Trainwreck Pamela Swain / DocHoliday1977 / MsPhoenix1969 / Observer1977 / danishlace2003 / Writer_thriller - Victim of grand #MeToo conspiracy, litigious wannabe starfucker, off her meds and online

[Illuminati Order Official]

I mean, with how much power and info they had, I kinda wish they would have done a better job. As is, some half naked dudes stormed the capital and a force to drive them out only arrived after most of them left (which was like an hour later, IIRC).
I mean, they had the Parler posts and data, and a day before the 6th FBI knew there was going to be "war". Sometimes it's hard to see just how they messed it up. I mean, that is what they are paid for. The least they could do is do it well.

To their credit up to that point Trump supporters were using the word "war" to describe posting Pepe all over the Internet. Sure, they should be more careful when some unwell folks were attracted by Q and Pepe changed into "1776" - some additional security around the building was a must at this point but they probably weren't expecting someone will actually try to get inside.

Sorry for the rambling.

Nothing to be sorry about. After yesterday I wasn't expecting an interesting conversation happening here so I'm pleasantly surprised

Announced on twitter, 4chan, and kiwifarms threads.

As I said above, pattern changed. Up to that point Trump supporters were usually sperging on the Internet.
You shouldn't take everything posted on 4chan and Kiwi Farms seriously. We'll take about the nature of claims made on the Internet but I need to think if I want to powerlevel or use another example.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Documented in real time.

I proved you wrong. Either counter my proof or you are wrong. Simple.

I have no "fee fees".

My point was that Supreme Court test designed specifically for threats and incitement is more legally binding then your opinion about said test.

And existance of Brandenburg v. Ohio test is a undoubtable fact. It has existed, and has been reaffirmed, for 52 years now.

President George Washington personally called for and led the militia of 3 states and successfully dispersed the whiskey rebellion without a loss of *one* life. That's why he was the greater man and president than Dona;;d Trump

And this is relavant to Trump's alleged guilt how?

He's read your posts of you all mocking him. You figure out the rest

You do realise there is no law in US that prohibits laughing at people, right? And you do realise that mockery has been reaffirmed as a First Amendment right for at least 33 years?

Not government precedent.

This is a stupid responce by you.

Announced on twitter, 4chan, and kiwifarms threads.

While I can't speak for all the other platforms, the attack was not announced here, although it was later documented.

To their credit up to that point Trump supporters were using the word "war" to describe posting Pepe all over the Internet

Technically that is how every politician and their followers use the word "war", although, yeah, Trump Supporters prefered Pepes. I understood that FBI memo to mean real war not memes. Fit more with the rest of the memo.

some additional security around the building was a must at this point but they probably weren't expecting someone will actually try to get inside.

At the very least they needed more security and to make sure the capitol wasn't using two decade old equipment that didn't work. It was a massive fuck up for everyone involved. We can only hope next time they will be more prepared.

Nothing to be sorry about. After yesterday I wasn't expecting an interesting conversation happening here so I'm pleasantly surprised

Happy to have helped! I enjoy this discussion with you too!

 

[DocHoliday1977]

To their credit up to that point Trump supporters were using the word "war" to describe posting Pepe all over the Internet. Sure, they should be more careful when some unwell folks were attracted by Q and Pepe changed into "1776" - some additional security around the building was a must at this point but they probably weren't expecting someone will actually try to get inside.

It was basically a repeat of the Whiskey rebellion only the sitting president was lead the rebellion.

As I said above, pattern changed. Up to that point Trump supporters were usually sperging on the Internet.
You shouldn't take everything posted on 4chan and Kiwi Farms seriously. We'll take about the nature of claims made on the Internet but I need to think if I want to powerlevel or use another example

And Trump spoke at the rally preceding the attack. He DID NOT DISPERSE them nor CALLED in the National Guard in an appropriate amount of time to stop it leading to many Capitol officers injured and some dead.

My point was that Supreme Court test designed specifically for threats and incitement is more legally binding then your opinion about said test.

And existance of Brandenburg v. Ohio test is a undoubtable fact. It has existed, and has been reaffirmed, for 52 years now.

But since the occurrence of a sitting president leading a riot has happened, this test is outdated.

Would have ended a lot faster if the feds" actually followed up and did something about the info they had. FBI had their own info about the attack, from both Parler and their own investigations

Probably told to ignore it by Trump, or else.

This is a stupid responce by you.

Go read about the Whiskey Rebellion and get back to me.

You do realise there is no law in US that prohibits laughing at people, right? And you do realise that mockery has been reaffirmed as a First Amendment right for at least 33 years?

That's funny cause I am talking about an illegal riot/rebellion. I have no clue what you are one about. BUT, in my research harmless "heckling" is permissible. Harassment and engaging in retaliatory attacks are not.

AND going even further @Useful_Mistake engaging in active harassment and retaliatory attacks because a woman rejected your ass or believes in another religion is not lawful nor permissible.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

It was basically a repeat of the Whiskey rebellion only

You are retarded for believing this.

And Trump spoke at the rally preceding the attack.

Oh no! A sitting president had a political rally! Call in Swat, this is crime of highest measure!

He DID NOT DISPERSE them

He doesn't have to. Also, the attack started before his rally ended, so the attackers have had already left. Also, this is factually untrue. He did. Both on live television and on Twitter (Twitter banned him 5 mins later).

nor CALLED in the National Guard

He called it a days before. It was authorised and standing. ("Trump was involved in discussions in the days prior to the Wednesday rioting about the National Guard response)" ("Former President Donald Trump offered to deploy 10,000 National Guard troops in Washington D.C. prior to Jan. 6, the day of the Capitol building breach, according to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows. Meadows told Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” that although Trump had been vocal about offering Capitol Police and National Guard presence at the Capitol on multiple occasions last month, his offer was rebuked “every time.” "As many as 10,000 National Guard troops were told to be on the ready by the secretary of defense. That was a direct order from President Trump"") Why it disobeyed directed orders is another question. Notably capitol police kept refusing, and refusing, and refusing help, even while under siege. After a while, Senate and the House colluded to remove support as well from capitol.

in an appropriate amount of time to stop it leading to many Capitol officers injured and some dead.

Blame the FBI who did not help, blame the Capitol who refused help, blame the National Guard which refused to obey. He can only order them, which he naturally did.

But since the occurrence of a sitting president leading a riot has happened, this test is outdated.

1. No it didn't.
2. No it isn't.
3. That's not how law works.
4. This test was specifically designed for situations like this.
5. You are a literal moron who is both arrogant and ignorant.

Probably told to ignore it by Trump, or else.

"Well something bad happened so Orange Man must be at fault. Literally no other possible reason".
You are mentally unwell.

Go read about the Whiskey Rebellion and get back to me.

Stop being retarded and get back to me.

That's funny cause I am talking about an illegal riot/rebellion

You were talking about us laughing at a sheriff, moron.

BUT, in my research harmless "heckling" is permissible. Harassment and engaging in retaliatory attacks are not.

Your research is faulty because:
1. You use legal terms you do not understand.
2. Because I have showed no less than 50 years of caselaw proving you wrong.
Don't speak about things you don't understand.

AND going even further @Useful_Mistake engaging in active harassment and retaliatory attacks because a woman rejected your ass or believes in another religion is not lawful nor permissible.

I assume the woman in that example is you.
1. You have not rejected me.
2. I have not asked you out, or show any similar romantic or sexual intrest, and I confirm that there is none.
3. I don't care about your religion.
4. You don't know that I have a different religion.
5. All the legal terminology you used is wrong.
6. I have not:

• Performed "retaliatory attacks"
• They haven't been because of your religion
• They haven't been because of your lack of sexual intrest in me.
• I am not engaging in active harassment
• The legal terminology is once again wrong.
• Repeat point 2 and 3.

Everything I do to you, is legal.

 

[JustSomeDong]

Only 4 new pages of crazy and crazy-poking? Pam, you're slowing down. The other day there were like 9 new pages.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

You are retarded for believing this.

No you.

He doesn't have to. Also, the attack started before his rally ended, so the attackers have had already left. Also, this is factually untrue. He did. Both on live television and on Twitter (Twitter banned him 5 mins later).

Keep telling yourself that.

Your research is faulty because:
1. You use legal terms you do not understand.
2. Because I have showed no less than 50 years of caselaw proving you wrong.
Don't speak about things you don't understand.

, outdated caselaw now that a sitting president has led a riot leading to government officer's deaths.

I assume the woman in that example is you.
1. You have not rejected me.
2. I have not asked you out, or show any similar romantic or sexual intrest, and I confirm that there is none.
3. I don't care about your religion.
4. You don't know that I have a different religion.
5. All the legal terminology you used is wrong.
6. I have not:

• Performed "retaliatory attacks"
• They haven't been because of your religion
• They haven't been because of your lack of sexual intrest in me.
• I am not engaging in active harassment
• The legal terminology is once again wrong.
• Repeat point 2 and 3.

Everything I do to you, is legal.

I hope I didn't hurt your fee fees just from having a normal conversation.

 

[Illuminati Order Official]

Technically that is how every politician and their followers use the word "war", although, yeah, Trump Supporters prefered Pepes. I understood that FBI memo to mean real war not memes. Fit more with the rest of the memo.

I wasn't actively researching it but I've seen them posting "1776" so yeah, I expected them to do something stupid, just not at this scale - possibly some stones flying and some folks arrested for waving their guns but not a full-blown assault.

At the very least they needed more security and to make sure the capitol wasn't using two decade old equipment that didn't work. It was a massive fuck up for everyone involved. We can only hope next time they will be more prepared.

It all appears to be a big misjudgment: Trump underestimated the amount of people who'll vote against him no matter who his opponent is and then underestimated his followers' stupidity. Trump supporters probably overestimated how well protected the building will be and got inside to their own surprise; feds underestimated the scale of the riots. Beautiful catastrophe for everybody.

Happy to have helped! I enjoy this discussion with you too!

It's nice and refreshing to be able to discuss politics without being forced to take sides

It was basically a repeat of the Whiskey rebellion only the sitting president was lead the rebellion.

Hey, I learned something new today, thanks! But for what I was able to find the rebellion was against federal taxes, not about trying to take over the country. They used some French Revolution terminology (not the best analogy if you ask me, with how many leaders of the revolution were executed by their comrades) but other than that they just didn't want to pay taxes for their moonshine.
This is new knowledge to me, so of course feel free to correct me.
And as for Trump, I think if he really wanted to take over he'd prepare something more than just disorganized and mostly unarmed crowd of random people.

And Trump spoke at the rally preceding the attack. He DID NOT DISPERSE them

I may be wrong but it was just another rally... so generally a rally ends and everybody goes home?

nor CALLED in the National Guard in an appropriate amount of time to stop it leading to many Capitol officers injured and some dead.

Not an expert but was it his call to actually send them out?

The other day there were like 9 new pages.

Today it's quality over quantity.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

He called it a days before. It was authorised and standing. ("Trump was involved in discussions in the days prior to the Wednesday rioting about the National Guard response)" ("Former President Donald Trump offered to deploy 10,000 National Guard troops in Washington D.C. prior to Jan. 6, the day of the Capitol building breach, according to former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows. Meadows told Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” that although Trump had been vocal about offering Capitol Police and National Guard presence at the Capitol on multiple occasions last month, his offer was rebuked “every time.” "As many as 10,000 National Guard troops were told to be on the ready by the secretary of defense. That was a direct order from President Trump"") Why it disobeyed directed orders is another question. Notably capitol police kept refusing, and refusing, and refusing help, even while under siege. After a while, Senate and the House colluded to remove support as well from capitol.

Well, BLIMEY! Why didn't you say so before!

.......nice try.

Blame the FBI who did not help, blame the Capitol who refused help, blame the National Guard which refused to obey. He can only order them, which he naturally did.

Buck stops with DJT.

George Washington dispersed a larger rebellion like a real man.

Not an expert but was it his call to actually send them out?

Yep

 

[Illuminati Order Official]

Yep

OK, for what I understand National Guard is a military formation. I don't really know what they can and can't do and what their training looks like but sending military force against civilians - no matter what the civilians do - is generally shunned here (it happens but it's generally the last resort). Reasoning is: police force is generally trained to arrest or disperse rioters while military is generally trained and prepared to kill.
I know the police have more leeway when it comes to using guns in the US but still, using military against your own citizens doesn't look good I think, and in case of riots agitating the crowd is the last think you'd want.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

OK, for what I understand National Guard is a military formation. I don't really know what they can and can't do and what their training looks like but sending military force against civilians - no matter what the civilians do - is generally shunned here (it happens but it's generally the last resort). Reasoning is: police force is generally trained to arrest or disperse rioters while military is generally trained and prepared to kill.
I know the police have more leeway when it comes to using guns in the US but still, using military against your own citizens doesn't look good I think, and in case of riots agitating the crowd is the last think you'd want.

If the president can't organize internal forces to disperse a riot/rebellion, then there's no need for a president. Don't become a president if you're a lame milksop. The president is also called Commander in Chief for a reason. George Washington, probably being elderly, got on a horse and probably personally led the entire force. And he was successful. That's true leadership.

The governors of the states use the national guard in riots all the time.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

outdated caselaw now that a sitting president has led a riot leading to government officer's deaths.

That's literally not how this works, retard.

I hope I didn't hurt your fee fees just from having a normal conversation

No, but you did ruin any hope I had of you having even a bit of intelligence.

It's nice and refreshing to be able to discuss politics without being forced to take sides

True, true.

And as for Trump, I think if he really wanted to take over he'd prepare something more than just disorganized and mostly unarmed crowd of random people

Yup, I think so too.

I may be wrong but it was just another rally... so generally a rally ends and everybody goes home?

The only difference here is that Trump(at the end of the rally told people in his rally to move to protest to the capitol peacefully ("I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.")

Not an expert but was it his call to actually send them out?

Not really. I mean just look at Jan 6th news on who controled the National Guard. First it was Trump, then narrative was changed to Pence, then it was the Defence Department, then it all changed to Virginia. Who actually sent it? Who the fuck knows. Most outlets credit either Pence or Virginia. Since we don't know who sent it, it's hard to say who's job it was to do so. But, it was already there, ready to use, but for some reason unused.

OK, for what I understand National Guard is a military formation. I don't really know what they can and can't do and what their training looks like but sending military force against civilians - no matter what the civilians do - is generally shunned here (it happens but it's generally the last resort). Reasoning is: police force is generally trained to arrest or disperse rioters while military is generally trained and prepared to kill.
I know the police have more leeway when it comes to using guns in the US but still, using military against your own citizens doesn't look good I think, and in case of riots agitating the crowd is the last think you'd want.

When military is used against Antifa it's racist. When not used against rioters it's bad. Maybe the troops were just confused? The narrative is sometimes hard to follow.

That being said, National Guard can be deployed to stop riots(10 U.S. Code § 251) but only if they are requested. And capitol denied it at least 2-3 times (as much as Pam does not like to hear that)

If the president can't organize internal forces to disperse a riot/rebellion, then there's no need for a president

It is illegal for a president to do that unless he gets permission from the states

Learn law before spewing bullshit

 

[DocHoliday1977]

That's literally not how this works, retard.

Do outdated laws get updated with new geopolitical occurrences? YEP That is how this works.

Not really. I mean just look at Jan 6th news on who controled the National Guard. First it was Trump, then narrative was changed to Pence, then it was the Defence Department, then it all changed to Virginia. Who actually sent it? Who the fuck knows. Most outlets credit either Pence or Virginia. Since we don't know who sent it, it's hard to say who's job it was to do so. But, it was already there, ready to use, but for some reason unused.

I'm tired of excuses. Trump was president until January 20, 2021.

When military is used against Antifa it's racist. When not used against rioters it's bad. Maybe the troops were just confused? The narrative is sometimes hard to follow.

That being said, National Guard can be deployed to stop riots(10 U.S. Code § 251 to 254b) but only if they are requested. And capitol denied it at least 2-3 times (as much as Pam does not like to hear that)

Most of the time governors are the ones initiating National Guard at riots...once protests become riots. When stores are being looted, that's when the National Guard is called in.

It is illegal for a president to do that unless he gets permission from the states

Learn law before spewing bullshit

In Washington DC? Cause that's where the Federal Capital building is located, Einstein. In the Whiskey rebellion, those rioters ran on New York City, the capital at the time too. That's when WASHINGTON contacted 3 militias and broke up the rabble PERSONALLY. Why don't you grow a brain and think before you insult.

 

[Illuminati Order Official]

If the president can't organize internal forces to disperse a riot/rebellion, then there's no need for a president. Don't become a president if you're a lame milksop. The president is also called Commander in Chief for a reason.

The only winning move would be to organize the rally somewhere where they can't reach the Capitol during the proceedings. Once the riot started Trump was on a lost position. Either - as you say - "Trump is weak and does nothing" or "Trump sends military against civilians". No winning move.

George Washington, probably being elderly, got on a horse and probably personally led the entire force. And he was successful. That's true leadership.

If you mean the Whiskey Rebellion - for what I managed to read it was rather civil - mostly performances and pamphlets, nobody died, some people were arrested and pardoned, some where fined.

The governors of the states use the national guard in riots all the time.

Wasn't there a big fuss over deploying National Guard against rioters last summer?

The only difference here is that Trump(at the end of the rally told people in his rally to move to protest to the capitol peacefully ("I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.")

So pretty much...
Trump: Go and chant for me, don't do anything retarded.
Trump supporters: Heard the guy? Let's do the most retarded thing possible!

Not really. I mean just look at Jan 6th news on who controled the National Guard. First it was Trump, then narrative was changed to Pence, then it was the Defence Department, then it all changed to Virginia. Who actually sent it? Who the fuck knows. Most outlets credit either Pence or Virginia. Since we don't know who sent it, it's hard to say who's job it was to do so. But, it was already there, ready to use, but for some reason unused.

I would assume optics. One who deploys them will either take the credit or take the blame if it'll lead to escalation. If they did such a terrible job preparing for it they could've expected anything, including bombings or shootings at this point.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

The only winning move would be to organize the rally somewhere where they can't reach the Capitol during the proceedings. Once the riot started Trump was on a lost position. Either - as you say - "Trump is weak and does nothing" or "Trump sends military against civilians". No winning move.

No, don't encourage it or be apart of it at all.

If you mean the Whiskey Rebellion - for what I managed to read it was rather civil - mostly performances and pamphlets, nobody died, some people were arrested and pardoned, some where fined.

The republic had just been established and if any rabble could take down the government, then America would be seen as weak. And the government was created by educated dissenters that wanted the longevity of the government. This Constitution was a bet made by Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. They weren't going to let some drunk backwoods moonshiners fuck it up.

So pretty much...
Trump: Go and chant for me, don't do anything retarded.
Trump supporters: Heard the guy? Let's do the most retarded thing possible!

Records of Trump officials planning the takeover of the Capitol exist.

 

[Useful_Mistake]

Do outdated laws get updated with new geopolitical occurrences? YEP That is how this works.

And that confirms that you have no idea how caselaw works. Congrats, not only are you a moron, but you also can't even realise when you are speaking about something you have no idea about. The Dunning-Kruger effect fits you perfectly.

I'm tired of excuses. Trump was president until January 20, 2021.

When you learn to read, reread my posts. You'll learn something. As is, I already explained it all to you. Not my fault you can't listen.

Most of the time governors are the ones initiating National Guard at riots...once protests become riots. When stores are being looted, that's when the National Guard is called in.

Congrats! You failed to read my post.

In Washington DC? Cause that's where the Federal Capital building is located, Einstein.

Federal law applies to DC too. The fact that you don't understand it, and are for some reason using a 1791 rebellion here (by the way, if you were capable of any actual research, you'd realise that Washington was not limited by 10 U.S. Code § 251 to 254b because it was only created in 1807. That is to say 13 years after the rebellion) where it doesn't apply shows how much you fail at this.

"Trump sends military against civilians". No winning move.

Keep in mind, the National Guard refused to obey him. And the Capitol refused to accept them.

Trump: Go and chant for me, don't do anything retarded.
Trump supporters: Heard the guy? Let's do the most retarded thing possible!

Pretty much.

I would assume optics. One who deploys them will either take the credit or take the blame if it'll lead to escalation. If they did such a terrible job preparing for it they could've expected anything, including bombings or shootings at this point.

Yes, and its maddening that this went so sour.

Records of Trump officials planning the takeover of the Capitol exist.

The goal post keeps moving~

 

[DocHoliday1977]

nd that confirms that you have no idea how caselaw works. Congrats, not only are you a moron, but you also can't even realise when you are speaking about something you have no idea about. The Dunning-Kruger effect fits you perfectly.

While you have no idea of US history.

Congrats! You failed to read my post.

If you chose to argue out of ego, you might have winnable arguments.

Keep in mind, the National Guard refused to obey him. And the Capitol refused to accept them.

Got those documents?

The goal post keeps moving~

I have it.

 

[Illuminati Order Official]

View attachment 2094242

I wouldn't say we argue here. We discuss, we present our different perspectives. In order to, hopefully, enrich our own perspective, learn other points of view and improve our eristic skills.

No, don't encourage it or be apart of it at all.

As I said before, I think he just underestimated the number of people who went to vote against him, no matter who the other candidate was and couldn't understand why he lost against someone not that popular or charismatic.

The republic had just been established and if any rabble could take down the government, then America would be seen as weak. And the government was created by educated dissenters that wanted the longevity of the government. This Constitution was a bet made by Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. They weren't going to let some drunk backwoods moonshiners fuck it up.

The way I understood Whisky Rebellion, they just wanted to chase away tax collectors. Sure, if they were successful it would be bad for the statehood because any other group of interest would try to influence the government in the same way, leading to anarchy.

Records of Trump officials planning the takeover of the Capitol exist.

That would be the most inept takeover in history. Remember, they dispersed the riots and resumed proceedings the same day. Say what you want about Trump but if he was this stupid and inept he wouldn't go as far as he did.

Keep in mind, the National Guard refused to obey him. And the Capitol refused to accept them.

So a losing move combined with complete loss of any kind of authority...

 

[Useful_Mistake]

While you have no idea of US history.

Pam, for once in your life, learn to read. Your Washington argument is worthless because 13 years after the rebellion ended, new federal laws were enacted to limit the power of the president, especially his powers in regards to dealing with riots and insurrections. For all your love of History, you seem to unable to understand this simple historical fact.

Got those documents

I cited all of my claims, Pam. You're the last person who has any right attacking my credibility.

I have it

Talk in full sentances. That being said, if you want to share something, feel free. You don't need my permission.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

That would be the most inept takeover in history. Remember, they dispersed the riots and resumed proceedings the same day. Say what you want about Trump but if he was this stupid and inept he wouldn't go as far as he did.

Hm.

Pam, for once in your life, learn to read. Your Washington argument is worthless because 13 years after the rebellion ended, new federal laws were enacted to limit the power of the president, especially his powers in regards to dealing with riots and insurrections. For all your love of History, you seem to unable to understand this simple historical fact.

Your argument is with history books. Direct your ire and wrongness there. I refuse to argue with a wrong idiot.

I cited all of my claims, Pam. You're the last person who has any right attacking my credibility.

No. Not really.

Talk in full sentances. That being said, if you want to share something, feel free. You don't need my permission.

Not sentances. It's sentences.

 

[Deadpool]

Hm.

Your argument is with history books. Direct your ire and wrongness there. I refuse to argue with a wrong idiot.

No. Not really.

Not sentances. It's sentences.

He's smarter than you dog fucker.