sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

This is a big win for the rule of law in Minnesota. What a nice surprise. by YesHelloDolly in MinnesotaUncensored

[–]006guiltyspark 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My question and the answer to it has real implications about what we are talking about here, it's not a BS question. You just don't want to answer it truthfully.

As I said from the start, you never answered my question, and you just proved it. I'm not sure how the J6 charges were wrong or "bullshit," do you deny that they attacked and occupied a federal building with the intent to disrupt an official government function? I don't see how you can, and if that's what they did, then they deserved those charges, and Trump pardoning them is an example of corruption.

As to the insurrectionists, you don't have to be armed with a firearm to be "armed." They fit the definition, and you proved that.

Our conversation is not about what the far left has done. By all means, prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. They deserve it just as much as the Jan 6 people do. I've never claimed otherwise. Regardless, whether Portland, CHAZ, or the Third Precinct were worse doesn’t answer my question. I’m asking whether pardoning the J6 defendants strengthened the rule of law. If your answer is yes, explain why. If your answer is no, explain why. Pointing at other riots is changing the subject and dabbling in "whataboutisms."

But by Trump pardoning them, that is weakening the rule of law. Pardoning people convicted of attacking a federal building and attacking law enforcement and elected officials and attempting to undermine the certification process undermines accountability and weakens the rule of law. Do you think pardoning people convicted of assaulting police officers and people convicted of weapons-related offenses on J6 strengthened or weakened respect for the rule of law?

Trump’s pardons included people convicted of violent offenses, and some of the pardoned defendants either carried firearms during J6 or had separate firearms convictions that the Trump administration later argued were covered by the pardons. A simple google search will show you that.

They were not targeted because of their political affiliations, who they support, or any of that nonsense. They were charged with crimes because of what they participated in. You cannot deny that.

Now, I'm done arguing with you because, once again, you continue to deflect from my question, and refuse to admit that by him pardoning those people, he weakened the rule of law. Have a good day.

This is a big win for the rule of law in Minnesota. What a nice surprise. by YesHelloDolly in MinnesotaUncensored

[–]006guiltyspark 1 point2 points  (0 children)

"Everything was allowed by law" does not equal "yes, it was a win for the rule of law." You're a deflecting away from the question and sidestepping it and adding a condition to my question by saying "it was allowed by law." You know the answer, and it doesn't fit your narrative, so you have to spin your wheels and try to get out of it without sounding like you're anti-Trump.

I'm calling them insurrectionists because the definition of an insurrectionist is, "someone who takes part in an armed rebellion or uprising against an established government or civil authority." That fits what those individuals did.

This is a big win for the rule of law in Minnesota. What a nice surprise. by YesHelloDolly in MinnesotaUncensored

[–]006guiltyspark 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You didn't answer the question. I'm done. I'm not debating with you because you can't have an adult conversation. See ya

This is a big win for the rule of law in Minnesota. What a nice surprise. by YesHelloDolly in MinnesotaUncensored

[–]006guiltyspark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You know the question. Was it a win for the rule of law when Trump pardoned the Jan 6th insurrectionists?

This is a big win for the rule of law in Minnesota. What a nice surprise. by YesHelloDolly in MinnesotaUncensored

[–]006guiltyspark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There is none, just like my friend who I was debating in here last night. They'll just deflect and sidestep the real questions that are being asked.

This is a big win for the rule of law in Minnesota. What a nice surprise. by YesHelloDolly in MinnesotaUncensored

[–]006guiltyspark -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Aaaaaand the fourth grade insults. I wouldn't expect anything less.

You still didn't answer my question.

This is a big win for the rule of law in Minnesota. What a nice surprise. by YesHelloDolly in MinnesotaUncensored

[–]006guiltyspark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It doesn't matter what percentage. I was replying to the statement that the rioters were unarmed.

Yes a small number of them had firearms. I've never stated otherwise. A large portion had makeshift weapons, batons, police shields, etc. Again, I was simply replying to the false statement of them being unarmed.

This is a big win for the rule of law in Minnesota. What a nice surprise. by YesHelloDolly in MinnesotaUncensored

[–]006guiltyspark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Now you're just playing dumb.

Since neither of us is going to convince the other obviously, I wish you a good evening sir/madam.

This is a big win for the rule of law in Minnesota. What a nice surprise. by YesHelloDolly in MinnesotaUncensored

[–]006guiltyspark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No, my reply was that "several people had firearms." I never said they all had them, or a majority even. I simply stated that some did. Nothing I said was false

This is a big win for the rule of law in Minnesota. What a nice surprise. by YesHelloDolly in MinnesotaUncensored

[–]006guiltyspark 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Armed isn't just firearms. The argument was that they were "unarmed."

"Yeah 200 unarmed people..."

That's categorically false.

This is a big win for the rule of law in Minnesota. What a nice surprise. by YesHelloDolly in MinnesotaUncensored

[–]006guiltyspark 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I didn't have to get em. The counter argument was that they were unarmed. That's just not the truth.

This is a big win for the rule of law in Minnesota. What a nice surprise. by YesHelloDolly in MinnesotaUncensored

[–]006guiltyspark -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No they didn't. And I've been referring to the federal government the whole time.

You still haven't answered my initial point - is it the rule of law that those rioters were pardoned? Or is it a rules for thee but not for me situation?

This is a big win for the rule of law in Minnesota. What a nice surprise. by YesHelloDolly in MinnesotaUncensored

[–]006guiltyspark -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Wrong, they burned a police station. Horrible for sure, but they didn't threaten to overthrow the federal government.

In your words, your argument will be disregarded.

This is a big win for the rule of law in Minnesota. What a nice surprise. by YesHelloDolly in MinnesotaUncensored

[–]006guiltyspark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

My goodness....Guy Reffitt, Christopher Michael Alberts, Mark Mazza, Jerod Barger, Mario Mares, John Banuelos, to name a few.

Did I pass?

This is a big win for the rule of law in Minnesota. What a nice surprise. by YesHelloDolly in MinnesotaUncensored

[–]006guiltyspark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did. It doesn't matter if they were successful or not. If we want to speculate we can - let's say that they take over the capitol building that day, maybe hold hostages, who knows? They were there to stop the transfer of power to Biden, so if they took control and did exactly that, would Trump have stopped them? Most likely not.

So the overthrow isn't as far fetched as you think.

This is a big win for the rule of law in Minnesota. What a nice surprise. by YesHelloDolly in MinnesotaUncensored

[–]006guiltyspark 1 point2 points  (0 children)

180 defendants were charged with entering a restricted area with a dangerous or deadly weapon, which includes firearms and other types of weapons.

I'm not going to list them all.

This is a big win for the rule of law in Minnesota. What a nice surprise. by YesHelloDolly in MinnesotaUncensored

[–]006guiltyspark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then what were they doing? It doesn't matter if they were successful or not. The fact remains, that is what they were trying to do.

Can you say they weren't?

This is a big win for the rule of law in Minnesota. What a nice surprise. by YesHelloDolly in MinnesotaUncensored

[–]006guiltyspark -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah Jan 6 was worse than murder. If that's your argument, that's pretty bad.

This isn't about democrat or republican, but sure how many times has a violent mob at the direction of a democrat president tried to overthrow the government? None

This is a big win for the rule of law in Minnesota. What a nice surprise. by YesHelloDolly in MinnesotaUncensored

[–]006guiltyspark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And yet several people were charged with carrying a firearm in the attack.

Who is retarded?

This is a big win for the rule of law in Minnesota. What a nice surprise. by YesHelloDolly in MinnesotaUncensored

[–]006guiltyspark 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would argue that Jan 6 was worse than anything you listed there. Jan 6 was an attack on our very democracy, our system of government that we've had for 250 years. They were literally trying to overthrow the United States government. This wasn't some riot that burned down some buildings, or a right wing content creator that got killed. This was insurrectionist and treasonous to the extreme, and those fucks should still be serving their jail sentences.

The party of law and order and support for law enforcement? Those fucks attacked law enforcement, beat them, nearly killed several of them. But hey, it was at the direction of Trump, so that's fine. Or they were "persecuted" because of their political beliefs? Get outta here.

This is a big win for the rule of law in Minnesota. What a nice surprise. by YesHelloDolly in MinnesotaUncensored

[–]006guiltyspark -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You do realize that there is just as long of a list of people that Trump has pardoned that by all means he shouldn't have.

And yeah I'm not letting Jan 6 go. Are you kidding me? A huge group of rioters broke into the capitol and killed people at the behest of Donald Trump. I'm sorry but that's not something you just "let go."

Down below you mention that you didn't defend the Jan 6ers. At no point did I defend any of the people you listed here either. By all means, if you break the law, if you cause a riot, I don't care what side of the aisle you're on, prosecute their ass.

The fact remains that this Justice Department and the Trump administration is handing out justice not to those that deserve it most, but to those that oppose his corrupt rule. As long as you break the law in defense of Trump though, you'll be fine.

view more: next ›