ADVERTISEMENT

OOTB's Political Thread . ..

So Pelosi & co wanted to help prevent or delay Congress from certifying the election which could threaten Biden's stake at the presidency? Why would she want that?

They wanted to make Trump look bad. Don’t be stupid. You’re acting as if that hasn’t been their priority goal for the last 10 years.

Pelosi and company knew something was brewing. And at best, she was negligent. At worst, she concocted a plan to exacerbate a mildly volatile situation to create the narrative of “iNsUrEcTiOn!”
 
Trump get elected and the McRib comes back. Not a coincidence
Donald Trump GIF
 
So, you're blaming the people that you think should have had "more security"... Not the people that actually perpetrated the crimes.

If someone breaks into my car and vandalizes it, it's just as much my fault, if I didn't lock all the doors.
yes, nitwit, he's blaming, and accusing, the people who should have 'had more security'...for not taking advantage of the security being made available. Duh. If a woman walks outside without any clothes, who is she going to blame if someone sees her naked and takes a picture of her and puts it on the internet?

Or better yet, you want to dispose of the hideous present your partner gave you, so you leave it on the front seat of the car you've parked in a lot that has signs saying 'LOCK YOUR DOORS' with a door unlocked and you walk away for some hours, and sure enough it gets lifted. Who is your partner going to blame, a common thief or you for being so 'careless' as to expose his gift to the highly likely possibility of it getting stolen. Duh.

But but but there's a difference between a legal act and an illegal act you'll say, disregarding that that fact is entirely irrelevant to the point that you should have known what was likely to happen, and either taken steps to prevent it, or purposely allowed it to happen. Duh.

Duh.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archer2
They wanted to make Trump look bad. Don’t be stupid. You’re acting as if that hasn’t been their priority goal for the last 10 years.

Pelosi and company knew something was brewing. And at best, she was negligent. At worst, she concocted a plan to exacerbate a mildly volatile situation to create the narrative of “iNsUrEcTiOn!”

Always Sunny Reaction GIF
 
They wanted to make Trump look bad. Don’t be stupid. You’re acting as if that hasn’t been their priority goal for the last 10 years.

Pelosi and company knew something was brewing. And at best, she was negligent. At worst, she concocted a plan to exacerbate a mildly volatile situation to create the narrative of “iNsUrEcTiOn!”

Bingo!!!

I have yet to see one good excuse for not having sufficient security. Nada.
 
seriously? You nudge the goalposts and retreat into inanity instead of answering the simple question that exposes your dimwittedness? I am shocked.
The goalposts were thrown in the ocean when the decision was made... or the loss of brain function... to blame the violence of the crowd and the damage done by the crowd on the lack of security. And, you chose to bolster that bullshit with a scenario where you blame the woman instead of the pervert, for exploiting the woman. Hey! Just look at your avatar! Start'em young! She should have known better!
 
The goalposts were thrown in the ocean when the decision was made... or the loss of brain function... to blame the violence of the crowd and the damage done by the crowd on the lack of security.
the only loss of brain function here is yours, when you try to contend that the lack of security was no factor in the riot being contained, or even begun. If you know trouble is likely, and you have the means to avoid it, you definitely are at least partly to blame for what happens if you don't avail yourself of those means. Even Pelosi herself fessed up, leaving you out on your lonely island to flail away at reality. And NO ONE has said that the rioters shouldn't shoulder their share of the blame. That's just you creating fallacious scenarios that support your misguided notions, as usual.


And, you chose to bolster that bullshit with a scenario where you blame the woman instead of the pervert, for exploiting the woman. Hey! Just look at your avatar! Start'em young! She should have known better!

The 'pervert' was acting within his rights. There is no law against taking a picture in public and doing with it what you will. If the woman objects, she has no one but herself to blame for going outside in the buff to be viewed by anyone who cares to look...and take pictures, if they care to. She chose to forgo the security of her home and expose her nudity, and your stupid ass blames anyone who happens to see her because, as nonsensical as that is, that's the only nonsense that you can offer to 'bolster' your wacky way of seeing things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nctransplant
and your stupid ass blames anyone who happens to see her
There go the goalposts again!

You said "If a woman walks outside without any clothes, who is she going to blame if someone sees her naked and takes a picture of her and puts it on the internet?" That's not the same as "happens to see her."

Oh... and, this one "There is no law against taking a picture in public and doing with it what you will." Is also a load of shit.
I'm done with you.
 
And, you chose to bolster that bullshit with a scenario where you blame the woman instead of the pervert, for exploiting the woman. Hey! Just look at your avatar! Start'em young! She should have known better!
so it's the kid's fault for exploiting the cheerleader by looking at her! Lock him up. Lock him up. LMAO at your dumb ass.
 
There go the goalposts again!

You said "If a woman walks outside without any clothes, who is she going to blame if someone sees her naked and takes a picture of her and puts it on the internet?" That's not the same as "happens to see her."

I'm done with you.
it is exactly the same, because neither action is beyond his rights, while neither would have happened had she not voluntarily exposed herself to BE exploited. You're done with me simply because you don't want to continue making a fool of yourself.
 
This argument is all about perspectives and who one would like to blame. The truth is,

multiple things can be true at the same time.

It does, however, make you wonder how many times "people" would have potentially have acted out had there NOT been proper security in place in other situations. It also makes you wonder how much of the Summer of Love could have been prevented or curtailed had those in charge chosen to put proper security in place. The people who acted improperly and illegally on J6 should be held to those consequences, just like those during the Summer of Love should be (but haven't been). The interesting part for both of them would be how very, very significantly all of those "numbers" would have exponentially dropped had proper security been employed.
 
This argument is all about perspectives and who one would like to blame. The truth is,

multiple things can be true at the same time.

It does, however, make you wonder how many times "people" would have potentially have acted out had there NOT been proper security in place in other situations. It also makes you wonder how much of the Summer of Love could have been prevented or curtailed had those in charge chosen to put proper security in place. The people who acted improperly and illegally on J6 should be held to those consequences, just like those during the Summer of Love should be (but haven't been). The interesting part for both of them would be how very, very significantly all of those "numbers" would have exponentially dropped had proper security been employed.
one difference, such as the argument I'm engaged in with @strummingram, involves the matter of placing blame on a moral basis and not a logical and factual one. I believe that a factual analysis needs to occur before any 'blame' is assigned. Strum wants to play the blame game without benefit of proper reasoning, and his mind has subjectively assigned blame to only one factor, just as some want to place the blame only elsewhere. The simple truth is that blame should be spread around to a number of areas, several of which I linked to articles discussing this. As you say, just because you blame one entity, other entities are not necessarily free of a share of the blame.

There was a large amount of intel indicating the distinct possibility of violence that was discovered well before the event, and although there were people trying to make the responsible people aware of the danger, that intel was never reacted to properly. OF COURSE those who came to the rally with the intent to destroy property and threaten the well-being of certain people and who in fact acted on that basis are guilty and should be blamed on their own. But the inexplicable failure to head off that violence with increased security is not something that should go blameless. Nor should verbiage be taken out of context or otherwise truncated in order to artificially indicate a single area of blame. We know for a fact that the dem machine does this routinely and doubled down on their usual effort here.

Ironically, those who want to manipulate the facts to place the blame for this on Trump only duplicate the very atmosphere that provoked the J6 violence.

In summary, give me that crown, dammit.


ETA; "The truth is, multiple things can be true at the same time." And those things can seem to be contradictory, but they can be true anyway.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: pooponduke
Bingo!!!

I have yet to see one good excuse for not having sufficient security. Nada.
Trump was the Pres. It was his gov, his cabinets and appointees. It is laughable that somehow the Dems are blamed for the Capitol being less prepped.

The Speaker of the House (Pelosi at the time) does not oversee security of the US Capitol, nor does this official oversee the Capitol Police Board. Nor do they control control who is appointed to the Board, which consists of the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms, the Architect of the Capitol and the Chief of the Capitol Police. The Sergeants at Arms are elected and must be confirmed by their respective chambers and the Architect must be confirmed by both chambers of Congress.

If there'd be any party responsible for being more prepped it would be Trump's. Trump picked the Dir of FBI. Trump picked the Secretary of Defense. Trump picked the Sec of Homeland Security.
 
Show me the list of roles which give her authority over natty guard? And explain to me how a House member would have more foresight than the FBI and homeland security? She is referencing Natty Guard "not knowing" when she says "I take responsibility" but she definitely doesn't have authority over natty guard. So is it her job to make sure the people who DO control natty guard have their heads out of the asses?

The Speaker of the House (Pelosi at the time) does not oversee security of the US Capitol, nor does this official oversee the Capitol Police Board. Nor do they control control who is appointed to the Board, which consists of the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms, the Architect of the Capitol and the Chief of the Capitol Police. The Sergeants at Arms are elected and must be confirmed by their respective chambers and the Architect must be confirmed by both chambers of Congress.
 
Good link. Who appointed the leaders of the FBI and Dept of homeland security? Oh yeah, Trump did.
how is that pertinent to the gist of my having linked this, which was in response to a poster asking 'who would ever think there would be such idiots?' ? Answer, including linked verification, is that plenty of people did.. . and the danger was finally further disseminated in the days just before Jan6, yet it was not acted upon.


Show me the list of roles which give her authority over natty guard? And explain to me how a House member would have more foresight than the FBI and homeland security? She is referencing Natty Guard "not knowing" when she says "I take responsibility" but she definitely doesn't have authority over natty guard. So is it her job to make sure the people who DO control natty guard have their heads out of the asses?

The Speaker of the House (Pelosi at the time) does not oversee security of the US Capitol, nor does this official oversee the Capitol Police Board. Nor do they control control who is appointed to the Board, which consists of the House and Senate Sergeants at Arms, the Architect of the Capitol and the Chief of the Capitol Police. The Sergeants at Arms are elected and must be confirmed by their respective chambers and the Architect must be confirmed by both chambers of Congress.

It isn't specifically in her job description but she knew and did nothing...and she was at the top of the immediate CofC. Afterwards, she was intent on making Trump the fall guy when the fact is that he made an effort to call in the guard, and was turned down. THAT is where she was responsible.

Your dwelling on who made certain appointments is a strawman of sorts. Once an appointment for the head is made, interactions are between all parties concerned. In other words, who gives a shit who made an appointment immaterial to the matter at hand?
 
  • Like
Reactions: chickenhunter
Not really on the killing part. Some, but probably not more, and definitely not a lot more.

Check this, for example, from that time period.

you're hinging an argument on the connotations of the word 'lot' in context, which of course is subjective. The simple indisputable fact, proving the point being made, is that more were killed and more destruction done in antifa/blm riots than were perpetrated at the Capitol. The meaning of the word 'lot' is quantitatively whatever you want it to mean, and only serves here as a distraction....or a deflection if you prefer.
 
It isn't specifically in her job description but she knew and did nothing...and she was at the top of the immediate CofC. Afterwards, she was intent on making Trump the fall guy when the fact is that he made an effort to call in the guard, and was turned down. THAT is where she was responsible.
Is she a prophet? She knew it, but Trump's FBI and Dept of Homeland Security, and DoD didn't? Does she control the Cap police or DC police? The correct answer to all of the above is NO.

What says that the speaker of the house is the top CofC related to security of the Cap bldg? Where are these rules or definitions?
 
to the greatest extent, evidently not.

not prosecuted numbers...
This paragraph sums up your link:
Officials did not file charges for nearly all low-level offenses, like disobeying curfews, while they most often pursued cases with strong evidence of more serious crimes, like assault or looting. Still, data shows that a majority of felony charges were also dropped, which some prosecutors said was due to a lack of evidence.

So evidently yes. Serious offenses like rioting, looting, assault were prosecuted, while peaceful-protesting and disobeying curfews were not. Its a fallacy that BLM offenders weren't prosecuted in the way that J6 offenders were prosecuted.
 
you're hinging an argument on the connotations of the word 'lot' in context, which of course is subjective. The simple indisputable fact, proving the point being made, is that more were killed and more destruction done in antifa/blm riots than were perpetrated at the Capitol. The meaning of the word 'lot' is quantitatively whatever you want it to mean, and only serves here as a distraction....or a deflection if you prefer.

There was “a lot” more destruction during the Summer of George than on Jan 6. The only people that would not characterize it as “a lot” are idiot liberals who are still excusing the BLM riots and still hanging on to the “iNsUrReCtIoN!!! narrative.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT