March for Trump (1/6) - (1/5-1/6), 18 NAKED PROUD BOYS IN THE SHOWER AT RAM RANCH

Was this a terrorist incident?

  • Yes

    Votes: 514 24.4%
  • No

    Votes: 543 25.8%
  • There were bad people(terrorists) involved, but that shouldn't reflect on everybody else

    Votes: 260 12.4%
  • It was the state who created terror

    Votes: 788 37.4%

  • Total voters
    2,105
You have nothing but mind reading to make the claim he wanted anything more than a rally. The worse accusation based on facts is that it was reckless with emotions that high and the rally poorly organized. There's a clip of Alex Jones trying to tamp down the crowd, but it was too late.

Never understand human stupidity. It remains a force greater than anything in the know universe.
 
No, Bernie said that the establishment, especially Republicans, were preventing progress from happening and in order to succeed we must fight them. It's almost like you didn't pay attention to the event at all...
I didn't pay any attention to it at all, to be precise. Up till now I had no knowledge of this thing.
But it is rather entertaining to watch you trying to stretch and reach, just to make something vague that Bernie said somehow equal to literal months of Trump goading conspiritards and members of his personality cult into a frenzy.

It's also weird how everyone else seems to be wrong but you..
Holy fucking shit Sherlok. You might be on to something here. Maybe, I dunno, I disagree with people on something? Do you often see people that argue a point that they believe is false?
 
Any attack upon the feds is 100% justified, that is not comparable to rioting and looting joggers and spoiled white anitfa faggots ruining the lives of the common people.
The attack wasn't because of any legitimate wrong that the US government did, even though there are many, MANY examples they could have chosen. They invaded Capitol Hill with the explicit purpose of overthrowing the government and undoing the 2020 election because Trump said that the election was rigged with absolutely no evidence. In case you remember, he almost did the same thing in 2016, and said that he would only accept the election results if he won. Trump can't handle losing, many Trump supporters have cult-like devotion to him, and him continuing to denounce the election results led to this terrorist attack.
 
I didn't pay any attention to it at all, to be precise. Up till now I had no knowledge of this thing.
But it is rather entertaining to watch you trying to stretch and reach, just to make something vague that Bernie said somehow equal to literal months of Trump goading conspiritards and members of his personality cult into a frenzy.


Holy fucking shit Sherlok. You might be on to something here. Maybe, I dunno, I disagree with people on something? Do you often see people that argue a point that they believe is false?
Someone else pointed out the Bernie shooter, I pointed out your boner for wanting to prosecute Trump for using similar words.

Maybe it's more like you're speaking out your ass and your Dunning-Kruger isn't letting you acknowledge it.
 
The attack wasn't because of any legitimate wrong that the US government did, even though there are many, MANY examples they could have chosen. They invaded Capitol Hill with the explicit purpose of overthrowing the government and undoing the 2020 election because Trump said that the election was rigged with absolutely no evidence. In case you remember, he almost did the same thing in 2016, and said that he would only accept the election results if he won. Trump can't handle losing, many Trump supporters have cult-like devotion to him, and him continuing to denounce the election results led to this terrorist attack.
I maybe a little out of it, but I don't think a couple hundred people can overthrow a government especially since they were protesting for hours before. Kinda takes away the element of surprise.
 
I didn't pay any attention to it at all, to be precise. Up till now I had no knowledge of this thing.
But it is rather entertaining to watch you trying to stretch and reach, just to make something vague that Bernie said somehow equal to literal months of Trump goading conspiritards and members of his personality cult into a frenzy.
You and the guy you are responding to sound like you need to dock with one another or something.
 
Like I said in my previous post, a congressman was shot in 2017. Now we can (should) both agree that was worse than what the capitol hill rioters did. So therefore in equal treatment land the governments response should have been greater for the second instance than the first.

Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley have both been put on no fly lists because they are tangentially related to the rioters in DC. I think this a gross overreaction along with a bunch of other shit they are going to try and ram through as a response. Trump shouldn't be impeached over this (and probably won't be convicted anyway) but if the dems had their way, he would.

In contrast when Scalise was shot they only punished the man responsible. I think this was the correct response and all I ask is for you to confirm whether the Dems are overreacting or whether the Trump administration should have cracked down on all Bernie Bros and tangentially related dem congressman like Barbara Waters?

I just want an answer to that question.
I haven't checked for today, but iirc the no-fly for Cruz and whoever was just an idea being bounced around, but not really acted on yet?
 
boomer LARPers intruding into the seat of power of the strongest nation on earth
The only thing that makes america powerful is the productivity of the population and the tax revenue collected by the useless government. As you can see from the events of the 6th, once the people turn against the government, the feds have no real power. The only reason they left was because trump told them to, which explains why congress is so butthurt, they were humiliated and exposed as the cowards they are.
Trump said that the election was rigged with absolutely no evidence
What a stupid take. Trump didn't have to say anything, most of us can put 2 and 2 together. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence and statistical analysis to show the election was a joke. And most of it wouldn't have been able to happen without dems kvetching endlessly about voter suppression and using covid as an excuse to mail millions of ballots to vacant lots.
 
Your government was literally under attack, no amount of "BUT THE BLACKS" is going to change that. Either cope, or move on.
Who said anything about blacks? A lot of the 2020 rioters were actually white. I'm not race racebaiting - that's for the Left and Horseshoe-tip righties.

The vast majority of people who actually breached the Capitol on the 6th were simply bumbling around on their phones. Unless you're telling me that Buffalo Bill, Baked Alaska and the Podium Thief were on their way to being the downfall of the republic.

Should Ashli Babbit have been there, trying to get through the window? No. But even Shaun King mused that she probably wasn't really a legitimate threat.

As I said, it was a riot, and it was bad - stupid, mostly. None of that delegitimizes the larger point I made.
 
The problem with anyone making the stupid argument that it is OK that the Capitol Hill protestors are getting the full force of the law applied is that the arguer innately knows it would not happen to BLM, and no amount of lying on the Internet that they would be OK with BLM getting the same matters because they know that situation would not realistically come to pass.

It's solely a position they're taking just to win an Internet argument, and anyone who makes it is likely not worth engaging with.

It is the exact same argument I have seen used as to why it was OK for Mueller to go after Trump for Russiagate and for Hillary to get off scot free for anything she ever did: hey at least someone is being gone after!

Funny how that argument only seems to come up when it's someone the Democrats don't like.
 
Last edited:
The problem with anyone making the stupid argument that it is OK that the Capitol Hill rioters are getting the full force of the law applied is that the arguer innately knows it would not happen to BLM, and no amount of lying on the Internet that they would be OK with BLM getting the same matters because they know that situation would not realistically come to pass.

It's solely a position they're taking just to win an Internet argument, and anyone who makes it is likely not worth engaging with.
Imagine having this much of a victim complex that people can't argue for fair and even handed application of the law without being somehow "the enemy".
 
Notice how they continue to try to pretend to be fair knowing that it would never happen and that one side would be the only one punished, as a method of virtue signaling.

They do this knowing that true fairness would be to advocate that neither side would be punished in such a situation, until both are.
 
Back