democrats condemn the 2020 riots? **** no.
Care to compare the two? Which is worse? So we'll see in 2022 and 2024 which party voters prefer.
I can see why you don't want to debate policies, the democrats can't defend theirs.
You know what's really going to get you crying in your beer? The protests listed on the left side will go down in history (correctly) as a time of civil unrest in the advancement of civil rights. (And just an FYI, the violence and rioting were roundly and soundly condemned by Democrats. Joe Biden certainly never told rioters that he "loved" them as Trump did) The list on the right side will go down in history as a failed insurrection.
1. Was anyone charged with insurrection? Ans: NO (so the DC protest wasn't an insurrection, duh)
2. Look at the democrats urging the rioters to burn businesses down, the violence wasn't condemned by democrats, it was supported, Kamala even bailed out rioters to continue rioting. History will call them lawless thugs, not peaceful protesters.
1. When has anyone ever been charged with insurrection? Whether or not anyone gets charged with insurrection, seditious conspiracy or just plain trespassing, January 6th will go down in history as a failed insurrection. This is fact.
2. Supporting the protests isn't the same as supporting the violence and rioting. Democrats have roundly and soundly condemned the violence and rioting at the protests.
1. You get charged with insurrection when there is a case for insurrection. Democrat talking points are soon forgotten, like right after the 2022 and 2024 elections. History can't call it an insurrection if no one is charged with insurrection, by definition, look at the charges, not talking points.
2. Bailing out rioters to keep up the violence is NOT condemning the violence. Democrats
A man who was twice bailed out of jail in separate cases by a fund supported by Vice President Kamala Harris has been arrested again while under investigation for another possible case, Minnesota prosecutors said.
www.foxnews.com
3. Clyburn and a few other democrats spoke up against the violence, but there were many others supporting the violence, like Kamala.
1. You did not answer the question. When has anyone been charged with insurrection? Insurrection is what it is being called now and what it will be called in the future. I know you don't like the fact, but that does not change it being a fact.
2. Small piece of advice...do a quick Google search before making statements.
1. I don't care if/when anyone has ever been charged with insurrection, its totally irrelevant.
What matters is what the 1/6 protesters are charged with, and its NOT insurrection, that's the only fact.
2. LOL! So democrats talk out both sides of their mouths. That is NOT news. Kamala also said she was already at the southern border, a lie. So Kamala condemns violence, but bails out rioters to do more burning and violence, typical hypocrite pol.
A man who was twice bailed out of jail in separate cases by a fund supported by Vice President Kamala Harris has been arrested again while under investigation for another possible case, Minnesota prosecutors said.
1. The fact that none have been charged and may not be charged with insurrection does not in any way, shape or form, change the fact that history will record it as a failed insurrection.
2. She condemned the violence. Neither she nor Biden went out and told the violent rioters that they "loved" them. Your attempt at whataboutism is a fail.
1. LOL!! Do you actually read what you post? If no one is charged with insurrection, how can it be called an insurrection? Its like calling a drunk a heroin addict, the shoe just doesn't fit. If its called an insurrection in history books its fake history, like the 1619 Project.
2. Ok, we can agree that some democrats condemned the BLM riots. The full Trump quote is below,
President Donald Trump's taped message to his supporters tapped into their grievances and avoided any condemnation.
www.businessinsider.com
After hours of violence and chaos, Trump told his supporters to "go home" but did not condemn them. Later in the day, went even further in a follow up tweet to depict the siege as inevitable.
He also continued to falsely claim the presidential election was stolen.
"This was a fraudulent election, but we can't play into the hands of these people," Trump said in the video. "We have to have peace. So go home. We love you; you're very special."
1. Because it is already being called one. That isn't going to change. Plenty of things have been called an insurrection where people weren't charged with insurrection. Again, would you prefer failed coup? Failed rebellion? Failed takeover of the government (also known as insurrection)?
Except the 1619 project isn't fake history. The things depicted in the byline happened.
1. If you actually read the link you posted you'd see that the 1619 Project is fake history. a. The American Revolution was NOT fought to protect slavery. (1-0 1776 Commission)
The Verdict: The historians have a clear upper hand in disputing the portrayal of the American Revolution as an attempt to protect slavery from British-instigated abolitionism.
b. Was Abraham Lincoln a racial colonizationist or exaggerated egalitarian? (2-0 1776 Commission)
The historians’ letter contests this depiction, responding that Lincoln evolved in an egalitarian direction and pointing to his embrace of an anti-slavery constitutionalism that was also shared by Frederick Douglass. Hannah-Jones, they contend, has essentially cherry picked quotations and other examples of Lincoln’s shortcomings on racial matters and presented them out of context from his life and broader philosophical principles. Who freed the slaves? That was Abraham Lincoln.
c. Did slavery drive America’s economic growth and the emergence of American Capitalism? (3-0 1776 Commission)
The five historians directly challenged the historical accuracy of Desmond’s thesis. By presenting “supposed direct connections between slavery and modern corporate practices,” they note, the 1619 Project’s editors “have so far failed to establish any empirical veracity or reliability” of these claims “and have been seriously challenged by other historians.” The historians’ letter further chastises the Times for extending its “imprimatur and credibility” to these claims. Each of these criticisms rings true. The Verdict: This one goes conclusively to the five historians. Echoing other critics, the historians point to serious and substantive defects with Matthew Desmond’s thesis about the economics of slavery, and with the project’s overreliance on the contested New History of Capitalism literature. By contrast, the Times has completely failed to offer a convincing response to this criticism – or really any response at all.
d. Did the 1619 Project seek adequate scholarly guidance in preparing its work? (4-0 1776 Commission)
The Verdict: The historians have a valid complaint about deficiencies of scholarly guidance for the 1619 Project’s treatment of the period between the American Revolution and the Civil War. This comparative lack of scholarly input for the years between 1775 and 1865 stands in contrast with the Times’ heavy use of scholars who specialize in more recent dimensions of race in the United States. It is worth noting that the 1619 Project has received far less pushback on its materials about the 20th century and present day – areas that are more clearly within the scholarly competencies of the named consultants.
The 1619 Project is a joke, fake history, and just ******* wrong. But you're welcome to believe it as true, this is America, you can say or think or write whatever you want. Unless the hi-tech oligarchs censor you...
"You guys" being all those Republican governors, Republican attorneys general, Republican secretaries of state, etc. who had certified their states' elections results, often after recounts and audits, dozens of judges, many of them Republicans including Trump appointees who had thrown all the frivolous challenges out of court, Trump's VP whom his goons failed to hang, Trump's AG who labeled his fake claim that he had won in a Landslide "Bullshit"?
Nope. It was the 51.33% of the American electorate who voted for the President, giving him a 306-232 victory, that threw the Cry Baby Sore Loser out on his big marshmallow tushie and made him have a tantrump.
OMG, look at the ******* poll. 80% of Republicans condemn the 1/6 riot at the capital.
Do democrats condemn the 2020 riots? **** no.
Care to compare the two? Which is worse? So we'll see in 2022 and 2024 which party voters prefer.
I can see why you don't want to debate policies, the democrats can't defend theirs.
You know what's really going to get you crying in your beer? The protests listed on the left side will go down in history (correctly) as a time of civil unrest in the advancement of civil rights. (And just an FYI, the violence and rioting were roundly and soundly condemned by Democrats. Joe Biden certainly never told rioters that he "loved" them as Trump did) The list on the right side will go down in history as a failed insurrection.
1. Was anyone charged with insurrection? Ans: NO (so the DC protest wasn't an insurrection, duh)
2. Look at the democrats urging the rioters to burn businesses down, the violence wasn't condemned by democrats, it was supported, Kamala even bailed out rioters to continue rioting. History will call them lawless thugs, not peaceful protesters.
1. When has anyone ever been charged with insurrection? Whether or not anyone gets charged with insurrection, seditious conspiracy or just plain trespassing, January 6th will go down in history as a failed insurrection. This is fact.
2. Supporting the protests isn't the same as supporting the violence and rioting. Democrats have roundly and soundly condemned the violence and rioting at the protests.
1. You get charged with insurrection when there is a case for insurrection. Democrat talking points are soon forgotten, like right after the 2022 and 2024 elections. History can't call it an insurrection if no one is charged with insurrection, by definition, look at the charges, not talking points.
2. Bailing out rioters to keep up the violence is NOT condemning the violence. Democrats
A man who was twice bailed out of jail in separate cases by a fund supported by Vice President Kamala Harris has been arrested again while under investigation for another possible case, Minnesota prosecutors said.
www.foxnews.com
3. Clyburn and a few other democrats spoke up against the violence, but there were many others supporting the violence, like Kamala.
1. You did not answer the question. When has anyone been charged with insurrection? Insurrection is what it is being called now and what it will be called in the future. I know you don't like the fact, but that does not change it being a fact.
2. Small piece of advice...do a quick Google search before making statements.
1. I don't care if/when anyone has ever been charged with insurrection, its totally irrelevant.
What matters is what the 1/6 protesters are charged with, and its NOT insurrection, that's the only fact.
2. LOL! So democrats talk out both sides of their mouths. That is NOT news. Kamala also said she was already at the southern border, a lie. So Kamala condemns violence, but bails out rioters to do more burning and violence, typical hypocrite pol.
A man who was twice bailed out of jail in separate cases by a fund supported by Vice President Kamala Harris has been arrested again while under investigation for another possible case, Minnesota prosecutors said.
1. The fact that none have been charged and may not be charged with insurrection does not in any way, shape or form, change the fact that history will record it as a failed insurrection.
2. She condemned the violence. Neither she nor Biden went out and told the violent rioters that they "loved" them. Your attempt at whataboutism is a fail.
1. LOL!! Do you actually read what you post? If no one is charged with insurrection, how can it be called an insurrection? Its like calling a drunk a heroin addict, the shoe just doesn't fit. If its called an insurrection in history books its fake history, like the 1619 Project.
2. Ok, we can agree that some democrats condemned the BLM riots. The full Trump quote is below,
President Donald Trump's taped message to his supporters tapped into their grievances and avoided any condemnation.
www.businessinsider.com
After hours of violence and chaos, Trump told his supporters to "go home" but did not condemn them. Later in the day, went even further in a follow up tweet to depict the siege as inevitable.
He also continued to falsely claim the presidential election was stolen.
"This was a fraudulent election, but we can't play into the hands of these people," Trump said in the video. "We have to have peace. So go home. We love you; you're very special."
1. Because it is already being called one. That isn't going to change. Plenty of things have been called an insurrection where people weren't charged with insurrection. Again, would you prefer failed coup? Failed rebellion? Failed takeover of the government (also known as insurrection)?
Except the 1619 project isn't fake history. The things depicted in the byline happened.
1. If you actually read the link you posted you'd see that the 1619 Project is fake history. a. The American Revolution was NOT fought to protect slavery. (1-0 1776 Commission)
The Verdict: The historians have a clear upper hand in disputing the portrayal of the American Revolution as an attempt to protect slavery from British-instigated abolitionism.
b. Was Abraham Lincoln a racial colonizationist or exaggerated egalitarian? (2-0 1776 Commission)
The historians’ letter contests this depiction, responding that Lincoln evolved in an egalitarian direction and pointing to his embrace of an anti-slavery constitutionalism that was also shared by Frederick Douglass. Hannah-Jones, they contend, has essentially cherry picked quotations and other examples of Lincoln’s shortcomings on racial matters and presented them out of context from his life and broader philosophical principles. Who freed the slaves? That was Abraham Lincoln.
c. Did slavery drive America’s economic growth and the emergence of American Capitalism? (3-0 1776 Commission)
The five historians directly challenged the historical accuracy of Desmond’s thesis. By presenting “supposed direct connections between slavery and modern corporate practices,” they note, the 1619 Project’s editors “have so far failed to establish any empirical veracity or reliability” of these claims “and have been seriously challenged by other historians.” The historians’ letter further chastises the Times for extending its “imprimatur and credibility” to these claims. Each of these criticisms rings true. The Verdict: This one goes conclusively to the five historians. Echoing other critics, the historians point to serious and substantive defects with Matthew Desmond’s thesis about the economics of slavery, and with the project’s overreliance on the contested New History of Capitalism literature. By contrast, the Times has completely failed to offer a convincing response to this criticism – or really any response at all.
d. Did the 1619 Project seek adequate scholarly guidance in preparing its work? (4-0 1776 Commission)
The Verdict: The historians have a valid complaint about deficiencies of scholarly guidance for the 1619 Project’s treatment of the period between the American Revolution and the Civil War. This comparative lack of scholarly input for the years between 1775 and 1865 stands in contrast with the Times’ heavy use of scholars who specialize in more recent dimensions of race in the United States. It is worth noting that the 1619 Project has received far less pushback on its materials about the 20th century and present day – areas that are more clearly within the scholarly competencies of the named consultants.
The 1619 Project is a joke, fake history, and just ******* wrong. But you're welcome to believe it as true, this is America, you can say or think or write whatever you want. Unless the hi-tech oligarchs censor you...
Except it isn't. Parts of it were inaccurate, yes, but that doesn't mean curriculum based on it has to be wrong. Also, why did you truncate the "verdicts" ?
For example:
a. Hannah-Jones’s argument nonetheless contains kernels of truth that complicate the historians’ assessment, without overturning it. Included among these are instances where Britain was involved in the emancipation of slaves during the course of the war. These events must also be balanced against the fact that American independence created new opportunities for the northern states to abolish slavery within their borders. In the end, slavery’s relationship with the American Revolution was fraught with complexities that cut across the political dimensions of both sides.
You left it off entirely for b.
The Verdict:Nikole Hannah-Jones has the clear upper hand here. Her call to evaluate Lincoln’s record through problematic racial policies such as colonization reflects greater historical nuance and closer attention to the evidentiary record, including new developments in Lincoln scholarship. The historians’ counterarguments reflect a combination of outdated evidence and the construction of apocryphal exonerative narratives such as the lullaby thesis around colonization.
There is nothing wrong with exploring all parts of our history, not just the sunshine and roses part.
Watch as I prove you're lying about what I said. You claim I said Trump said white supremacists are very fine people yet here's a post of mine, to you, saying Trump condemned white supremacists...
I assumed nothing, dumbfuck. It's what he said. There was a racist rally of various rightwing racist groups. Trump said some of them were "very fine people." So which ones did he mean? Not white supremacists, KKK or neo-Nazis as he condemned them. That leaves the Proud Boys and the neo-Confederates.
You got caught lying about what I said AND you derailed the thread to lie about what I said. Now you prove you're not man enough to own up to your lies you get caught telling.
Regardless, this thread is about 1/6. What do you have to say about Trump supporters storming the Capitol?
My point regarding the 1/6 riot is the same as it has always been. It was violent riot, but those who broke the law still have a right to equal protection of the law, which means that being singled out for extra aggressive investigation and prosecution is a violation of their rights.
Any of them that end up in jail, will thus be political prisoners.
My point regarding the 1/6 riot is the same as it has always been. It was violent riot, but those who broke the law still have a right to equal protection of the law, which means that being singled out for extra aggressive investigation and prosecution is a violation of their rights.
Any of them that end up in jail, will thus be political prisoners.
Watch as I prove you're lying about what I said. You claim I said Trump said white supremacists are very fine people yet here's a post of mine, to you, saying Trump condemned white supremacists...
I assumed nothing, dumbfuck. It's what he said. There was a racist rally of various rightwing racist groups. Trump said some of them were "very fine people." So which ones did he mean? Not white supremacists, KKK or neo-Nazis as he condemned them. That leaves the Proud Boys and the neo-Confederates.
You got caught lying about what I said AND you derailed the thread to lie about what I said. Now you prove you're not man enough to own up to your lies you get caught telling.
Regardless, this thread is about 1/6. What do you have to say about Trump supporters storming the Capitol?
I think that they are being denied their right to equality before the law. They are being targeted with vastly more energy and zeal than the other rioters of the last 5 years.
Bullshit. They got angry and attacked a building. There was no intent to end our democracy. YOu are exaggerating to justify your focusing on the one small riot while ignoring your side's hundreds of bigger riots.
The desperate attempt to divert attention isn't working.
Maybe all the Trump goons who were apprehended will plead insanity. That may well work!
Jacob Anthony Chansley, the January 6 Capitol rioter dubbed the 'Q Shaman', will take a test in prison aimed at establishing if he is fit to understand the legal case against him, according to court records...
He had long been known as an influencer in the QAnon conspiracy theory movement.
Chansley... faces six federal charges over his alleged role in the unrest in the Capitol on January 6, including violent entry and disorderly conduct.
The test, said Lamberth, would establish if Chansley is "presently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense."
It just dawned on me that the DC riot at the capital building should NOT be trespassing because under the Xiden admin we have open borders. There are no property rights. How would the Dems like it if "we the people" ignored all the laws and rules and we all just wandered around the Capital 24/7/365 looking over their shoulders giving instantaneous feedback when ever anyone spoke?
Migrants are not arrested, they are detained. No one gets deported. They are all assumed to be asylum seekers and released.
Under Trump they waited in Mexico for their court hearings.
If they were arrested, where are they being held, a million person jail is needed. It doesn't exist.
The number of people arrested and deported for being in the US illegally has dropped under President Joe Biden after his administration narrowed its enforcement focus to those who may pose a threat or have criminal backgrounds, marking a shift from the policies under the Trump administration.
The reason for the deportations dropping is the "stay in Mexico policy". The number of apprehensions is not a fair representation of a higher number of those successfully crossing illegally.
That being said, we've always had persons crossing our border since we've had a border.
The "crisis" was never a big deal to anyone until your blob arrived on the scene and said that Mexicans are rapists. Ever since you've heard your dog whistle, you guys have been on a tear about it. Your blob changed very little.
In the first four months of this fiscal year, border agents have seen more illegal aliens than in all of FY 2018.
www.immigrationreform.com
3. The scary number is the number of hard core criminals entering the US, and Xiden is helping them. Trump had the lowest number. Its not a dog whistle. Its human trafficking, its drugs, its gangs like MS-13, its taking services paid for by taxpayers. View attachment 505776
"Scary"?
You can look at this board and see there were very few threads about immigrations and the "scary" things you see now before the blob got here.
Trump is a "law and order" president, just ask the police, DEA, and border patrol.
Democrats favor the criminals (defund the police, no prosecutions, no bail, etc.)
Crime rates are exploding. Enjoy your senile president and his band of criminal enablers.
he is the worst, most unethical, divisive, swamp creature, undemocratic, lawless president, we've ever had in our history. You'll never change my mind on it, because truth supports my views!
Watch as I prove you're lying about what I said. You claim I said Trump said white supremacists are very fine people yet here's a post of mine, to you, saying Trump condemned white supremacists...
I assumed nothing, dumbfuck. It's what he said. There was a racist rally of various rightwing racist groups. Trump said some of them were "very fine people." So which ones did he mean? Not white supremacists, KKK or neo-Nazis as he condemned them. That leaves the Proud Boys and the neo-Confederates.
You got caught lying about what I said AND you derailed the thread to lie about what I said. Now you prove you're not man enough to own up to your lies you get caught telling.
Regardless, this thread is about 1/6. What do you have to say about Trump supporters storming the Capitol?
I think that they are being denied their right to equality before the law. They are being targeted with vastly more energy and zeal than the other rioters of the last 5 years.
Bullshit. They got angry and attacked a building. There was no intent to end our democracy. YOu are exaggerating to justify your focusing on the one small riot while ignoring your side's hundreds of bigger riots.
It just dawned on me that the DC riot at the capital building should NOT be trespassing because under the Xiden admin we have open borders. There are no property rights. How would the Dems like it if "we the people" ignored all the laws and rules and we all just wandered around the Capital 24/7/365 looking over their shoulders giving instantaneous feedback when ever anyone spoke?
Migrants are not arrested, they are detained. No one gets deported. They are all assumed to be asylum seekers and released.
Under Trump they waited in Mexico for their court hearings.
If they were arrested, where are they being held, a million person jail is needed. It doesn't exist.
The number of people arrested and deported for being in the US illegally has dropped under President Joe Biden after his administration narrowed its enforcement focus to those who may pose a threat or have criminal backgrounds, marking a shift from the policies under the Trump administration.
The reason for the deportations dropping is the "stay in Mexico policy". The number of apprehensions is not a fair representation of a higher number of those successfully crossing illegally.
That being said, we've always had persons crossing our border since we've had a border.
The "crisis" was never a big deal to anyone until your blob arrived on the scene and said that Mexicans are rapists. Ever since you've heard your dog whistle, you guys have been on a tear about it. Your blob changed very little.
In the first four months of this fiscal year, border agents have seen more illegal aliens than in all of FY 2018.
www.immigrationreform.com
3. The scary number is the number of hard core criminals entering the US, and Xiden is helping them. Trump had the lowest number. Its not a dog whistle. Its human trafficking, its drugs, its gangs like MS-13, its taking services paid for by taxpayers. View attachment 505776
"Scary"?
You can look at this board and see there were very few threads about immigrations and the "scary" things you see now before the blob got here.
Trump is a "law and order" president, just ask the police, DEA, and border patrol.
Democrats favor the criminals (defund the police, no prosecutions, no bail, etc.)
Crime rates are exploding. Enjoy your senile president and his band of criminal enablers.
he is the worst, most unethical, divisive, swamp creature, undemocratic, lawless president, we've ever had in our history. You'll never change my mind on it, because truth supports my views!
Is that so? Four years of lying about alledged Russia collisions Gainst an innocent President Trump that were debunked by each and every false narrative your Democrat Party invented. And I'm supposed to start worshipping the old liar's club?
Ain't gonna happen.
Just like the calls of treason on republicans that voted to question the certification in certain states while no such calls were made in 2017 when dems did the same thing are just different so is this.
Maybe all the Trump goons who were apprehended will plead insanity. That may well work!
Jacob Anthony Chansley, the January 6 Capitol rioter dubbed the 'Q Shaman', will take a test in prison aimed at establishing if he is fit to understand the legal case against him, according to court records...
He had long been known as an influencer in the QAnon conspiracy theory movement.
Chansley... faces six federal charges over his alleged role in the unrest in the Capitol on January 6, including violent entry and disorderly conduct.
The test, said Lamberth, would establish if Chansley is "presently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense."
i've been clear that I consider the 1/6 riot to be a violent crime that should be investigated and prosecuted.
My only point beyond that, is that investigating it and prosecuting it more aggressively than other similar crimes, is a violation of equal protection of the law.
Nothing in your post, addresses that at all.
Question: Does it bother you that I don't post a lot about the violence and thuggery of the lefty rioters? I think we all know that riots are violent crimes and I don't feel the need to post Appeals to Emotion to support my point(s) like you do. You do know that, if I spent the time looking I could post plenty of photos of lefty violence and info about what sub human scum the lefty rioters are. Do you need that to understand that the other riots were bad too?
It just dawned on me that the DC riot at the capital building should NOT be trespassing because under the Xiden admin we have open borders. There are no property rights. How would the Dems like it if "we the people" ignored all the laws and rules and we all just wandered around the Capital 24/7/365 looking over their shoulders giving instantaneous feedback when ever anyone spoke?
Migrants are not arrested, they are detained. No one gets deported. They are all assumed to be asylum seekers and released.
Under Trump they waited in Mexico for their court hearings.
If they were arrested, where are they being held, a million person jail is needed. It doesn't exist.
The number of people arrested and deported for being in the US illegally has dropped under President Joe Biden after his administration narrowed its enforcement focus to those who may pose a threat or have criminal backgrounds, marking a shift from the policies under the Trump administration.
Discover population, economy, health, and more with the most comprehensive global statistics at your fingertips.
worldpopulationreview.com
They may have gone down but there are still plenty of them....
Obama had the most deportations of any President, more than Trump, and you called him an OPEN BORDERS president as well..... So it is much like the little boy who called wolf.
Biden's plan is to increase immigration court judges, up to the heavens, so that those who don't qualify via the court hearing to be refugees, are deported right away, instead of months later....where they can disappear before court hearing.
Watch as I prove you're lying about what I said. You claim I said Trump said white supremacists are very fine people yet here's a post of mine, to you, saying Trump condemned white supremacists...
I assumed nothing, dumbfuck. It's what he said. There was a racist rally of various rightwing racist groups. Trump said some of them were "very fine people." So which ones did he mean? Not white supremacists, KKK or neo-Nazis as he condemned them. That leaves the Proud Boys and the neo-Confederates.
You got caught lying about what I said AND you derailed the thread to lie about what I said. Now you prove you're not man enough to own up to your lies you get caught telling.
Regardless, this thread is about 1/6. What do you have to say about Trump supporters storming the Capitol?
My point regarding the 1/6 riot is the same as it has always been. It was violent riot, but those who broke the law still have a right to equal protection of the law, which means that being singled out for extra aggressive investigation and prosecution is a violation of their rights.
Any of them that end up in jail, will thus be political prisoners.
All decent Americans can hope that Republican leadership shows some respect for the police that protected them and endured the savage attack of Trump goons.
Michael Fanone, a Metropolitan Police officer who suffered a mild heart attack and a brain injury during the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, challenged House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy in a meeting on Friday to publicly condemn Republicans who have downplayed the insurrection and voted against honoring the law enforcement who protected them during the siege.
Fanone told reporters after the meeting that he had asked McCarthy to denounce the 21 House Republicans who voted against giving police officers a congressional medal of honor for defending the Capitol, as well as...
View attachment 505910
GOP Congressman Andrew Clyde, who had compared the riot to a "normal tourist visit."
"I found those remarks to be disgusting," Fanone said.
He added that he wanted McCarthy to "denounce the baseless theory that the FBI was behind the January 6 insurrection," a false claim that has recently been promoted by right-wing media outlets and even members of Congress.
Your pretense of caring about violence or the police, makes no sense, if you prioritize this one relatively small riot while downplaying the far more numerous and violent riots from the Left over the last 5 years.
Watch as I prove you're lying about what I said. You claim I said Trump said white supremacists are very fine people yet here's a post of mine, to you, saying Trump condemned white supremacists...
I assumed nothing, dumbfuck. It's what he said. There was a racist rally of various rightwing racist groups. Trump said some of them were "very fine people." So which ones did he mean? Not white supremacists, KKK or neo-Nazis as he condemned them. That leaves the Proud Boys and the neo-Confederates.
You got caught lying about what I said AND you derailed the thread to lie about what I said. Now you prove you're not man enough to own up to your lies you get caught telling.
Regardless, this thread is about 1/6. What do you have to say about Trump supporters storming the Capitol?
I think that they are being denied their right to equality before the law. They are being targeted with vastly more energy and zeal than the other rioters of the last 5 years.
Bullshit. They got angry and attacked a building. There was no intent to end our democracy. YOu are exaggerating to justify your focusing on the one small riot while ignoring your side's hundreds of bigger riots.
OMG, look at the ******* poll. 80% of Republicans condemn the 1/6 riot at the capital.
Do democrats condemn the 2020 riots? **** no.
Care to compare the two? Which is worse? So we'll see in 2022 and 2024 which party voters prefer.
I can see why you don't want to debate policies, the democrats can't defend theirs.
You know what's really going to get you crying in your beer? The protests listed on the left side will go down in history (correctly) as a time of civil unrest in the advancement of civil rights. (And just an FYI, the violence and rioting were roundly and soundly condemned by Democrats. Joe Biden certainly never told rioters that he "loved" them as Trump did) The list on the right side will go down in history as a failed insurrection.
1. Was anyone charged with insurrection? Ans: NO (so the DC protest wasn't an insurrection, duh)
2. Look at the democrats urging the rioters to burn businesses down, the violence wasn't condemned by democrats, it was supported, Kamala even bailed out rioters to continue rioting. History will call them lawless thugs, not peaceful protesters.
1. When has anyone ever been charged with insurrection? Whether or not anyone gets charged with insurrection, seditious conspiracy or just plain trespassing, January 6th will go down in history as a failed insurrection. This is fact.
2. Supporting the protests isn't the same as supporting the violence and rioting. Democrats have roundly and soundly condemned the violence and rioting at the protests.
1. You get charged with insurrection when there is a case for insurrection. Democrat talking points are soon forgotten, like right after the 2022 and 2024 elections. History can't call it an insurrection if no one is charged with insurrection, by definition, look at the charges, not talking points.
2. Bailing out rioters to keep up the violence is NOT condemning the violence. Democrats
A man who was twice bailed out of jail in separate cases by a fund supported by Vice President Kamala Harris has been arrested again while under investigation for another possible case, Minnesota prosecutors said.
www.foxnews.com
3. Clyburn and a few other democrats spoke up against the violence, but there were many others supporting the violence, like Kamala.
1. You did not answer the question. When has anyone been charged with insurrection? Insurrection is what it is being called now and what it will be called in the future. I know you don't like the fact, but that does not change it being a fact.
2. Small piece of advice...do a quick Google search before making statements.
1. I don't care if/when anyone has ever been charged with insurrection, its totally irrelevant.
What matters is what the 1/6 protesters are charged with, and its NOT insurrection, that's the only fact.
2. LOL! So democrats talk out both sides of their mouths. That is NOT news. Kamala also said she was already at the southern border, a lie. So Kamala condemns violence, but bails out rioters to do more burning and violence, typical hypocrite pol.
A man who was twice bailed out of jail in separate cases by a fund supported by Vice President Kamala Harris has been arrested again while under investigation for another possible case, Minnesota prosecutors said.
1. The fact that none have been charged and may not be charged with insurrection does not in any way, shape or form, change the fact that history will record it as a failed insurrection.
2. She condemned the violence. Neither she nor Biden went out and told the violent rioters that they "loved" them. Your attempt at whataboutism is a fail.
1. LOL!! Do you actually read what you post? If no one is charged with insurrection, how can it be called an insurrection? Its like calling a drunk a heroin addict, the shoe just doesn't fit. If its called an insurrection in history books its fake history, like the 1619 Project.
2. Ok, we can agree that some democrats condemned the BLM riots. The full Trump quote is below,
President Donald Trump's taped message to his supporters tapped into their grievances and avoided any condemnation.
www.businessinsider.com
After hours of violence and chaos, Trump told his supporters to "go home" but did not condemn them. Later in the day, went even further in a follow up tweet to depict the siege as inevitable.
He also continued to falsely claim the presidential election was stolen.
"This was a fraudulent election, but we can't play into the hands of these people," Trump said in the video. "We have to have peace. So go home. We love you; you're very special."
1. Because it is already being called one. That isn't going to change. Plenty of things have been called an insurrection where people weren't charged with insurrection. Again, would you prefer failed coup? Failed rebellion? Failed takeover of the government (also known as insurrection)?
Except the 1619 project isn't fake history. The things depicted in the byline happened.
1. If you actually read the link you posted you'd see that the 1619 Project is fake history. a. The American Revolution was NOT fought to protect slavery. (1-0 1776 Commission)
The Verdict: The historians have a clear upper hand in disputing the portrayal of the American Revolution as an attempt to protect slavery from British-instigated abolitionism.
b. Was Abraham Lincoln a racial colonizationist or exaggerated egalitarian? (2-0 1776 Commission)
The historians’ letter contests this depiction, responding that Lincoln evolved in an egalitarian direction and pointing to his embrace of an anti-slavery constitutionalism that was also shared by Frederick Douglass. Hannah-Jones, they contend, has essentially cherry picked quotations and other examples of Lincoln’s shortcomings on racial matters and presented them out of context from his life and broader philosophical principles. Who freed the slaves? That was Abraham Lincoln.
c. Did slavery drive America’s economic growth and the emergence of American Capitalism? (3-0 1776 Commission)
The five historians directly challenged the historical accuracy of Desmond’s thesis. By presenting “supposed direct connections between slavery and modern corporate practices,” they note, the 1619 Project’s editors “have so far failed to establish any empirical veracity or reliability” of these claims “and have been seriously challenged by other historians.” The historians’ letter further chastises the Times for extending its “imprimatur and credibility” to these claims. Each of these criticisms rings true. The Verdict: This one goes conclusively to the five historians. Echoing other critics, the historians point to serious and substantive defects with Matthew Desmond’s thesis about the economics of slavery, and with the project’s overreliance on the contested New History of Capitalism literature. By contrast, the Times has completely failed to offer a convincing response to this criticism – or really any response at all.
d. Did the 1619 Project seek adequate scholarly guidance in preparing its work? (4-0 1776 Commission)
The Verdict: The historians have a valid complaint about deficiencies of scholarly guidance for the 1619 Project’s treatment of the period between the American Revolution and the Civil War. This comparative lack of scholarly input for the years between 1775 and 1865 stands in contrast with the Times’ heavy use of scholars who specialize in more recent dimensions of race in the United States. It is worth noting that the 1619 Project has received far less pushback on its materials about the 20th century and present day – areas that are more clearly within the scholarly competencies of the named consultants.
The 1619 Project is a joke, fake history, and just ******* wrong. But you're welcome to believe it as true, this is America, you can say or think or write whatever you want. Unless the hi-tech oligarchs censor you...
Except it isn't. Parts of it were inaccurate, yes, but that doesn't mean curriculum based on it has to be wrong. Also, why did you truncate the "verdicts" ?
For example:
a. Hannah-Jones’s argument nonetheless contains kernels of truth that complicate the historians’ assessment, without overturning it. Included among these are instances where Britain was involved in the emancipation of slaves during the course of the war. These events must also be balanced against the fact that American independence created new opportunities for the northern states to abolish slavery within their borders. In the end, slavery’s relationship with the American Revolution was fraught with complexities that cut across the political dimensions of both sides.
You left it off entirely for b.
The Verdict:Nikole Hannah-Jones has the clear upper hand here. Her call to evaluate Lincoln’s record through problematic racial policies such as colonization reflects greater historical nuance and closer attention to the evidentiary record, including new developments in Lincoln scholarship. The historians’ counterarguments reflect a combination of outdated evidence and the construction of apocryphal exonerative narratives such as the lullaby thesis around colonization.
There is nothing wrong with exploring all parts of our history, not just the sunshine and roses part.
I truncated the verdicts to "just enough" to show that the historians disagreed with Hanna-Jones' version of history.
Replying to point "a."
British emancipation occurred in 1833. So the article is just wrong about the Revolutionary War viz slavery in the northern states, so I'm not sure what "kernels of truth" they are referring to. The "verdict" seems clear enough to me. The Verdict: The historians have a clear upper hand in disputing the portrayal of the American Revolution as an attempt to protect slavery from British-instigated abolitionism.
The Lincoln issue was by far the most complex question. I have a hard time saying that Lincoln was a racist, he wasn't: Was Abraham Lincoln a racial colonizationist or exaggerated egalitarian?
Lets look at those two issues separately:
1. Was Lincoln a colonizationist?
Colonizationist means should the US offer to send the freed slaves back to Africa, to Liberia? The logistics and cost of sending ~2m blacks back to Africa would be a massive cost to the US after an expensive civil war.
This table shows that in 1860 there were about 2m free+slaves in the US, 300,000 free and 1.7m slaves.
How many could fit on a ship to send back to Liberia, Africa, and how many ships would that take? Not a practical solution.
This link shows many facts about Lincoln's considerations:
"In his 3 hour speech in Peoria, Illinois , Lincoln provided his most comprehensive speech up to that date about slavery. He presented moral, legal and economic arguments against slavery. While he declared slavery morally wrong he also admitted he did not know exactly what should be done politically. He believed, and for most of his career, that colonization would provide the solution." “If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to Liberia,–to their own native land. But a moment’s reflection would convince me, that whatever of high hope, (as I think there is) there may be in this, in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible.”
He would love to send all the freed slaves back to Liberia, but that solution is just not practical. I don't see favoring racial colonization as being racist, but as returning slaves to their homeland.
2. Was Lincoln an exaggerated egalitarian?
Meaning: Affirming, promoting, or characterized by belief in equal political, economic, social, and civil rights for all people.
There are no facts presented to research, just their conclusions, which I disagree with.
1. Is colonization "problematic" and racist? Hell no. Its undoing slavery, returning blacks to their homeland.
2. WTF does "The historians’ counterarguments reflect a combination of outdated evidence and the construction of apocryphal exonerative narratives such as the lullaby thesis around colonization."even mean?????
I googled "lullaby thesis" and there is no such thing.
So I'm calling bullshit on the historians' and Hannah-Jones' negative take on Abraham Lincoln.
All violent attacks upon Congress to prevent it from fulfilling its Constitutional responsibilities are treated equally.
Do you believe that, of the thousands of conspirators who stole Trump's "Landslide!" not a single suspect has ever been named (in stark contrast to the hundreds of Trump goons arrested) because of uniform law enforcement bias and laxity across the nation?
All decent Americans can hope that Republican leadership shows some respect for the police that protected them and endured the savage attack of Trump goons.
Michael Fanone, a Metropolitan Police officer who suffered a mild heart attack and a brain injury during the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, challenged House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy in a meeting on Friday to publicly condemn Republicans who have downplayed the insurrection and voted against honoring the law enforcement who protected them during the siege.
Fanone told reporters after the meeting that he had asked McCarthy to denounce the 21 House Republicans who voted against giving police officers a congressional medal of honor for defending the Capitol, as well as...
View attachment 505910
GOP Congressman Andrew Clyde, who had compared the riot to a "normal tourist visit."
"I found those remarks to be disgusting," Fanone said.
He added that he wanted McCarthy to "denounce the baseless theory that the FBI was behind the January 6 insurrection," a false claim that has recently been promoted by right-wing media outlets and even members of Congress.
Your pretense of caring about violence or the police, makes no sense, if you prioritize this one relatively small riot while downplaying the far more numerous and violent riots from the Left over the last 5 years.
www.foxnews.com
www.businessinsider.com
