Originally posted by cliffw: NewDustin, you need a better search engine. Might I suggest Google instead of Giggles ?
You give some of the best snark, dude. This actually got a giggle, and I'm not even ashamed of it.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: It is a fact that voting laws were changed (covid) by those not empowered by State Constitution legislation. Voting by mail, drop boxes, vote harvesting, there are more.
They did want time for court challenges. One can get convicted of a crime and have more time to go to court.
Ehh, they did not claim Trump told the Big Lie. That was the the Democrats who claimed that.
There were over 80 lawsuits filed that took over a year to conclude. The election was found, unanimously by the lawsuits and investigations, to have gone for Biden. The last lawsuit concluded (from what I can find) in January of 2021.
Is your proposal that they were planning to poop there for more than a year while several dozen lawsuits settled against them? I did say "unsubstantiated," so if you can provide a post, plan...something that says that is what they were planning I'll admit I was wrong there. Did they have a supply chain plan to ship in the McDonalds to keep them loaded up with poop?
The clown show that is Trump is very much based on his words and his actions.
The latest... Trump now wishes to control Greenland.
[QUOTE]
It would also include funding for increased staffing at Arctic Command in the capital Nuuk and an upgrade for one of Greenland's three main civilian airports to handle F-35 supersonic fighter aircraft.
"We have not invested enough in the Arctic for many years, now we are planning a stronger presence," he said.
The announcement came a day after Trump said on his social media platform Truth Social: "For purposes of National Security and Freedom throughout the World, the United States of America feels that the ownership and control of Greenland is an absolute necessity."[/SIZE]
More at the above link
[/QUOTE]
Hmmm It's funny how when DJT speaks, things start happening. All of a sudden, Greenland is investing more in defense. Maybe that was the goal from the beginning. Kind of like getting our two border nations to increase border security..................
If Putin was facing the same issues the US is dealing with, then I doubt I'd have much to say. It's not our (US) border.
Rams
I think the point is that strong-man bullying tactics are generally a hallmark of more authoritarian regimes and concern observers who see them from the US. Kind of like they saw their normally-respectable uncle get drunk and crap his pants. Patrick would know better than me, though
It's funny how when DJT speaks, things start happening.
[/QUOTE]
Give a straight answer............... Being the Queen of Dis-Information, Distraction and TDS, you're one to talk.
I do find it humorous that you equate the two. Two borders with issues are all I currently care about at this moment. Well, that and Canada (and others) fulfilling their NATO Membership dues. Speculation of how I see other issues will have to be addressed if and when those issues come about. I'm not in the Intelligence/Spy business but I've read that the Chinese are already in Panama attempting influence Panama. If or when Canada becomes our 51st state, I might be more concerned about it but, based on all of Canada Socialist issues, I have my doubts. I do think it's funny how your PM bends his knee to DJT when he speaks. That's another issue for your country, not mine. The proposed 25% Tariff will make things interesting for both countries. That was what this thread was about if you can remember.
BTW, I'm not the person that believes arguing in P&R is half the fun.
Here's hoping you and yours have a great Holiday Season and Happy New Year when it's applicable.
Edited: Aw, go ahead, I already know you want the last word................ ------------------ Rams Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. . You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 12-27-2024).]
I'm not in the Intelligence/Spy business but I've read that the Chinese are already in Panama attempting influence Panama. If or when Canada becomes our 51st state, I might be more concerned about it...
That doesn't even make any sense... but I'm not surprised.
You appear to have no issue with your President elect clown stating that he wishes to take over Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal. Trump has gone completely off his rocker, yet his minions see no problem with these Truth Social ramblings. Looks like he's following Putin's playbook. Putin has his sheep believing the “special military operation" in Ukraine is justified as well.
Originally posted by NewDustin: There were over 80 lawsuits filed that took over a year to conclude. The election was found, unanimously by the lawsuits and investigations, to have gone for Biden. The last lawsuit concluded (from what I can find) in January of 2021.
That may be clear now but between the election and the certification of it, no lawsuits had a chance to run the full justice course. People just wanted a better examination of the results. There was no insurrection. Heh, the definition would apply to any resisting arrest, even by running.
What would happened if after a year shenanigans were found to have happened ? Biden would have been removed and any legislation he had signed would have been declared void ?
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: Is your proposal that they were planning to poop there for more than a year while several dozen lawsuits settled against them? I did say "unsubstantiated," so if you can provide a post, plan...something that says that is what they were planning I'll admit I was wrong there. Did they have a supply chain plan to ship in the McDonalds to keep them loaded up with poop?
Trump offered Nancy Pelosi the National Guard as well as the DC Mayor. They were not planning, they were protesting, loudly. Much like Black Lives Matter.
The Israel/Gaza protesters took over campus buildings with no plan to be able to poop, and then they were fed.
Originally posted by Patrick: Give a straight answer for a change. Would you still find it as "funny" if it was Russia or China threatening to take over the Panama Canal?
I would.
Use your grey matter Patrick. Will we disallow any foreign ships to transverse the Panama Canal ? We have protected the Straight of the Hormuz for international travel. Of which, we built the Panama Canal for international passage.
By the way. Curious mind want to know. We proudly have our Mexican Americans, our African Americans, Chinese Americans, Irish Americans. You have a chance of becoming our first Canadian American. Are you going to move somewhere else instead ?
That doesn't even make any sense... but I'm not surprised.
You appear to have no issue with your President elect clown stating that he wishes to take over Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal. Trump has gone completely off his rocker, yet his minions see no problem with these Truth Social ramblings. Looks like he's following Putin's playbook. Putin has his sheep believing the “special military operation" in Ukraine is justified as well.
I'm gonna let you stew on this for a while, maybe (just maybe) you'll figure it out. You might even get past the TDS you're infected with if you get some rest, take any and all medications and maybe get an attitude checkup.
Have a great New Years and 2025. I'm sure things will eventually improve.................
You appear to have no issue with your President elect clown stating that he wishes to take over Canada, Greenland and the Panama Canal. Trump has gone completely off his rocker, yet his minions see no problem with these Truth Social ramblings. Looks like he's following Putin's playbook. Putin has his sheep believing the “special military operation" in Ukraine is justified as well.
Originally posted by cliffw: That may be clear now but between the election and the certification of it, no lawsuits had a chance to run the full justice course. People just wanted a better examination of the results. There was no insurrection. Heh, the definition would apply to any resisting arrest, even by running.
What would happened if after a year shenanigans were found to have happened ? Biden would have been removed and any legislation he had signed would have been declared void ??
Think about the logistics of what this insists on: Any time a candidate believes they should have won, even illegitimately, they can halt the transfer of power for more than a year while they pursue dozens of ultimately-frivolous lawsuits? That doesn't make sense.
Also, can you substantiate that that was their plan ahead of time (some kind of source or citations that shows that was their "why"), and not a more-palatable rationalization we're trying to force on their actions after the fact? If not, that's going to fall under the "unsubstantiated claims" category.
What "might" have happened has no impact on what did happen. Cheating of the magnitude Trump has built up (in what everyone likes to call "The Big Lie") has been shown to not have happened. I'm not sure the point of that hypothetical.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Trump offered Nancy Pelosi the National Guard as well as the DC Mayor. They were not planning, they were protesting, loudly.
Speaking of unsubstantiated claims, here are more. There is no evidence Trump ever authorized the National Guard (the DoD has said this explicitly), and there absolutely would be if he had. This also completely misunderstands how the National Guard works. Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, would have been no where in the layers of authority needed to mobilize the National Guard.
For the "protesting loudly" claim:
Do you include beating cops and stabbing them with flagpoles, and tazing them? What about beating them with fire extinguishers, spraying them with pepper spray, and beating them with bats until over 100 cops needed to be hospitalized, and more than a dozen were still out weeks later, and several whose careers were ended from the injuries they suffered?
The wonton property destruction that took place in The Capitol...does that count as protesting loudly too? What about the flexicuffs folks brought with them when chanting "Where's Nancy?" and searching for other members of congress; were those to help with the loud or the protesting part of "protesting loudly"?
What about the documented, coordinated efforts that had absolutely nothing to do with gaining time for lawsuits? The Oath Keepers' communications explicitly said they were there to disrupt he certification, regardless of legitimacy, and detain lawmakers. The Proud Boys similarly explicitly stated their goals as inciting chaos, creating breaches into The Capitol, and stop the certification. There is no mention from either group about buying time for lawsuits.
I can absolutely substantiate that large portions of the elements there had no care for stalling for lawsuits. Can you prove that was the stated goal of a single person there prior to Jan 6? If not, this is gonna stay in the "unsubstantiated claims" category, too, but with an earmark that says "largely disproven."
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Much like Black Lives Matter.
The Israel/Gaza protesters took over campus buildings with no plan to be able to poop, and then they were fed.
Remember when those organizations collaborated to stop the transfer of power at the national level? Were specifically aimed at disrupting the function of government? I won't argue that they had an impact on local governments -they absolutely did- but they never coordinated to disrupt governmental proceedings the way Jan 6 did, especially on that magnitude. Comparing the taking over of some buildings to the illegitimate halting of federal government power transfer via threats doesn't really hold up.
Originally posted by NewDustin: There is no evidence Trump ever authorized the National Guard (the DoD has said this explicitly), and there absolutely would be if he had. This also completely misunderstands how the National Guard works. Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, would have been no where in the layers of authority needed to mobilize the National Guard.
My understanding is that DJY offered Speaker Pelosi National Guard Troops. I have no doubt the offer was made. This has been stated publicly many times and never been denied by the former Speaker. Knowing she can't stand DJT, I feel quite certain had that offer not been made or was a lie, she would have been screaming to high heaven. DoD probably never received such orders because Speaker Pelosi didn't apparently think if was necessary or simply didn't want it. I also have no doubts that had Speaker Pelosi requested the offered troops, DoD would have received the orders to deploy NG Troops.
Honestly, I'm surprised NG Troops aren't at least on "Stand By" at every election and possibly even when big events are projected. It's pretty obvious the Capitol Police and or DC police aren't equipped to handle events like what occurred. One would think the Capitol Police have a protocol to interact with the DC police dept along with the Secret Service and other agencies responsible for securing the government facilities.
------------------ Rams Learning most of life's lessons the hard way. . You are only young once but, you can be immature indefinitely.
My understanding is that DJY offered Speaker Pelosi National Guard Troops. I have no doubt the offer was made. This has been stated publicly many times and never been denied by the former Speaker. Knowing she can't stand DJT, I feel quite certain had that offer not been made or was a lie, she would have been screaming to high heaven. DoD probably never received such orders because Speaker Pelosi didn't apparently think if was necessary or simply didn't want it. I also have no doubts that had Speaker Pelosi requested the offered troops, DoD would have received the orders to deploy NG Troops.
Honestly, I'm surprised NG Troops aren't at least on "Stand By" at every election and possibly even when big events are projected. It's pretty obvious the Capitol Police and or DC police aren't equipped to handle events like what occurred. One would think the Capitol Police have a protocol to interact with the DC police dept along with the Secret Service and other agencies responsible for securing the government facilities.
So...we're accepting it's an unsubstantiated claim, though one that seems reasonable to you?
You're a statist, pro-regulation, pro-economic interventionism, pro-executive-power-swelling, big-government shill who blames veterans for their dead comrades when you mistakenly assume they voted for someone you don't like. You're a downright hilarious choice to gatekeep conservatism. I believe you 100% when you say you used to be a Democrat prior to the coming to the Republican side for the populism.
Can't and won't speak for 82 but, I'm also a former lifelong Democrat. More appropriately called a DINO. Never heard or read where 82 blamed Veterans for their dead comrades but, I'll let him defend that accusation. As to the other allegations posted, that kind of surprises me. I don't think it is applicable.
So...we're accepting it's an unsubstantiated claim, though one that seems reasonable to you?
I believe that if DJT's claim was false, Pelosi would be denying it ever happened and that has not occurred, or she would have claimed he lied. She hates DJT and will do anything to challenge him.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 12-29-2024).]
Originally posted by blackrams: Can't and won't speak for 82 but, I'm also a former lifelong Democrat. More appropriately called a DINO. Never heard or read where 82 blamed Veterans for their dead comrades but, I'll let him defend that accusation.
I was referring to this comment he directed towards me in a previous thread, where he mistakenly assumed I'd voted for Biden and he was blaming Biden voters for the disastrous pullout in Afghanistan:
quote
Originally posted by 82-T/A [At Work]: "I understand that you voted for Joe Biden, and that it's difficult for you to accept that a decision YOU made, helped lead to this disastrous pull out of epic proportions. Today... I'm going to give you a big **** YOU. It's not personal, but **** YOU. I lost friends there, as I'm sure you probably did if you went to Afghanistan."
That was the day after veterans day, btw.
quote
Originally posted by blackrams: As to the other allegations posted, that kind of surprises me. I don't think it is applicable. Rams
I listed them because they are very-not-conservative positions he has taken over the last few months while supporting Project 2025/tariffs, etc.
...honestly it was me letting my frustration slip, and I shouldn't have done so. I'm feeling a little less patience with the personal insults/attacks since the whole "you helped kill your buddies with your vote" thing.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 12-31-2024).]
I believe that if DJT's claim was false, Pelosi would be denying it ever happened and that has not occurred, or she would have claimed he lied. She hates DJT and will do anything to challenge him.
Rams
So...completely unsubstantiated but intuitively seems true to you? I'm not questioning the existence of the plethora of unsubstantiated claims about January 6 that try to minimize/explain it away. What I am saying is if their plan was to delay the certification in order to buy times for lawsuits, then 1) they were planning on disrupting the transfer of power for months, and 2) they would have written that down somewhere, or communicated it to each other in some way.
The rationale and communications we do have state expressly that the goal was to stop certification process, legitimate or not, and cause as much chaos around it as possible. We have that from at least 2 groups who organized the event.
Earlier there was a claim that Democrats have stormed the capitol, that this isn't an uncommon event, and that Democrats have never been punished for it. That's almost expressly untruthful. I can find several times in the last 20 years or so where protests happened on capitol grounds and resulted in the premises being "breached." Code Pink protested in the capitol, but didn't engage in any violence or vandalism, and a higher percentage of them were arrested than Jan 6 folks. During Kavanaugh's hearing, demonstrators entered the Senate buildings and were arrested without violence or vandalism; again at a higher percentage than the Jan 6 folks. There have been some minor, non-violent protests at the capitol that did lead to vandalism, but nothing involving more than a handful of people, and each incident leading to arrests. I can't find anyone who isn't Jan 6 folks who used the opportunity to poop on things at the capitol; poopoo protesting is unique to them.
So yeah, lots of unsubstantiated claims, and lots of outright hot BS...but so far nothing of substance. Almost like there is ample evidence showing it was a violent riot with no legitimate goals and apparently none showing otherwise.
So...completely unsubstantiated but intuitively seems true to you? I'm not questioning the existence of the plethora of unsubstantiated claims about January 6 that try to minimize/explain it away. What I am saying is if their plan was to delay the certification in order to buy times for lawsuits, then 1) they were planning on disrupting the transfer of power for months, and 2) they would have written that down somewhere, or communicated it to each other in some way.
The rationale and communications we do have state expressly that the goal was to stop certification process, legitimate or not, and cause as much chaos around it as possible. We have that from at least 2 groups who organized the event.
Earlier there was a claim that Democrats have stormed the capitol, that this isn't an uncommon event, and that Democrats have never been punished for it. That's almost expressly untruthful. I can find several times in the last 20 years or so where protests happened on capitol grounds and resulted in the premises being "breached." Code Pink protested in the capitol, but didn't engage in any violence or vandalism, and a higher percentage of them were arrested than Jan 6 folks. During Kavanaugh's hearing, demonstrators entered the Senate buildings and were arrested without violence or vandalism; again at a higher percentage than the Jan 6 folks. There have been some minor, non-violent protests at the capitol that did lead to vandalism, but nothing involving more than a handful of people, and each incident leading to arrests. I can't find anyone who isn't Jan 6 folks who used the opportunity to poop on things at the capitol; poopoo protesting is unique to them.
So yeah, lots of unsubstantiated claims, and lots of outright hot BS...but so far nothing of substance. Almost like there is ample evidence showing it was a violent riot with no legitimate goals and apparently none showing otherwise.
My posting was only referring to the offer to Pelosi for NG support that she did not take advantage of. I believe DJT made the offer, Pelosi did not request the additional security that was offered. As I said, if DJT was lying, then Pelosi would have raised a stink to high heaven. I was not addressing anything other than that.
Rams
[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 12-31-2024).]
Originally posted by NewDustin: Think about the logistics of what this insists on: Any time a candidate believes they should have won, even illegitimately, they can halt the transfer of power for more than a year while they pursue dozens of ultimately-frivolous lawsuits? That doesn't make sense.
What does not make sense is you believing the lawsuits are actually ultimately-frivolous lawsuits before they are litigated.
I understand your point. I agree, it is a ku-num-dren.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: Also, can you substantiate that that was their plan ahead of time (some kind of source or citations that shows that was their "why"), and not a more-palatable rationalization we're trying to force on their actions after the fact? If not, that's going to fall under the "unsubstantiated claims" category.
No.
Do you think that was an organized effort with a understood common goal. I think it was more like lemmings who followed each other off the top of a cliff.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: Speaking of unsubstantiated claims, here are more. There is no evidence Trump ever authorized the National Guard (the DoD has said this explicitly), and there absolutely would be if he had. This also completely misunderstands how the National Guard works. Nancy Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, would have been no where in the layers of authority needed to mobilize the National Guard.
Duhh. The National Guard was never called upon. Trump offered their services and could/would have put the wheels in motion.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: For the "protesting loudly" claim: Do you include beating cops and stabbing them with flagpoles, and tazing them? What about beating them with fire extinguishers, spraying them with pepper spray, and beating them with bats until over 100 cops needed to be hospitalized, and more than a dozen were still out weeks later, and several whose careers were ended from the injuries they suffered?
Stabbed ? Tazed ? Beating them with fire extinguishers ? Stabbing them with flagpoles ? Over 100 cops needed hospitalization ? Beating them with bats ? Careers ended ?
heh heh heh. Substantiate any of that.
By the way, how many protesters were there which 100 cops could not control ? The Capitol was not rushed on all four sides. We do know that the only death on Jan 6 was a protester, a female military veteran. Shot by a Capitol Police officer through a door. The same officer had left his weapon on the bathroom sink top another day.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: The wonton property destruction that took place in The Capitol...does that count as protesting loudly too?
It did when Black Lives Matter destroyed many a city.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: What about the flexicuffs folks brought with them when chanting "Where's Nancy?" and searching for other members of congress; were those to help with the loud or the protesting part of "protesting loudly"?
Who was flex cuffed ? Chanting "Where's Nancy" ? Why ? She is not a member of the Senate.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: What about the documented, coordinated efforts that had absolutely nothing to do with gaining time for lawsuits? The Oath Keepers' communications explicitly said they were there to disrupt he certification, regardless of legitimacy, and detain lawmakers.
Show me some documentation. Why would they want to disrup the certification ?
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: The Proud Boys similarly explicitly stated their goals as inciting chaos, creating breaches into The Capitol, and stop the certification. There is no mention from either group about buying time for lawsuits.
Where did they state that ? Why would either group act out ?
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: What "might" have happened has no impact on what did happen. Cheating of the magnitude Trump has built up (in what everyone likes to call "The Big Lie") has been shown to not have happened. I'm not sure the point of that hypothetical.
It has not proved to be shown that it did not happen. Every lawsuit was declared moot. It has been proved that election laws were changed by politicians not legislativled empowered to do so.
quote
Originally posted by NewDustin: Remember when those organizations collaborated to stop the transfer of power at the national level? Were specifically aimed at disrupting the function of government? I won't argue that they had an impact on local governments -they absolutely did- but they never coordinated to disrupt governmental proceedings the way Jan 6 did, especially on that magnitude. Comparing the taking over of some buildings to the illegitimate halting of federal government power transfer via threats doesn't really hold up.
You seem to believe the goal of the protest was to stop the transfer of power. NewDustin, if anything, January 6th reminded or overlords that they can not go unchallenged.
Heh, the only insurrection where the insurrectionists did not bring guns.
Originally posted by cliffw: Stabbed ? Tazed ? Beating them with fire extinguishers ? Stabbing them with flagpoles ? Over 100 cops needed hospitalization ? Beating them with bats ? Careers ended ?
You could also just watch the the videos of all of these things happening if you want to see for yourself.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: By the way, how many protesters were there which 100 cops could not control ? The Capitol was not rushed on all four sides. We do know that the only death on Jan 6 was a protester, a female military veteran. Shot by a Capitol Police officer through a door. The same officer had left his weapon on the bathroom sink top another day.
There were 850 law enforcement personnel there that day, and several thousand rioters and protesters. There were also at least 5 deaths:
Ashli Babbit was part of a group that is on-video assaulting police, and was shot while violently breaching the Speaker's lobby by an officer who was found to be defending himself from her.
Kevin Greeson and Benjamin Phillips, both rioters, died of heart attacks in their excrement-filled excitement.
Rosanne Boyland tripped and was trampled by the crowd.
Officer Brian Sicknick's strokes and death the following day were tied to the assaults he suffered on Jan 6
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: It did when Black Lives Matter destroyed many a city.
I'm not asking about Black Lives Matter.
quote
Originally posted by cliffw: Who was flex cuffed ? Chanting "Where's Nancy" ? Why ? She is not a member of the Senate.
Originally posted by cliffw: You seem to believe the goal of the protest was to stop the transfer of power. NewDustin, if anything, January 6th reminded or overlords that they can not go unchallenged.
Heh, the only insurrection where the insurrectionists did not bring guns.
Insurrection is your word for the entire debacle, not mine; I prefer "riot." Oath Keepers and fringe elements aside, I can outright tell you I think the mob was largely made up of the mentally incompetent, the angry, and the easily manipulated. They were there because their guy lost and they were big mad about it and wanted to have a good old-fashioned, pants-pooping, temper tantrum. A few organizations took advantage of their mind state, and the fact that they knew Trump would whip them up, and drove them to disrupt congress. It was absolutely a message to congress, but more about what happens if these folks' flavor of populism loses.
You could also just watch the the videos of all of these things happening if you want to see for yourself.
Seriously ? Are you serious ? The Washington Post ? ABC News ? The Associated Press ? NBC ? USA Today ?
Not what I would call bipartisan sources. Much like the Congressional bipartisan commission which investigated the events that day. That was a joke, well, not really. It was a sham.
That's a lot for me to look into but I will. Not today though. There's a lot of football on today which is way more important, .
Seriously ? Are you serious ? The Washington Post ? ABC News ? The Associated Press ? NBC ? USA Today ?
Not what I would call bipartisan sources. Much like the Congressional bipartisan commission which investigated the events that day. That was a joke, well, not really. It was a sham.
That's a lot for me to look into but I will. Not today though. There's a lot of football on today which is way more important, .
Each of those articles is citing video evidence, court cases, quotes, and other first-hand information. If you take all of their perceived bias out, those facts still substantiate that these things happened, which is all I'm trying to do. I'm certain I could go back and find more Republican-leaning sources that report on these things, but it seems a lot to ask that I not only substantiate what I'm saying but also cater those sources to other's personal preferences. If there's an issue with the factual content of any of them I missed it but would be happy to go back and resource if that's the case.
Each of those articles is citing video evidence, court cases, quotes, and other first-hand information. If you take all of their perceived bias out, those facts still substantiate that these things happened, which is all I'm trying to do. I'm certain I could go back and find more Republican-leaning sources that report on these things, but it seems a lot to ask that I not only substantiate what I'm saying but also cater those sources to other's personal preferences. If there's an issue with the factual content of any of them I missed it but would be happy to go back and resource if that's the case.
"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”
They dismiss anything inconvenient to their argument (fake news) if it doesn't come from a source -they- approve of.
[This message has been edited by RandomTask (edited 01-01-2025).]
"Long time CTH reader “Regitiger” has spent a great deal of time reviewing the entire process"
Conspiracy theorists:
"The Speaker initiated the NEW sessions under special emergency rules... to EXPEDITE the certification and dismiss all prior regular session procedural rules."
Conspiracy theorists:
"In order to prevent those two motions, requires that speaker of the house, minority leaders, and the president of the congress (vice president of the United States: Pence), to NOT BE PRESENT IN THE CHAMBERS."
Conspiracy theorists:
Edit: This doesn't substantiate anything, if that's what it was supposed to do. This article is entirely the musings of a forum member from a different forum. This is no different than me writing an unnecessarily long article about one of Cliff's posts. There is no citation, no sourcing...no substantiation of any kind.
Best line in the entire article: "I started this effort years ago. To date, no one and I mean no one has replied. It’s as if everyone that can expose it that has a larger platform is either disinterested, or suspiciously withdrawn from the issue." translating: "I've spent a considerable portion of my life working on a conspiracy theory no one is taking seriously, even after looking at everything I've gathered. It must be...AN EVEN BIGGER CONSPIRACY."
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 01-02-2025).]
Claims from Gus Papathanasiou, union chairman. We all know unions have no agenda, .
quote
“I have officers who were not issued helmets prior to the attack who have sustained head injuries,” said Gus Papathanasiou.
Heh, they knew of an impending attack and did not outfit all defenders ? Or have defensive measures in case of shitz hitting the fan ?
quote
Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick died after trying to defend the Capitol from rioters. One Capitol Police officer and one D.C. police officer who were responding on the scene have died by suicide since the attack.
Sicknick died the day after from a heart attack. The suicidal police officers ? Heh, they were weak mentally and should not have chose that profession. Was their wife cheating on them and that's why they committed suicide ? Did they leave a suicide note ?
quote
And since Jan. 6, 38 Capitol Police employees have tested positive for the coronavirus, almost entirely officers and supervisors who responded to the riot, Papathanasiou said.
What the ruck ? That is unbelievable. Almost entirely officers and supervisors ? Heh heh heh. The kung flu is selective ? I thought everybody within six feet of the virus got infected.
quote
At least 81 Capitol Police officers were assaulted during the siege of the Capitol, according to filings by federal prosecutors. The filings did not detail injuries sustained by officers, and a Capitol Police spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment on officer injuries.
I wonder if most of those injuries involved hurt feelings. It is basic logic that all Capitol Police were assaulted because they had to spring into action.
quote
About 65 D.C. police officers also suffered injuries on Jan. 6, including several concussions from head blows from various objects, including metal poles ripped from inauguration-related scaffolding and even a pole with an American flag attached, D.C. police officials have said. Other injuries included swollen ankles and wrists, bruised arms and legs, and irritated lungs from bear and pepper spray.
At least the DC Police Officers claimed something. They had the right to remain silent but chose not to. Inauguration-related scaffolding ? Excuse me ? Wasn't the inauguration on the 20th of January and not the sixth of January ?
quote
Papathanasiou said it was “unconscionable” that Capitol Police had a warning about the “strong potential for violence,” including the possible use of firearms, on Jan. 6 — as acknowledged by acting department chief Yogananda Pittman — and did not better prepare the force. “The fact they did not relay this information to the officers on duty prior to the insurrection is inexcusable,” he said.
Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable.
NewDustin, you said I could see video with all your sources.
NewDustin, you did not send me searching down a rabbit hole. More like an ant colony.
Comedy gold. It reads like a thriller novel. And a comedy adventure.
quote
Someone in the crowd grabbed Fanone’s helmet, pulled him to the ground and dragged him on his stomach down a set of steps. At around the same time, police said, the crowd pulled a second officer down the stairs.
What did they do ? Push aside those behind them so they could drag them down the steps ?
I'm not entirely sure the point you were making with some of that. I agree that unions are biased (police unions double so), but is your contention that the findings of assaults were doctored or made up? The Justice Department backs up the numbers that are being claimed as well. Hundreds of rioters have already been found guilty of assaulting police officers. The rest of your post seems to be issues you take with what the union rep said unrelated to the number of officers injured, which is what I cited them for. The assaults include stabbings, tazings, and beatings, and the resulting injuries included heart attacks, tbi, at least one lost eye, and multiple career-ending injuries. Again...are you disagreeing that these things happened, or that they were as bad as the videos, convictions, investigations, first-hand accounts, planning communications, etc show them to be?
I didn't send you after any rabbits. I posted reasonable sources for the information I was claiming and you dug into everything you might disagree with that one source from one article said...and not even on factual grounds at that.
Edit: If Don Lemon's face offends you, skip his commentary in the first few seconds. His was just the first video that came up when I Googled it. Also, if a video actually showing this happen isn't enough for you, here's the verdict from one of the perpetrators of the attack.
[This message has been edited by NewDustin (edited 01-03-2025).]
It's funny how when DJT speaks, things start happening. All of a sudden, Greenland is investing more in defense. 
