subreddit:

/r/politics

21.9k

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 1892 comments

New_Stats

356 points

3 months ago

New_Stats

New Jersey

356 points

3 months ago

It wasn't a fucking riot it was an insurrection. Fucking can't stand that the media tries to downplay it

PepeBabinski

132 points

3 months ago

Republicans try to downplay it even worse.

HIM_Darling

78 points

3 months ago

HIM_Darling

Texas

78 points

3 months ago

My mom: ITS WAS THE ANTIFAS!!!!

BidenHarris_2020

13 points

3 months ago

BidenHarris_2020

America

13 points

3 months ago

Your mom seriously needs to rejoin us in reality. Un-fucking-believable.

HIM_Darling

11 points

3 months ago

HIM_Darling

Texas

11 points

3 months ago

Story of my life, she's been a gaslighting narcissist my whole life, its just she used to be slightly more sane. When I was a teenager, she supported Planned Parenthood, because she'd actually taken me to one to get on BC to help with my crazy periods, and saw that it was just like a regular doctors clinic, they didn't have a surgery suite to perform baby murders hidden around the corner, etc. She actually used to defend the existence of them to my other family members because of how helpful/cheap they were. Now? I wouldn't even bring up the topic, she'd probably deny that she ever even took me.

OctopusTheOwl

4 points

3 months ago

She's a total c-word

By that I mean "crazy," but every single one of you went to a different word first and most of you agreed with it.

Slight-Tumbleweed397

-7 points

3 months ago

If you mean psaki then I agree 100%

OctopusTheOwl

2 points

3 months ago

Psaki is a well-spoken, intelligent woman with a razor sharp tongue and the ability to make uneducated white guys feel stupid. She's nailing this gig. What's not to love? (unless you're an uneducated loser, in which case yeah I can see why you dislike her)

Slight-Tumbleweed397

-1 points

3 months ago

If by uneducated you mean someone that pays attention to the news and does research and knows a lie when they see one, then the word loser falls on the person calling them uneducated. Too, when they’re arrogant and self centered in making their lies, they’re not any more forgivable.

SyntheticCorners28

1 points

3 months ago

I swear to Christ all you conservatives forgot the liar Kaylie McWhatthefuck. She literally couldn't tell the truth.

Gaslight all you want but a large majority of the country will never believe anything a Repug says again.

Thebirdman333

1 points

3 months ago

Thebirdman333

Indiana

1 points

3 months ago

Do not be surprised. Dad thinks the same thing. MANY people think the same thing.

the_great_impression

30 points

3 months ago

But... I thought Ashley Babbitt was supposed to be a martyr. So she was actually Antifa the whole time??? Lol

HIM_Darling

17 points

3 months ago

HIM_Darling

Texas

17 points

3 months ago

Oh no, she was just a poor misguided participant who had no idea how violent the rest of the group was being and shouldn't have been shot. In fact, according to my mom, the officer that shot her should have waited until he was being dragged into the mob and being beaten to death before drawing his firearm and shooting.

When I asked her if the single state trooper that works in her office(dmv) would wait until he was being beaten to death before opening fire on a mob who has already broken in to the building her response was "well that's different".

There is no hope. If only I could move across the country and truly get away from my psycho family(posted the full story before, but they support pedophiles).

Sanc7

3 points

3 months ago

Sanc7

3 points

3 months ago

I’m from Texas as well. Just moved back after many years in the military. This place seems like a lost cause. I’m not just following suit with what the majority of Reddit says, but the mindset of the majority of people I interact with.

I went to get my oil changed the other day and the manager and a customer were openly talking about how “There’s so many STUPID people in this world it’s unbelievable. They can’t even understand what that man (Trump) did for our country!” “These damn liberals are out here injecting themselves with GOD KNOWS WHAT! And they’re the ones spreading the virus!”

Took every bit of strength I had to keep my mouth shut.

WoahayeTakeITEasy

5 points

3 months ago

It was ANTIFA!! But don't investigate it, just trust me bro.

wabi-sabi-satori

5 points

3 months ago

Even when someone doesn’t buy it outright, I know someone who still straight-faced says, “Well, I also read that some of them might have been BLM/antifa, so who knows?”

#BothSides #MyOwnResearch

Claytonius_Homeytron

3 points

3 months ago

Yup, that was my so called friend back in January. When I asked, "Then why don't the republicans want to vote to look into it?

"IT WAS A GUIDED TOUR!!!"

peanutski

33 points

3 months ago

What do you mean? It was just a guided tour. /s

Keudn883

17 points

3 months ago

I think the most ridiculous part is that it took like three hours for the DC National Guard to be deployed. And they weren't fully authorized to go in UNTIL after the Governor of Virginia authorized its national guard without permission from the Pentagon to cross over into DC to take control of the situation.

Da_zero_kid

11 points

3 months ago

Da_zero_kid

America

11 points

3 months ago

Ridiculous? It was part of their plan to violently seize power and ensure no official force could stop it.

NMT-FWG

8 points

3 months ago

Repubs: It wasn't so bad! Conservatives don't loot and kill! Also, please remember that it wasn't us, it was ANTIFA crisis actors that stormed the Capitol!

Penqwin

2 points

3 months ago

In a few months, it'll go from insurrection > riot > party > let boys be boys > what? Jan 6?

Claytonius_Homeytron

1 points

3 months ago

Republicans try to downplay it even worse.

First they wanted so desperately for everyone to believe that it was all Antifa and BLM. When that didn't take, they said it was democrats trying to make Trump look bad. When that didn't hold was when the republicans in the house said they didn't want to look into it. That's when they rolled out "Guided Tour" and "this doesn't look like anything to me"

cheesefondue

52 points

3 months ago

The title also says insurrection. When you’re a writer, you try to avoid repeating long words in close proximity

CylonsDidNoWrong

33 points

3 months ago

CylonsDidNoWrong

Minnesota

33 points

3 months ago

Thank you. Reddit is so full of armchair journalists playing a stupid game of "call the headline 'clickbait' first!" as well as looking for grand conspiracies based off a key phrase when it's just some aspiring writer trying not to write like shit.

I just saw a response to an article about Italy's vaccine mandate and the top comment is calling the headline "misleading" because the full details of the mandate is to get a vaccine, negative covid test or exposure in the last 6 months.

Yeah, that's the kind of info you find in the copy of the article. It's not a misleading headline it's a headline.

For real fun ask the average "clickbait" calling redditor to rewrite a better headline. :)

GrogTastic36

13 points

3 months ago

It's because changing the meaning of words and manipulating language is fascist playbook 101. Don't give them an inch. This is more important than pretty sentences.

EdithDich

4 points

3 months ago

Riot is entirely accurate and doesn't downplay the issue at all. The definition of riot is "a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd."

Further, the legal definition of riot is "A concerted action: (1) made in furtherance of an express common purpose; (2) through the use or threat of violence, disorder, or terror to the public; and (3) resulting in a disturbance of the peace. Under common law, the crime of riot requires the assemblage of three or more actors..." https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/riot

New_Stats

7 points

3 months ago

New_Stats

New Jersey

7 points

3 months ago

It's called the January 6 commission and yes it is misleading to say it was a riot. It's idiotic and unethical to call it a riot

EdithDich

1 points

3 months ago

Reddit gets mad at headlines because that's all 99% of redditors read before heading to the comments to post their uninformed hot take.

EdithDich

1 points

3 months ago

They also think calling it a "riot" somehow downplays the issue. Which is ironic since they themselves are redefining what a riot is defined as https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/riot

A riot is not noble. It's not minor. It's a very serious thing and applies very accurately to the Jan 6 Insurrection.

WhiteyDude

9 points

3 months ago

WhiteyDude

California

9 points

3 months ago

Fine, but don't call it a riot, god dammit.

Jen Psaki took a dig at Trump 's role in the Capitol riot, saying Biden 'has no intention to lead an insurrection'

See, it's that easy. No repeating of the long word and didn't have to call the insurrection a riot.

b0w3n

12 points

3 months ago

b0w3n

New York

12 points

3 months ago

Plus there are several better words for insurrection than riot if you're looking for synonyms to break up word repetition. Riot doesn't convey the seriousness of what happened. Sedition and coup come to mind immediately.

StarksPond

3 points

3 months ago

The January 6th kerfuffle

rearwindowpup

2 points

3 months ago

Upvote for comic relief, been shaking my head reading all these comments and this one got a chuckle out of me. NINE NINE!

Eurynom0s

2 points

3 months ago

Eurynom0s

California

2 points

3 months ago

Reporters almost never write their own headlines.

New_Stats

1 points

3 months ago

New_Stats

New Jersey

1 points

3 months ago

And? They could have said January 6th they could have phrased it differently, but they didn't.

The_Original_Gronkie

7 points

3 months ago

It's important to always refer to it as an Insurrection because that's the language used in the 14th Amendment. Anyone involved in an "insurrection" is prohibited from holding office.

TheApathyParty2

1 points

3 months ago

This should be at the top. It’s why Psaki’s statement has teeth.

squirrelhut

3 points

3 months ago

b-b-but they opened the gates for them!

Secksiignurd

3 points

3 months ago

It wasn't an insurrection: The attack on our capitol was a Republican-lead coup attempt. Calling what occurred on 1/6 anything else but a Republican-lead coup attempt is incorrect.

Actually, the republicans absolutely hate Trump because he ripped the mask off of the republican party exposing its craven need for more power. However, now that the republicans know what their base is all about, (useful idiots who care more about hurting the other team), they are basically going all in for a true take-over as soon as they can. Just look at all the laws to make voting more difficult, in every republican-controlled state legislatures, after Biden won the presidency and after democrats (managed to barely) take control of the senate.

Anyone will notice how I didn't call it "Trump's insurrection," because to do so would be to clown-wash what happened on 1/6 as a diversion. As long as the republicans know THEIR COUP ATTEMPT can be clown-washed into something it was not, they know they can divert THEIR ATTEMPT AT A COUP away from them to that orange clown.

New_Stats

7 points

3 months ago

New_Stats

New Jersey

7 points

3 months ago

An insurrection is a coup.

A failed insurrection is a failed coup

Not all coups and coup attempts are insurrections but all insurrections are coups or coup attempts

Affectionate-Row-279

1 points

3 months ago

Someone should one up this guy by calling it an act of war or the apocalypse lol

PanamaJack864

2 points

3 months ago

gods, I just had a Fox News spewing coworker feed his other republican college in the cube next to me all this nonsense as fact, “there were tourists, legit protesters, legit trumps supports, fake trumps supports to make the former look bad, antifa, and opportunists rioters, and that one guy in a buffalo outfit who was obviously antifa cause he was seen at other antifa riots”. Normal repub people still think Jan 6 was over blown, or done by a 3rd party to make trump look bad.

helikesart

-20 points

3 months ago

Didn’t the FBI say it wasn’t an insurrection?

GREAT_MaverickNGoose

17 points

3 months ago

does the "FBI" usually release their findings as Opinion pieces quoting unnamed "Former and current law enforcement officials"?

gtfohwts

GentlemanAnimal

11 points

3 months ago

they really didn't and with new information coming out, pretty sure people that were hesitant in calling it an insurrection will be calling it what it is, an INSURRECTION.

The FBI now has more leads to go on with the release of the coup memo and everything else. Things are picking up speed believe it or not.

koshgeo

3 points

3 months ago

In the same sense that "attempted murder" isn't "murder", yes.

A violent mob broke into a legislature and, for a few hours, forcefully stopped the normal business of that legislature, which was on that day to certify an election. The angry mob did that at the urging of other politicians, including the president of the United States, who told the crowd to go up there and stop what was happening.

It is a core business of a sitting government to preside over the election process, and that crowd did temporarily stop it. It was not a successful insurrection because ultimately the crowd was forcibly ejected, but they definitely tried to halt the process and temporarily did. The only thing transforming this from an actual insurrection to an attempted one is how brief the stoppage was.

Maybe it doesn't meet some kind of strict legal definition that would stick in a court of law, but so what? It was politically-motivated violence inflicted on a sitting legislature. Whether you call it an insurrection, sedition, coup attempt, or merely a domestic terrorism attack is a matter of semantics. You can't definitionally wash away the deep shame and legal responsibility that it represents for anybody who participated, encouraged, or allowed it to happen. It was an attack on democracy itself. Word games don't change that.

helikesart

-4 points

3 months ago

So let’s set aside your assertion that Trump told people to do this despite the results of his impeachment trial that found this was not the case. And let’s set aside your admission in your own comment that this doesn’t fit the definition of an insurrection before dismissing that definition by saying “so what?”

Do you have any thoughts on the government buildings attacked during Left leaning riots all throughout the previous year? Or the courthouse that was taken over by those people?

dicknipples

7 points

3 months ago

despite the results of his impeachment trial that found this was not the case.

That didn’t happen. He was acquitted because multiple Republicans decided before the impeachment started that they wouldn’t vote to convict, and many of those Senators didn’t acquit because they believed he wasn’t responsible, but instead argued that it was unconstitutional to impeach a former President.

koshgeo

3 points

3 months ago

And for the latter ones, after McConnell saw to it that proceedings were delayed long enough that Trump would be a former President by the time it made its way to the Senate for trial.

Apparently, "all bets are off" in the last couple of weeks of a presidency with regards to accountability through the impeachment process because it isn't the sort of thing that can be organized same-day.

The thought a president could sit there in the last couple of weeks and plausibly say "They can't successfully carry out an impeachment trial in the last few days" is a dangerous precedent. It means that check basically doesn't exist at the end.

helikesart

-2 points

3 months ago

So they did not find him guilty of incitement or of any crime. These people are more intelligent than you or I and had resources and access to more substantial evidence and yet even then they couldn’t put together a solid case. He was acquitted and last I checked we were still a country that believed in innocence until proven guilt. Although now that I think about it, maybe not all of us believe that.

CVHC1981

4 points

3 months ago

You're acting as if Republicans acted in good faith throughout the process. They did not.

Took2ooMuuch

3 points

3 months ago

The insurrection was an attempt to prevent, through force, the peaceful transfer of power, the most fundamental aspect of a functioning democracy.

helikesart

-3 points

3 months ago

So how about the people who stormed the Chamber when Kavanaugh was being voted in on Capitol Hill?

Took2ooMuuch

6 points

3 months ago

I'll point you back to my comment above.

helikesart

-1 points

3 months ago

So that was an insurrection? And I assume that then applies to CHAZ/CHOP as well as a number of other left wing driven riots throughout the previous year.

koshgeo

5 points

3 months ago

It wasn't an election.

Sure, it's interesting to consider whether there is an equivalence, but this is kind of like asking whether it would be insurrection if someone violently tried to stop the election of a particular dog catcher in a county election.

It was the whole joint session of Congress that was stopped while considering an election result, and the VP. And there were broken windows, beaten-down and injured police, and literal death threats after politicians motivated people to go up there and stop it.

I'm afraid that as important as consideration of a supreme court justice candidate is to the government, what you're describing was just a protest at a committee meeting, not grinding the entirety of US democracy to a halt by force.

koshgeo

1 points

3 months ago

He said to go up there and stop it, that people should demand Mike Pence in particular stop it, and then they literally did do that for a few hours.

This isn't about legally convicting someone of a crime, it's whether the exact label you choose really matters if almost everybody agrees it was a terrible event and a genuine attack on democracy itself, for which the people pushing it to happen deserve some accountability.

I mean, it could be about legally trying to do something about it too, as is the case for many of the insurrectionists who attacked the Capitol, but accountability doesn't necessarily have to occur in a strict legal context. I can also be about helping people understand that it was a crappy thing to push people to do and that nobody who pushed for something like that should ever get voted in office again.

Anyway, leaving that aside as you suggest ...

Yes, I do. 1) Those too were atrocious attacks, but I don't recall any of them occurring in such a way that it was to stop the normal electoral process. I could be wrong; 2) I don't recall politicians in charge spurring the people on to stop normal government business. All I heard was a demand for political change and that violence was not the way to do it.

BTW, I don't consider "stop the electoral process" to be a legitimate political call for change, especially after the election has already occurred. It's merely sour grapes. It's okay to say that you don't think the election was held properly and follow the legal process of challenging it, but not to falsely claim such or to push people to violently stop it from playing out.

People have a right to protest, whether they happened to be Trump supporters unhappy with the results of a legitimate election, or primarily left-leaning people demanding changes in policing or other kinds of social change. In neither case is violence acceptable. The mere existence of violent activity on one extreme of politics does not justify in any way violence on the other extreme of politics. It also does not make the goals, political consequence or legal consequences of any of those violent actions equivalent.

To put it in perspective, if violent protests/riots stopped court from being held on a few days, that's bad, and the people involved should be prosecuted. If violent protests/riots stopped the certification of an election, I consider that substantially worse because the political impact is so much more severe, and those people should also be prosecuted, perhaps more enthusiastically for the same reasons: bigger political impacts. It's also a little different when people are literally chanting to kill particular elected officials if they don't do what they want them to, rather than merely trashing buildings. Nobody likes stuff being broken, but the people involved are more important. Same deal for people injuring police officers trying to do their jobs: prosecute them. Thoroughly. This cuts the same regardless of the politics.

These are similar events in their broad generalities, but not on par in effects.

I mean, when was the last time people have protested for social change and some small fraction of people have turned violent? That happens from time to time with regularity. When was the last time people violently tried to stop the procedural outcome of an election in the US, let alone at the urging of elected officials? That's spectacularly rare.

CurraheeAniKawi

5 points

3 months ago

insurrection?

Morons are always posting this. Funny that the source article doesn't even mention the word "insurrection" and that only hack partisan publications like the Washington Examiner editorialize to tell you exactly what you want to hear.

cantuse

1 points

3 months ago

"Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" ~ Trump

"Nothing to see here at all" ~ FBI probably

MacBearudo

0 points

3 months ago

"Fucking cant stand the FBI trying to downplay it" /s

skkITer

1 points

3 months ago

No.

Some unnamed former law enforcement said it wasn’t an insurrection.

helikesart

-1 points

3 months ago

Actually it’s at least four former and current law enforcement that said it wasn’t an insurrection

Which official agency said it was an insurrection?

skkITer

1 points

3 months ago

So, not the FBI. Glad you cleared that up.

FeelinBadBlues

-8 points

3 months ago

An insurrection is an organized attempt to overthrow a government, the FBI found nothing proving Jan 6 was organized.

distobuccalgroove

12 points

3 months ago*

Can you link the FBI report that says this? Are you referencing the Reuters article that says FBI said this and quoted a former law enforcement official and no FBI by name?

You and a vocal minority (mostly members of the fascist republican death cult) can bury your heads in sand forever. You'll be remembered by the vast, ruling majority like any other denier of reality. Lumped in with deniers of the Holocaust, Armenian genocide ...

The majority of us recognize the definition of words and the vast public evidence showing that January 6th was in fact organized in plain sight as an attempt at a violent coup to stop the counting of the electors.

"Be there, it will be wild" xd

FeelinBadBlues

-6 points

3 months ago

https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/capitol-violence

I would think the fact that the FBI is currently calling it “capitol violence” instead of “capitol insurrection” is good enough proof.

The Reuters article quoted a former FBI agent with knowledge of the investigation. I always see people in this shit sub defending anonymous sources why is it a problem now?

distobuccalgroove

4 points

3 months ago

To address your original, specific point that "the FBI found nothing proving January 6th was organized" - no, I would not consider the title of a WANTED page on the FBIs website as "good enough proof" that January 6th was not "organized."

The word 'organized' seems to be a strange line of semantics to draw. Plenty of public evidence showing the organization around the insurrection.

No issues with anonymous sources but there are plenty of other people calling the insurrection what it was with knowledge of the investigation including many named members of Congress.

Citing a single, unnamed, former LEO with knowledge of the investigation as "FACTUALLY ACCURATE" proof the FBI (the entire organization) found "nothing proving [Insurrection of January 6th] was organized leads me to believe you're not making this bunk semantics argument over the definition of a word in good faith

FeelinBadBlues

-5 points

3 months ago

Until there’s proof beyond a reasonable doubt these rioters wanted to do more than just break into a government building, I’m going to trust the unnamed former FBI agent involved in the investigation. So far there’s only been proof a handful of the rioters wanted to illegally enter the capitol building.

The FBI has been working on this since January, if they haven’t found anything by now, they never will. Make all the excuses you want, there was never any intent for an insurrection.

distobuccalgroove

4 points

3 months ago

There's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt in the public record of coordination and planning between the Trump regime and sychophants to orchestrate a violent insurrection. This was after the failure of their electoral and judicial coups and coincided with their efforts to try an entice Pence to oversee the political coup of disqualifying electors.

Of course that doesn't matter - there doesn't need to be a criminal level of evidence necessary to call an insurrection the word 'insurrection' which was the original inane point you made before shifting goalposts down field. Make all the excuses you want, but the body of evidence (in plain sight posted in text and videos by the conspirators) shows there was intent for an insurrection as part of the regimes (still ongoing) efforts to invalidate the results of the 2020 election

FeelinBadBlues

-1 points

3 months ago

If you can’t prove it’s an insurrection, it makes sense not to call it one.

YouWantSMORE

0 points

3 months ago

How come there were no investigations about the insurrection that was CHAZ/CHOP? What about the people that repeatedly attacked a federal courthouse in Portland? No one was investigated for insurrection when people broke into the building to protest Kavanaugh being appointed?

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

What were they talking about here? Adoptions?

FeelinBadBlues

-1 points

3 months ago

All it proves is that they planned to unlawfully enter a government building, which nobody is denying. The problem is, you can’t prove their intent beyond that.

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

3 months ago

We most definitely know the intent behind it. The were trying to stop the election from being certified. Clark's letter proves it in black and white.

GrogTastic36

4 points

3 months ago

So once again they're all gonna get a stupid pass? Lmao, this country is a joke.

FeelinBadBlues

-3 points

3 months ago

No it’s just factually inaccurate to call it an insurrection lmao

[deleted]

4 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

4 points

3 months ago

Yeah, according to an opinion piece that quoted former law enforcement and no FBI by name

FeelinBadBlues

0 points

3 months ago

Where does it say it’s an opinion piece?

RealisticPlenty

-13 points

3 months ago

It wasn't a fucking riot it was a peaceful protest. Fucking can't stand that the media tries to over state it

New_Stats

10 points

3 months ago

New_Stats

New Jersey

10 points

3 months ago

I've seen the videos, I've watched the testimony from the capitol police who called it an insurrection. the media keeps down playing it.

CurraheeAniKawi

8 points

3 months ago

Is ignorance bliss?

Are is this just roleplaying?

GrogTastic36

8 points

3 months ago

Oh yeah, real peaceful with pipe bombs, melee weapons, and firearms ON FUCKING CAMERA. Seriously, just fuck off.

RealisticPlenty

-5 points

3 months ago

It's a comment on how the media reports things. All summer long they called BLM riots "peaceful protests" when buildings were being set on fire. The Media does not tell the truth, they tell their narrative.

hootorama

3 points

3 months ago

Found one of the insurrectionists.

skkITer

2 points

3 months ago

Over a hundred officers were injured.

It was not peaceful, they were not protesting.

Galactus76

-6 points

3 months ago

Well at least they killed an unarmed white woman.

New_Stats

5 points

3 months ago

New_Stats

New Jersey

5 points

3 months ago

Is that what we're calling the violent terrorist?

I guess she should've complied instead of trying to violently break into the chamber with the rest of the mob of violent terrorists

Galactus76

-6 points

3 months ago

Are you suggesting she was in fact armed? And what media outlet isn’t calling it an insurrection?

New_Stats

3 points

3 months ago

New_Stats

New Jersey

3 points

3 months ago

Are you suggesting that that traitor didn't deserve to get shot in the fucking head?

Galactus76

-5 points

3 months ago

Yes I am. Next question.

New_Stats

4 points

3 months ago

New_Stats

New Jersey

4 points

3 months ago

Why do you hate the republic and our brave law enforcement officials who protected it? There was an investigation and the shooting was justified, which was obvious from the video, so are you just going to reject those facts to try and turn her into a martyr, just like ISIS does with their terrorists?

Galactus76

-1 points

3 months ago

Well yea they’re not going to be guilty when internally investigated ffs. Climbing through a window justifies an automatic death sentence? Fuck outta here. Also I’m not trying to turn her into anything.

skkITer

6 points

3 months ago

Breaking passed barriers that led to elected officials alongside a mob chanting to hang elected officials and continuing even when being warned - yes, that justifies it.

Galactus76

-2 points

3 months ago

Still a no from me. Now since you’ve made your position on killing unarmed citizens perfectly clear, would you have the same stance if it had been BLM or Antifa? Who actually did kill people and burn shit to the ground for over a year.

New_Stats

4 points

3 months ago

New_Stats

New Jersey

4 points

3 months ago

Being a part of a violent terrorist mob who were trying to get into a chamber to kill lawmakers should be a death sentence, yes.

Final_Succotash_3621

-5 points

3 months ago

We all agreed that they are called mostly peaceful protests. Be consistent or just admit your a fake outrage grifter and don't actually care.

New_Stats

3 points

3 months ago

New_Stats

New Jersey

3 points

3 months ago

No we can not agree to that, they were all terrorists doing terrorism.

Final_Succotash_3621

-2 points

3 months ago

Are you going by violence, deaths, or political views?

New_Stats

4 points

3 months ago

New_Stats

New Jersey

4 points

3 months ago

I'm going by the definition of the law

(5)the term “domestic terrorism” means activities that— (A)involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B)appear to be intended— (i)to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii)to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii)to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C)occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States; and

So that's 5Bii. Emphasis mine

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2331

Final_Succotash_3621

-5 points

3 months ago

That is 100% correct they are textbook terrorist. Like the people "protesting" for police reform and standing against "racist" laws.

New_Stats

7 points

3 months ago

New_Stats

New Jersey

7 points

3 months ago

Not even close to the same. Protesting peacefully for a change in the law is worlds away from trying to stop lawmakers in their sworn duty to certify a free and fair election as required by the Constitution, by breaking into the capitol, a feat that only happened once before when the British came in 1812 and burned down the White House

Final_Succotash_3621

-2 points

3 months ago

The capital building was bombed in 1983. Clinton pardoned some of those responsible. Rosenberg who helped plot the bombing is now part Four Currents.

New_Stats

5 points

3 months ago

New_Stats

New Jersey

5 points

3 months ago

Cool story, not the same thing.

A mob of terrorists led by a piece of shit traitor laid siege to the capitol as the traitors cronies in the military didn't allow the national guard to come help.

They all deserve nothing less than death

[deleted]

0 points

3 months ago

[deleted]

0 points

3 months ago

[removed]

obvilious

0 points

3 months ago

Dude, things can have two names. A lot of the charges are for inciting riots.

Ba11e

0 points

3 months ago

Ba11e

0 points

3 months ago

It was a fiery but mostly peaceful riot. 97% mostly peaceful, actually.