there was no insurrection on jan 6th !

[rightwinger]

You can still bear arms

How may squirrels do you need to shoot with an AR 15 and 50 round magazine.

That magazine serves one purpose......kill as many people as possible

Again if you truly believe the sentence that I've bolded, you should be focused on disarming the government first. Otherwise, by your own logic, the government has thousands if not millions of these tools to "kill as many people as possible."

<sob>.But....But...What about the Gubmint!

 

[Utilitarian]

You can still bear arms

How may squirrels do you need to shoot with an AR 15 and 50 round magazine.

That magazine serves one purpose......kill as many people as possible

Again if you truly believe the sentence that I've bolded, you should be focused on disarming the government first. Otherwise, by your own logic, the government has thousands if not millions of these tools to "kill as many people as possible."

You need to find where the Constitution prohibits the government from forming armed services for defense. Because, as we all know, if it doesn't say you can't do it, then you can.

...which would be the reason why the 2nd Amendment covers the rifles that many progressives fear so much. In short, if we allow soldiers and cops to carry those scary "assault rifles" with big magazines, then the citizenry should be allowed to do so as well.

 

[Utilitarian]

You can still bear arms

How may squirrels do you need to shoot with an AR 15 and 50 round magazine.

That magazine serves one purpose......kill as many people as possible

Again if you truly believe the sentence that I've bolded, you should be focused on disarming the government first. Otherwise, by your own logic, the government has thousands if not millions of these tools to "kill as many people as possible."

<sob>.But....But...What about the Gubmint!

If you want to trust the government while pushing to disarm the public, then that's your prerogative, but that mindset is best suited for a place like China, not the U.S.

 

[Mustang]

The current damage assessment from the insurrection that never happened is $2.5 million.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Putting infected people in nursing homes isn't noble either, but you seem silent on that issue.

Why the diversion?

Most of the deaths have involved people that were close to death already. The longer term problems have to do with people out of work and in poverty. I care more about those people than those close to death already. The fate of the healthy has longer term economic implications.

That issue has some gray areas but CUOMO didn’t issue the directive because he cared more about keeping the economy going than he did about the people who were close to death anyways as you advocate.

Cuomo recommended putting recovering COVID patients into nursing homes in order to free up hospital space I’m the worst cases of Covid patients. I have no problem with

While public health experts quibbled with the report’s self-serving claim that the governor’s policy wasn’t a factor in COVID-19 nursing home deaths, they nevertheless agreed with the report’s broader conclusion that nursing home staffers as well as visitors, before they were banned, were likely the main drivers of COVID-19 infection and death in nursing homes.​

“Based on the timeline of the policy and deaths in the city, it is very unlikely that policy contributed to thousands of deaths,” said Shivakoti.​

Infection control is a long-standing problem at nursing homes, Nash said, and the COVID deaths were a basic failure of infection control. That said, “it’s unclear how many of the deaths the policy might have caused.”​

Also unclear: how many of the dead were grandmothers and grandfathers.​

Our Ruling​

In a tweet, the HHS assistant secretary for public affairs said that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo “forced” nursing homes across the state to admit COVID-positive patients and that this policy fueled the spread of COVID-19 that led to thousands of deaths in the nursing home population.​

Although nursing homes felt pressure to accept COVID-positive patients, they were not actually forced to do so. State regulations require nursing homes to accept patients only if they can care for them, and they could have refused them on those grounds.​

In addition, it’s unclear the extent to which the governor’s policy was responsible for nursing home COVID-19 deaths. Infection control is a long-standing problem in nursing homes, predating the pandemic, and a report showed peak numbers of nursing home deaths came prior to the peak influx of patients as a result of Cuomo’s advisory. While the introduction of COVID-19 positive patients into nursing homes no doubt had an effect on infection spread, Caputo’s statement suggests it was solely responsible. That’s not what the evidence shows.​

We rate this Mostly False.​

​

Is Cuomo Directive to Blame for Nursing Home COVID Deaths, as US Official Claims?

New York’s governor directed nursing homes to take COVID patients. But is it fair to say he “forced” them to do so, or that his directive led to the deaths of thousands of elderly residents? Most p…

www.google.com

If you had your way I don’t know how you would handle those people that are “close to death already” since saving the economy is more important in your preferred government scheme than saving those close to death lives of no economic value anymore.

My brother in law almost died of COVID in Russia. He is a police officer/detective in his mid forties. hospitalized for three weeks Before getting infected he was not close to death at all. My father in law his father is the head of a hospital who got special treatment for my wife’s younger and only brother. He could have died without special treatment. my wife by the way is a doctor as well. She has a masters degree in epidemiology from a university here in the states.

So enough of that Cuomo diversion let’s get back to your policy of letting the near dead die so you can go out and have a few drinks with as many wealthy and healthy and economically wise friends because you want to.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Because virtue signaling is a great way to appease the violent minority. Most BLM protesters might not be burning and looting, but enough of them did to make it an issue for various downtown areas last year.

And you have identified the arsonists and looters were part of the planned peaceful protests how?

case in point. The burning and looting in Kenosha was spontaneous when the videos came out and Black Lives Matter, the movement or the organization had absolutely nothing to do with it.

And you put it on the BLM organization. Why do you do that and how do you do that?

Sunday August 23 start​

Protests in Kenosha began on Sunday after video of the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old black man, went viral. The demonstrations quickly got violent, leading to looting and vandalism, and on Tuesday, the shooting that killed two people occurred. Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old from Illinois, has been arrested and charged in connection with the shooting.​

Kenosha mayor admits he did 'not have enough people' to stop riots​

If they always accompany BLM and Antifa, then it's by more than coincidence. To assign blame to the Capitol protesters while absolving blame for BLM is the height of hypocrisy.

I have posted dozens of times that I do not assign blame for the January 6, Capitol Hill riot on the 34,000 peaceful protesters of the 35,000 that stayed on the mall and did not invade the capital.

I have been steadfastly loyal to my principles that peaceful protesters have a right to assemble. That does not go away because others decide to take advantage of that and become violent.

You are way off target on that one..

you’re whataboutism doesn’t work with me

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Rand is one of the better Senators, yes.

As for the red/blue divide, if that sort of thing bothers you,

Its not that it bothers me so much but that I wanted to find out if you accept that as reliable information. Apparently you do. It will support my explanation that you’re desired policy to you let everyone get infected and let God sort them out is not simply an economic policy. There’s a politically racist component as well.

You must agree also that the counties that Hillary Clinton won are the counties having all the major cities. It does not matter whether the cities are in the red states or the blue ones.

You must agree that the majority of the ethnic minority population reside in those big cities.

Are you with me so far with regards to your agreement?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

where did I say ALL BLM protests turn violent?

I never said that you said “all”.

I was responding to this:

Somehow the planned BLM protests evolve into spontaneous looting, burning, and destruction

 

[LeftofLeft]

where did I say ALL BLM protests turn violent?

I never said that you said “all”.

I was responding to this:

Somehow the planned BLM protests evolve into spontaneous looting, burning, and destruction

yes.... all the riots last year had BLM planned protest and ANTIFA took part as well.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

yes.... all the riots last year had BLM planned protest and ANTIFA took part as well.

You are a liar. Point to a riot that was BLM planned.

 

[Utilitarian]

Putting infected people in nursing homes isn't noble either, but you seem silent on that issue.

Why the diversion?

Most of the deaths have involved people that were close to death already. The longer term problems have to do with people out of work and in poverty. I care more about those people than those close to death already. The fate of the healthy has longer term economic implications.

That issue has some gray areas but CUOMO didn’t issue the directive because he cared more about keeping the economy going than he did about the people who were close to death anyways as you advocate.

Cuomo recommended putting recovering COVID patients into nursing homes in order to free up hospital space I’m the worst cases of Covid patients. I have no problem with

While public health experts quibbled with the report’s self-serving claim that the governor’s policy wasn’t a factor in COVID-19 nursing home deaths, they nevertheless agreed with the report’s broader conclusion that nursing home staffers as well as visitors, before they were banned, were likely the main drivers of COVID-19 infection and death in nursing homes.​

“Based on the timeline of the policy and deaths in the city, it is very unlikely that policy contributed to thousands of deaths,” said Shivakoti.​

Infection control is a long-standing problem at nursing homes, Nash said, and the COVID deaths were a basic failure of infection control. That said, “it’s unclear how many of the deaths the policy might have caused.”​

Also unclear: how many of the dead were grandmothers and grandfathers.​

Our Ruling​

In a tweet, the HHS assistant secretary for public affairs said that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo “forced” nursing homes across the state to admit COVID-positive patients and that this policy fueled the spread of COVID-19 that led to thousands of deaths in the nursing home population.​

Although nursing homes felt pressure to accept COVID-positive patients, they were not actually forced to do so. State regulations require nursing homes to accept patients only if they can care for them, and they could have refused them on those grounds.​

In addition, it’s unclear the extent to which the governor’s policy was responsible for nursing home COVID-19 deaths. Infection control is a long-standing problem in nursing homes, predating the pandemic, and a report showed peak numbers of nursing home deaths came prior to the peak influx of patients as a result of Cuomo’s advisory. While the introduction of COVID-19 positive patients into nursing homes no doubt had an effect on infection spread, Caputo’s statement suggests it was solely responsible. That’s not what the evidence shows.​

We rate this Mostly False.​

​

Is Cuomo Directive to Blame for Nursing Home COVID Deaths, as US Official Claims?

New York’s governor directed nursing homes to take COVID patients. But is it fair to say he “forced” them to do so, or that his directive led to the deaths of thousands of elderly residents? Most p…

www.google.com

If you had your way I don’t know how you would handle those people that are “close to death already” since saving the economy is more important in your preferred government scheme than saving those close to death lives of no economic value anymore.

My brother in law almost died of COVID in Russia. He is a police officer/detective in his mid forties. hospitalized for three weeks Before getting infected he was not close to death at all. My father in law his father is the head of a hospital who got special treatment for my wife’s younger and only brother. He could have died without special treatment. my wife by the way is a doctor as well. She has a masters degree in epidemiology from a university here in the states.

So enough of that Cuomo diversion let’s get back to your policy of letting the near dead die so you can go out and have a few drinks with as many wealthy and healthy and economically wise friends because you want to.

Politifact is notorious for acting in bad faith in its supposed "fact checks."

Also, if "infection control" is a known problem in nursing homes that predates COVID, that sounds like it should be the last place you would want to put infected patients. By their own logic, their argument fails in terms of culpability.

It's not a diversion if bringing up the topic shows your hypocrisy, which it did.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

It's not a diversion if bringing up the topic shows your hypocrisy, which it did.

How did that show my hypocrisy?

 

[Utilitarian]

It's not a diversion if bringing up the topic shows your hypocrisy, which it did.

How did that show my hypocrisy?

Because you imply you hold the higher moral ground while still defending a policy that killed more people than the situation normally would have.

 

[Utilitarian]

Because virtue signaling is a great way to appease the violent minority. Most BLM protesters might not be burning and looting, but enough of them did to make it an issue for various downtown areas last year.

And you have identified the arsonists and looters were part of the planned peaceful protests how?

case in point. The burning and looting in Kenosha was spontaneous when the videos came out and Black Lives Matter, the movement or the organization had absolutely nothing to do with it.

And you put it on the BLM organization. Why do you do that and how do you do that?

Sunday August 23 start​

Protests in Kenosha began on Sunday after video of the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old black man, went viral. The demonstrations quickly got violent, leading to looting and vandalism, and on Tuesday, the shooting that killed two people occurred. Kyle Rittenhouse, a 17-year-old from Illinois, has been arrested and charged in connection with the shooting.​

Kenosha mayor admits he did 'not have enough people' to stop riots​

If they always accompany BLM and Antifa, then it's by more than coincidence. To assign blame to the Capitol protesters while absolving blame for BLM is the height of hypocrisy.

I have posted dozens of times that I do not assign blame for the January 6, Capitol Hill riot on the 34,000 peaceful protesters of the 35,000 that stayed on the mall and did not invade the capital.

I have been steadfastly loyal to my principles that peaceful protesters have a right to assemble. That does not go away because others decide to take advantage of that and become violent.

You are way off target on that one..

you’re whataboutism doesn’t work with me

It's not whataboutism if it's relevant to the topic, which it is. If you're consistent on that, then I was mistaken.

 

[Utilitarian]

Rand is one of the better Senators, yes.

As for the red/blue divide, if that sort of thing bothers you,

Its not that it bothers me so much but that I wanted to find out if you accept that as reliable information. Apparently you do. It will support my explanation that you’re desired policy to you let everyone get infected and let God sort them out is not simply an economic policy. There’s a politically racist component as well.

You must agree also that the counties that Hillary Clinton won are the counties having all the major cities. It does not matter whether the cities are in the red states or the blue ones.

You must agree that the majority of the ethnic minority population reside in those big cities.

Are you with me so far with regards to your agreement?

See, there you go again with your racism canard. Yeah, minorities tend to gather in cities. So what?

Also, keep beating that strawman. I never suggested throwing caution to the wind. I just didn't want government to get as involved. I said earlier that businesses should make their own call on this. You don't need the state to enforce everything. All you need is the state to remove people from the premises if they won't comply with a business's own policy.

 

[Utilitarian]

The current damage assessment from the insurrection that never happened is $2.5 million.

The damage assessment in Minneapolis was about $500 million.
The damage assessment in Kenosha was about $50 million.
The damage assessment in Portland so far is $2.3 million, although that only includes damage to federal buildings there.

 

[Chillicothe]

I haven't read every post in this entire thread. Hell, it's nearly 500 posts long.
However, I did see post #446, by the poster NotfooledbyW.
He offers one of the most succinct and on-target analysis of a couple of the righteous protests that unfortunately turned destructive.
He said this:

The obvious cause of the spontaneous outrage type of protest is that the disastrous incidents with police are made instantly public by being captured on video.

Here, here! The post is deadsolidperfectly correct. Camera-captures of police interactions with the population is a good thing.....for citizens and for police. Be it, dashboard cams, body-cams, security cams, or bystander smartphone cams......it is all good. And, hopefully, help to change policing for the better. And who wouldn't want things to improve in any and all things?

Why do you think they push it so hard?

Poster Eric is referencing the mail-in voting of 2020.
The response to his likely rhetorical question is pretty straightforward, to wit: Covid.

Duh!

 

[Utilitarian]

I haven't read every post in this entire thread. Hell, it's nearly 500 posts long.
However, I did see post #446, by the poster NotfooledbyW.
He offers one of the most succinct and on-target analysis of a couple of the righteous protests that unfortunately turned destructive.
He said this:

The obvious cause of the spontaneous outrage type of protest is that the disastrous incidents with police are made instantly public by being captured on video.

Here, here! The post is deadsolidperfectly correct. Camera-captures of police interactions with the population is a good thing.....for citizens and for police. Be it, dashboard cams, body-cams, security cams, or bystander smartphone cams......it is all good. And, hopefully, help to change policing for the better. And who wouldn't want things to improve in any and all things?

I support all cops having bodycams, but as far as phone footage of incidents go, they usually only tell part of the story. The George Floyd incident is a perfect example.

Most of us did not become aware of Floyd's actions during the arrest until the trial and the release of the police bodycam footage. Phone footage is often edited to make police look worse than they are.

 

[Magnus]

Considering the election was stolen, people should have been protesting in DC.

Yup. How dare the people vote against our dear leader?

People with brains voted for Trump.

Tell yourself whatever helps you sleep at night, kid. Good luck.

 

[Chillicothe]

I support all cops having bodycams, but as far as phone footage of incidents go, they usually only tell part of the story. The George Floyd incident is a perfect example.......... Phone footage is often edited to make police look worse than they are.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I too, support all police wearing operating cams whenever a law enforcement incident arises.

As far as poster Utilitarian's concerns over phone-cams catching only part of an incident.....well, yes. Of course. It is the nature of the beast.

Any camera can catch only what is in front of that lense.....be it the onlooker's Smartphone, or the police body cam. Multiple cams are better than one. And one is better than none.

'Edited phone footage is often edit to make police look worse.' Well, I suppose that can be true.
But it is still a record. And if events go to trial.....complete exposition of cam captures are expected.

But video editing needs to be put in the context of the prior historical 'source' for an exposition of events.....the police' version of what happened.
And it goes without saying that that has proven to be problematic in too many controversial cases.

In other words, a bystander's video can be edited.
A cop's version of events can be edited too.

I will vote for more cameras. In order to ensure that editing.....be it of the onlooker or the cop's 'version'.....is contextualized.