DOJ indicts Oath Keepers leader, members on seditious conspiracy charges

[Common Sense]

I really don't think that is it at all. I think people saw this guy step up and do what a President should do... act in the best interests of the nation, not kowtow to foreign powers or foreign populations in an attempt to be popular. Trump had and has a lot of faults, but a lot of the rhetoric that got everybody's panties in a wad was exactly what millions of Americans were thinking, but lacked the audience to say it. Trump supporters aren't afraid of Trump. The only ones who believed he created a "hostile environment" were those who knew he would not bend to their will and those who were offended by his lack of a filter. Trump didn't know when to shut up. That was his single biggest fault as President, but even at that, he said a lot of things that needed to be said.


I could pick apart just about everything on your list, but there is really no need to take the time to do so. I will just mention one to give you some idea of how off base you are.

Did you know that when Biden was Vice President, he charged the Secret Service rent on the cottage they used on his property in Delaware? Trump's hotels are a business enterprise. Do you have any idea how many rooms his staffers occupied when he stayed at a hotel, any hotel? I don't know the exact number, but I do know that when VP Cheney stayed in my town to visit a member of the President's Cabinet, his staff, including the Secret Service, occupied 26 rooms, plus another 10 for office space. That particular hotel had a total of 84 rooms. They took an entire wing of the hotel.

I know the President's party is larger than that, so how much lost revenue do you think the hotel would have suffered if Trump had just "donated" the rooms?

When I put myself in the shoes of a Trump supporter, I understand why they supported him. Trump reaffirmed their beliefs that they were left behind and neglected by Democrats. They believed that the country was changing in a way that they didn’t approve of. They felt like victims and that their freedoms and values were being eroded. They believed that their economic problems were due to Democrat policies and that their guns, faith and values were in danger. But Trump was only using these fears, legitimate or not, to manipulate them.

Trump understood that fear is the most effective motivator, and he used that fear very effectively. What I don’t understand is how people bought into this obvious ploy. Trump is not a humble or altruistic person. Everything he does, he does for himself. While I understand why some people have those fears, I don’t understand how they believed a guy who claimed to be a Christian, but couldn’t name a verse and said things like grab her by the $#@!. I guess some people are willing to ignore the foibles of a man who promises to fix everything that’s wrong in their lives. The hypocrisy of it all is what bothers me most.

As to what presidents charge the taxpayers, Trump racked up bills far larger than any other president. Not only that, he constantly complained about Obama and his golfing and trips. He stated that as president he wouldn’t have time to golf. But in the end he golfed even more than Obama did. It’s the hypocrisy and the fact that his supporters complained about Obama’s golfing, yet excused Trump for doing the same thing and even more. It just illustrates that the complaints about Obama were just partisan and that Trump and his supporters are hypocritical.

[Common Sense]

The person wielding the gun always bears responsibility for his actions. Sometimes, those actions are justified. Sometimes, they are not. Regardless, the responsibility always lies with the person who pulls the trigger.




Of course he had a choice. He had a choice and he made the wrong one.





He actually violated training and doctrine by firing only one round. This clown was about as $#@!ed up as a soup sandwich.

It’s so hilarious watching conservatives unequivocally supporting law enforcement until something like this happens, and then they support the criminal. It just goes to show that the support is based on partisanship, rather than actual beliefs. I’ve probably typed the word hypocrisy thousands of times, but it’s the only word that accurately describes the situation.

[Common Sense]

Even you call both riots and in so doing compare the two and contradict yourself it's a false comparison.

Many on the left did support the 2020 riots. You did so in your diminishing them to a broken Starbucks window. No one that I've ever read has supported the riots of J6.

An obvious difference between the riots is justice is lacking for the 2020 riots and overbearing and political for J6.

Now you’re literally lying. Nobody here supported rioting. Show me an example of anyone supporting the riots.

But again, the point isn’t a semantic argument over the riots or how people described them. The point is, Trump supporters such as yourself, have repeatedly tried to diminish the importance of the events of January 6th by comparing it to the riots of 2020. And you’re literally proving my point over and over again.

[TheLiquidGuy]

You used the same article in a thread talking about the treatment of people arrested for the Capitol riot and those arrested for other riots around the country. The issue then was not how many people were arrested or how many people were convicted. The issue was how those arrested were treated.

But Cletus, I was responding to chris' complaint: "One thing the two certainly do not have in common is the lack of charges against those rioting 2020, and when charged, dismissed with mere probation"

So I think my response was apt.

As for your complaint, I have previously given you a few possible explanations in post#25 as to why rioters might be denied bail. Did you read it? In order to be sure that J6 rioters were unfairly denied bail we'd have to look closely at individual cases. Have you done that?

You do this a lot. You post something that really does nothing to support the position you are taking and then claim it validates everything you have been saying. I don't know what it is you think you are accomplishing by doing that.

I wouldn't do that. As you say, it would accomplish nothing.

Maybe the problem is that you aren't as clear as you think you are. In this case you complained about prisoner "treatment", when apparently you meant denial of bail. Another member also took you to mean jail conditions were bad and came to your aid with an article about jail conditions. So I was not alone in misunderstanding you. Like you have often done, I can also misinterpret. That doesn't mean I am arguing in bad faith.

[TheLiquidGuy]

2020 protests were peaceful until they weren't.

very true.

More than 93% of the protests did not erupt in violence.
So most of the protests were peaceful

[Cletus]

It’s so hilarious watching conservatives unequivocally supporting law enforcement until something like this happens, and then they support the criminal. It just goes to show that the support is based on partisanship, rather than actual beliefs. I’ve probably typed the word hypocrisy thousands of times, but it’s the only word that accurately describes the situation.

I have got over 24,000 posts on this forum. You are welcome to go back through every one of them and try to find a single example in which I have ever taken a position other than holding the person who fired the shot responsible for the outcome of a shot being fired. Go ahead.

I have held cops to the exact same standard I have held anyone else involved in a defensive shooting, even though the argument could be made that they should be held to a higher standard. I spent 24 years as an NRA Law Enforcement Division (formerly known as the Law Enforcement Activities Division) instructor, going on Mobile Training Teams to agencies all over the country, teaching law enforcement personnel the skills they needed to survive on the street and win the gunfight... the skills they don't get taught at the Academy. Now, I just train in the private sector, although I still get a lot of cops. Last year, I ran 30 defensive pistol classes and a bunch of rifle and shotgun classes. I am pretty sure I understand what constitutes a "righteous shooting" and what does not.

Your suggestion that because I believe the Babbitt shooting was NOT a righteous shoot, I am holding law enforcement to a different standard is ill informed, bigoted, and actually insulting. All it does is reveal your own prejudices.

[Cletus]

But Cletus, I was responding to chris' complaint: "One thing the two certainly do not have in common is the lack of charges against those rioting 2020, and when charged, dismissed with mere probation"

So I think my response was apt.

As for your complaint, I have previously given you a few possible explanations in post#25 as to why rioters might be denied bail. Did you read it? In order to be sure that J6 rioters were unfairly denied bail we'd have to look closely at individual cases. Have you done that?



I wouldn't do that. As you say, it would accomplish nothing.

Maybe the problem is that you aren't as clear as you think you are. In this case you complained about prisoner "treatment", when apparently you meant denial of bail. Another member also took you to mean jail conditions were bad and came to your aid with an article about jail conditions. So I was not alone in misunderstanding you. Like you have often done, I can also misinterpret. That doesn't mean I am arguing in bad faith.

I don't believe you "misunderstand" what is being said nearly as often as you claim. I think you you find making that claim an easy way out as an excuse for your willful disregard for what is being said.

[TheLiquidGuy]

I don't believe you "misunderstand" what is being said nearly as often as you claim. I think you you find making that claim an easy way out as an excuse for your willful disregard for what is being said.

Why would I have claimed to misunderstand your complaint about denying bail? I had no reason to be evasive. As soon as I realized what you were talking about, I gave you a direct answer on it that I feel pretty good about.

[Common Sense]

I have got over 24,000 posts on this forum. You are welcome to go back through every one of them and try to find a single example in which I have ever taken a position other than holding the person who fired the shot responsible for the outcome of a shot being fired. Go ahead.

I have held cops to the exact same standard I have held anyone else involved in a defensive shooting, even though the argument could be made that they should be held to a higher standard. I spent 24 years as an NRA Law Enforcement Division (formerly known as the Law Enforcement Activities Division) instructor, going on Mobile Training Teams to agencies all over the country, teaching law enforcement personnel the skills they needed to survive on the street and win the gunfight... the skills they don't get taught at the Academy. Now, I just train in the private sector, although I still get a lot of cops. Last year, I ran 30 defensive pistol classes and a bunch of rifle and shotgun classes. I am pretty sure I understand what constitutes a "righteous shooting" and what does not.

Your suggestion that because I believe the Babbitt shooting was NOT a righteous shoot, I am holding law enforcement to a different standard is ill informed, bigoted, and actually insulting. All it does is reveal your own prejudices.

So what was the officer supposed to do? What should he have done when the mob was coming through the barricades?

[Dr. Who]

Of course you don't. I am not surprised by that.

A courthouse is not private property. A police station is not private property. Government offices are not private property. Assaulting police officers is not destruction of private property.

You are correct - I should have said destruction of property.