• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Trump Will Likely Win

Jimmy Higgins said:


It'd been great if the people that committed these crimes were as stupid as the Capital Building invaders were, and posted self-incriminating evidence on the web to make it possible to convict them all of their crimes. But not all criminals are that stupid.
Click to expand...
I guess Covid wasn’t the only good reason they should have been wearing masks.
 
The difference between these criminals is that one group knowingly breaks the law (regardless of their reasons), while the other was a herd of clueless sheep, convinced their shepherd had their best interests at heart. :whistle:
 
Shadowy Man said:
They seem to have little problem against unarmed individuals when they feel scared of a mentally disturbed person or someone with a knife or someone reaching for their registration.
Click to expand...
Police are human. They make mistakes. That said, instances of "someone reaching for their registration" or similar getting shot are very rare. Armed and/or mentally disturbed people can be dangerous, however, so I do not see why you are lumping these two very different scenarios together.
 
laughing dog said:
Yet Another whataboutism to shift the goalposts to minimize the attempted insurrection.
Click to expand...
Not minimizing 1/6. Those guilty should be prosecucted. But the punishment should fit the crime. Somebody merely trespassing at the Capitol should not get a longer sentence that the #BLM arsonists who burned down a Wendy's in Atlanta and got probation. Most of the 2020 insurrectionists were not prosecuted at all, and even those who did mostly got off with light sentences compared to what they did.

The mainstream media, as well as most posters on here, are minimizing the 2020 insurrection that caused billions of property damage in many cities, and cost several lives.
 
Last edited:
bilby said:
Everyone always has the right to violence.
Click to expand...
Not in a civilized society.
The idea is to make it undesirable to exercise that right.
Click to expand...
Unless it is self-defense, violence is generally a crime, which means it's not a right. That makes it undesirable (if the authorities prosecute - something that has been sorely lacking during the 2020 insurrection).
That's not actually relevant to my post, which describes the general case.
Click to expand...
General case of excusing political violence?
In this context, the definition should be obvious - "not unpopular enough to incite a successful violent uprising".
Click to expand...
A minority can engage in a "successful violent uprising". Castro and his minions did not take over Cuba because they were popular, but because they were ruthlessly violent.
America isn't much of a democracy.
Nor is Australia.
Click to expand...
What country would be "much of a democracy" as far as you are concerned?
Do you only consider direct democracy "much of a democracy"?
No. They always have that right, and need not ask permission from anyone.
Click to expand...
A very disturbing point of view. So I guess as far as you are concerned, January 6ers did nothing wrong either? Or do you apply this only to left-wing insurrectionists?
 
Last edited:
Jimmy Higgins said:
Incredibly violent? There was likely some left-wing political violence, but there was also racially based violence, and in the end there was likely more thuggish, lets burn and steal stuff shit that wasn't done for anything but indulgence.
Click to expand...
There was a lot of left-wing violence. Example the two #BLM lawyers who torched a NYPD vehicle and got a sweetheart deal.
And there were militant right-wingers who burned stuff too, like the courthouse in Nashville.
Click to expand...
People on the left love to pretend that every white rioter was a right-winger when in reality there are many white #BLM and Antifa supporters.
What evidence do you have that this Wesley Somers was a "right winger"? Are you just assuming this because of the color of his skin?
Note that in an article describing his arrest (btw, is Deadpool real popular with right wingers specifically?) also shows photo of unmasked black man and woman smashing windows of that courthouse. So it's much more liekly that Somers was a #BLM supporter than a right winger.
They are all crimes, but this "incredibly violent" thing... no, it wasn't incredibly violent.
Click to expand...
Yes, it was. There were even murders.
There was violence, and some isolated areas suffered greatly. But it wasn't common and it had many motives.
Click to expand...
It was widespread, with many cities affected. In some, such as Minneapolis, Seattle, and Atlanta, the insurrectionists occupied territory for weeks.
It'd been great if the people that committed these crimes were as stupid as the Capital Building invaders were, and posted self-incriminating evidence on the web to make it possible to convict them all of their crimes. But not all criminals are that stupid.
Click to expand...
Many were identified, but not prosecuted. For example, Warlord Raz, who organized the armed takeover of Capitol Hill in Seattle, was never charged.
Ei42cUkXcAcAgQQ


The Wendy's arsonists were identified, but got probation.
The arsonist lawyers in NYC got a year each.
The woman, Urooj Rahman, tried to conceal her identity (with a Palestinian shawl, let it be noted), I guess, but it did not work.
EZcvq7KUYAACuuv.jpeg

She also has a terrible taste in beer.

Others did not even try.
atlanta-ga-a-man-stands-on-top-of-a-burning-police-car-during-a-protest-on-may-29-2020-in.jpg

I do not think this guy was ever prosecuted by Fulton County.

You say the 2020 insurrection was not very violent, but it was far more violent than 1/6. And yet the guilty faced far less punishment.
 
Last edited:
Gospel said:
The difference between these criminals is that one group knowingly breaks the law (regardless of their reasons), :whistle:
Click to expand...
And know full well that the local left-wing prosecutors will have their backs. What was less predictable was that the new attorney general Merrick Garland had their backs as well.
 
Derec said:
Shadowy Man said:
They seem to have little problem against unarmed individuals when they feel scared of a mentally disturbed person or someone with a knife or someone reaching for their registration.
Click to expand...
Police are human. They make mistakes. That said, instances of "someone reaching for their registration" or similar getting shot are very rare. Armed and/or mentally disturbed people can be dangerous, however, so I do not see why you are lumping these two very different scenarios together.
Click to expand...
I'm just saying that I was surprised that police sometimes feel okay using lethal power in instances that don't merit it (and many are not what I would consider 'mistakes' per se), but did not use it in instances where it was clearly merited.
 
laughing dog said:
There you go again, minimizing the insurrection with yet another “whataboutism “ about property crime.
Click to expand...
It's not "whataboutism", it's putting things in perspective through comparison.

And while the 2020 Insurrection did cause a lot of property damage, they did far more than that. There were murders (including of an eight year old girl in Atlanta) and accidental deaths associated with the insurrections. City blocks were occupied for an extended time using barricades manned by armed combatants.
But to you, none of that matters. To you, these were just "peaceful racial justice protests". You are the one minimizing, not I.
 
Ford said:
but whaddabout the blacks?!"
Click to expand...
According to the Left, they can do no wrong, apparently. Because you and your Ilk always keep excusing black racial violence.

Note also that there are many white people involved with left-wing violence in 2020. There are a lot of white #BLM and Antifa supporters, especially in mostly white cities.
 
Derec said:
laughing dog said:
Yet Another whataboutism to shift the goalposts to minimize the attempted insurrection.
Click to expand...
Not minimizing 1/6. Those guilty should be prosecucted. But the punishment should fit the crime. Somebody merely trespassing at the Capitol should not get a longer sentence that the #BLM arsonists who burned down a Wendy's in Atlanta and got probation.
Click to expand...
Which particular person who only got arrested for trespassing (i.e., not assaulting police officers or other greater crimes) got too long a sentence would you say?

According to this article (emphasis mine):

277 defendants were sentenced to periods of incarceration, with longer prison terms for those who engaged in violence or threats. So far, the median prison sentence for the Jan. 6 rioters is 60 days, according to TIME’s calculation of the public records. An additional 113 rioters have been sentenced to periods of home detention, while most sentences have included fines, community service and probation for low-level offenses like illegally parading or demonstrating in the Capitol, which is a misdemeanor.
Click to expand...

So, it would be useful to bear in mind specific examples. Because the longest sentences went to those who were also convicted of such crimes as seditious conspiracy and assaulting police officers.
 
Derec said:
laughing dog said:
There you go again, minimizing the insurrection with yet another “whataboutism “ about property crime.
Click to expand...
It's not "whataboutism", it's putting things in perspective through comparison.
Click to expand...
Of course it is a whataboutism. Your intent is irrelevant.
Derec said:
And while the 2020 Insurrection did cause a lot of property damage, they did far more than that. There were murders (including of an eight year old girl in Atlanta) and accidental deaths associated with the insurrections. City blocks were occupied for an extended time using barricades manned by armed combatants.
But to you, none of that matters. To you, these were just "peaceful racial justice protests". You are the one minimizing, not I.
Click to expand...
I literally have no idea what insurrections are you going on about in yet another “ whataboutism”. But kudos in ending with a straw man even though you forgot “ your ilk” in it.
 
Last edited:
Shadowy Man said:
Which particular person who only got arrested for trespassing (i.e., not assaulting police officers or other greater crimes) got too long a sentence would you say?
Click to expand...
Man who rested feet on Pelosi office desk on Jan. 6 sentenced to over 4 years in prison

Contrast that with 2020 insurrectionists:
2 plead guilty to burning Wendy’s after Rayshard Brooks’ death, get probation
And even the lawyers who torched the NYPD police vehicle got only just over a year.
Molotov cocktail-tossing Urooj Rahman gets 15 months for torching NYPD car
Judge sentences second New York lawyer in Molotov cocktail case
They were facing up to life based on federal law, but once Merrick Garland became AG, he treated them with kid gloves.
How two promising lawyers found themselves facing life in prison for alleged Molotov cocktail attack during protests in NY

According to this article (emphasis mine):

277 defendants were sentenced to periods of incarceration, with longer prison terms for those who engaged in violence or threats. So far, the median prison sentence for the Jan. 6 rioters is 60 days, according to TIME’s calculation of the public records. An additional 113 rioters have been sentenced to periods of home detention, while most sentences have included fines, community service and probation for low-level offenses like illegally parading or demonstrating in the Capitol, which is a misdemeanor.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The problem is that the 2020 #BLMers did not get prosecuted at all for "illegal parading or demonstrating".
And even for more serious crimes they mostly got slaps on the wrist.
That is a clear case of double standards. Leftist political violence leads to either no prosecutions or kid glove treatment, rightist political violence leads to the book being thrown at the offenders. Justice should not be based on which side of the political horseshoe the offenders are. That's banana republic bullshit!
 
Last edited:
More on Michigan Muslims possibly delivering the state to Trump (despite his Muslim ban).
Turns out that it is not just the Gaza war that makes Trump attractive to Muslims - it is also his social conservatism.

A Muslim Mayor Endorses Trump, and a City of Immigrants Finds Itself Undone

NY Times said:
Amer Ghalib has made a lot of national news as the leader of a small, Midwestern city.
His election in 2021 as mayor of Hamtramck, Mich., was itself a headline. Mr. Ghalib, who is from Yemen, became the first Arab American and first Muslim to govern the city. And he was working with what was believed to be the first all-Muslim City Council in the country.
Two years later, Mr. Ghalib created another stir when he and other socially conservative Muslims banned the L.G.B.T.Q. Pride flag from publicly owned flagpoles, alarming liberals who said the move was discriminatory and harmful to the city’s welcoming reputation.
Their fears only heightened last month, after Mr. Ghalib endorsed Donald J. Trump, who as president had ushered in what is known as the Muslim ban, blocking immigrants from seven majority-Muslim nations, including Mr. Ghalib’s home country. Adding to the tensions was a visit by Mr. Trump, who hoped the mayor’s support could peel off a meaningful number of Muslim voters in Michigan, a swing state.
Explaining his support, Mr. Ghalib pointed to a distaste for liberal social views, anger at President Biden’s support of Israel and a belief that Mr. Trump will end the conflict in the Middle East.
Click to expand...
And yet the so-called "liberals" are enamored of migration from the third world, even though those from there usually hold very illiberal positions.
In Hamtramck (pronounced “ham-tram-ick”), many longtime liberal residents, including members of the L.G.B.T.Q. community, say they were dejected.
Over the years, they had actively encouraged the city of 30,000 residents, just north of downtown Detroit, to welcome immigrants. When Muslims won a majority of seats in the six-member City Council in 2015, they cheered the change as a rebuke to the anti-immigrant rhetoric used by Mr. Trump.
They had not expected this outcome.
Click to expand...
Yes, who could ever have expected this outcome. They cheered the face-eating leopards taking over the city and now they are all surprised-Pikachu-face at the prospect of their their faces get eaten.
 
Last edited:
Polls are so tight, there is every reason to have doubts. What is one harms Harris's chance to win? Republican voter obfuscation.

article said:
A majority of likely voters in Arizona said they planned to support an amendment to the state’s Constitution codifying “the fundamental right to an abortion,” according to the latest poll from The New York Times and Siena College.

The poll found that 58 percent of likely voters were in favor of the amendment, putting support above the 50 percent threshold needed to pass. The poll also found former President Donald J. Trump leading Vice President Kamala Harris in the state, 50 percent to 45 percent.
Click to expand...
58 to 42. that is +16. Is it really possible for Harris to lose 50 to 45 at -5 with the abortion referendum at +16? The catch? 30% of Republicans support the referendum. So I guess the Republican voters are hopeless, or suffer from a desire of self-interest so strong, they can obfuscate this in their mind. Literally voting for the Party who has fought against the right to bodily autonomy for a woman for decades... and the referendum.

Replace Sotomayor and Thomas, and SCOTUS can ban abortion which would lead to a case on Federal supremacy and SCOTUS will rule as it has been, SCOTUS is all that matters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom