• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What "if" you are wrong

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
if they broke the door, it was wrong and violent.
You still don't know? Yet here you are arguing for the insurrectionists.
I don't think there is any intelligent reason to call it a coup attempt of insurrection
The insurrection was just one phase of a failed self-coup.
If it was a serious attack, they could have kept the door shut and not open it.
The insurrectionists violently shattered the glass. You still haven't looked at the video link I provided for you, have you?

By creating your own reality as you have, you've set yourself up for some major disappointment. Trump's future is bleak. He has had his last good day. Since November 2021, he has seen nothing but defeat, and that will continue until he dies. And you will see that as a terrible injustice perpetrated by your government on an innocent man. Sorry about that, but you've got a lot more grief and disappointment coming.
 

jimb

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Ok, if they broke the door, it was wrong and violent. And I also agree that there were other violence outside the building, after the protesters were shot with rubber bullets. I don't think there is any intelligent reason to call it a coup attempt of insurrection, especially because no such plan from anyone, and no credible evidence for such.

From a knife attack? Ultra credible. :D

Maybe she listened Ray Epps who is the only one inciting the "coup".

:D

You seriously claim that polices with guns, could not defend themselves from unarmed people, who made nothing indicating violence, inside the house?

If it was a serious attack, they could have kept the door shut and not open it. But, clearly they thought there was nothing serious, because they let them in and were peacefully with them. If there would have been some real coup attempt, they would have shot everyone in the house.
How can you say this??? Millions of us watched the insurrection LIVE on television. It was a violent attempt to prevent the certification of the presidential election by a mob. How can you be so deluded? (Unless you are intentionally lying!)
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Ok, if they broke the door, it was wrong and violent.
IF? It's on video, and these people were identified and charged. That other fools walked is AFTER the doors being broken does not suggest they were not aware of them taking advantage of a crime already committed in front of them. As I said the smart people (this is not to say that any of the Jan 6 attendies are smart at all since they were manipulated and believed Trump's lies about election fraud) did not attack the police, and did not enter the Capitol when it was closed to the public for official business.
And I also agree that there were other violence outside the building,
It's a fact, it's not something to believe or agree with. There is vidoe of the violence. All I can discern is that you are completely brainwashed about the day's event.
after the protesters were shot with rubber bullets.
Show us reporting that this was done. I've only seen reporting of police using tear gas and flashbangs. No right wing disinformation media.
I don't think there is any intelligent reason to call it a coup attempt of insurrection, especially because no such plan from anyone, and no credible evidence for such.
Why, because it failed?

There was already Trump conspirators trying to challenge election results in swing states, and many of these folks have been indicted. That is a coup. That they were trying to use the system to do the coup does not get these people off the hook. John Eastman, Gulliani, Clarke, powell, Chesboro, and other lawyers have been indicted, and most disbarred or in the process of disbarrment for their part in these crimes against the USA.
From a knife attack? Ultra credible. :D
She and others werte breaking in. The security did not know what weapons they had. The rioters were being warned over and over again, and she didn't listen. That's on her.
Maybe she listened Ray Epps who is the only one inciting the "coup".
If she listened to you she still would have been shot, because you aren't blaming her for ignoring the warnings of security who had their guns drawn.
You seriously claim that polices with guns, could not defend themselves from unarmed people, who made nothing indicating violence, inside the house?
The police were outnumbered. Some of the officers said they wanted to defend themselves against the rioters but worried they might be swarmed and killed. If this doesn't make sense to you then I don't know who's side you are on. You sound like you are against democracy, against the police, and pro Trump and criminal conspiracy. Given me an explanation for your comments and attitudes.
If it was a serious attack, they could have kept the door shut and not open it.
The doors were closed and locked. Why not watch video of the rioters breaking the doors and windows. And remember, the police were outnumbered and overwhelmed by a mob who had weapons.
But, clearly they thought there was nothing serious,
Watch the videos. And watch testimonies by the police from that day. Then you will be informed. You clearly aren't.
because they let them in and were peacefully with them.
No, the testimony by the police was that the mob overwhelmed the police and all they could do is try to herd them away from members of congress as they evaculated. Remember that the rioters got into offices and the Senate chamber. Security held off the rioters at the House door.
If there would have been some real coup attempt, they would have shot everyone in the house.
The rioters didn't get into the House chamber, and one of the rioters was shot and killed for trying. Members of congress were still in the House chamber and were in fear for their lives.

It's astounding how poorly informed you are, yet still post opinions on an open forum where you can be fact checked.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Show us reporting that this was done. I've only seen reporting of police using tear gas and flashbangs. No right wing disinformation media.
Why only left wing disinformation is allowed?

A video shows that they were shot by rubber bullets.
There was already Trump conspirators trying to challenge election results in swing states...
I think people have right to demand that all possible wrong actions in elections are checked, before the result is accepted. By what I know, democrats do that also, if they lose.
The doors were closed and locked. Why not watch video of the rioters breaking the doors and windows.
There is a video that shows the doors were opened from inside. That makes the braking of the windows look more like a distraction done by American Gestapo (FBI) than anything else.
And remember, the police were outnumbered and overwhelmed by a mob who had weapons.
Maybe they should have accepted Trumps offer for national guards.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
How can you say this??? Millions of us watched the insurrection LIVE on television. It was a violent attempt to prevent the certification of the presidential election by a mob. How can you be so deluded? (Unless you are intentionally lying!)
I think you should watch all the videos, not only the left wing propaganda.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Are you talking about Ashi Babbitt's motives specifically, or do you not see credible evidence at all for a coup?
I don't think there is any credible evidence for a coup by Trump and his supporters. However, I think democrats did a coup then, by arranging the fake insurrection to shut down all questions about the elections.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
Why only left wing disinformation is allowed?
I notice your link wasn't reputable media as a source.
A video shows that they were shot by rubber bullets.
It doesn't show any rubber bullets. And the text claims what I stated, that flash bangs were used. But it wrongly asserts they were used on people just wandering around. Have you not seen any video of the attacks on police? Do you not think these attacks warranted measures to control the riot? Are you not aware that video shows the rioters overwhelm the police, and then break into the Capitol by breaking doors and windows?
I think people have right to demand that all possible wrong actions in elections are checked, before the result is accepted.
And that is what recounts allow. What isn't allowed is for there to be criminal conspiracies to overturn secure election counts as Trump and his co-conspirators did. They got their recounts and they lost. They filed lawsuits and lost. Their last hope was to commit fraud in seven swing states that Biden won, but pence wouldn't go along with it. And many of those involved in this set of crimes hav e been indicted.
By what I know, democrats do that also, if they lose.
The famous 2000 Florida recount. No criminal conspiracy against the USA. No mobs attacked the Capitol after Gore lied about winning.

Oddly unofficial recounts after the Supreme Court ruled to stop the recount found Gore to have won Florida. No riots happened. No democrats commited criminal acts. Democrats just accepted the outcome.
There is a video that shows the doors were opened from inside. That makes the braking of the windows look more like a distraction done by American Gestapo (FBI) than anything else.
Where is this video? Can you point`out who are FBI in these videos?


Maybe they should have accepted Trumps offer for national guards.
Testimony reveals that Trump made no such offer. Trump did reveal in a phone call that 10,000 troops would be needed to secure the Capitol.


"Trump did say during a 30-second call on Jan. 5 with then Acting Secretary of Defense Christopher Miller that “they” were going to need 10,000 troops on Jan. 6, according to a statement Miller provided to a House committee in May 2021."

The thing is why didn't Trump trust his own followers to be peaceful? Did Trump know there was going to be violence, and did nothing to protect the Capitol?

If anything whoever was in charge of security (it wasn't pelosi) they trusted the MAGA protesters on Jan 6 to be respectful and peaceful. I guess if democrats are guilty of anything it was trusting Trump and his supporters to be decent citizens. Boy they got that wrong, and they learned to not trust MAGA in any way.
 

jimb

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Why only left wing disinformation is allowed?

A video shows that they were shot by rubber bullets.

I think people have right to demand that all possible wrong actions in elections are checked, before the result is accepted. By what I know, democrats do that also, if they lose.

There is a video that shows the doors were opened from inside. That makes the braking of the windows look more like a distraction done by American Gestapo (FBI) than anything else.

Maybe they should have accepted Trumps offer for national guards.
Trump NEVER offered National Guards; he didn't offer anything while his people tried to prevent an important process: the actual election of the President. Trump sat in the White House, watching it all on television, while EVERYONE, including his own family, pleaded with him to stop the insurrection. HE DID NOTHING!
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Trump NEVER offered National Guards;

...Trump sat in the White House, watching it all on television, while EVERYONE, including his own family, pleaded with him to stop the insurrection. HE DID NOTHING!
He did for example this:
1712657190128.png
 

jimb

Well-Known Member
Premium Member


He did for example this:
View attachment 90294
One person's claim doesn't mean that what he said is truthful. There are many others who state the opposite.

Look when this was posted! 7:38 PM, long after the insurrection attempt was over. I doubt that Trump actually wrote this, as many of his behaviors are just the opposite.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Actually, it's his lack of behavior. He did NOTHING to stop the insurrection he encouraged his latter-day Nazis to do.
Difficult to do anything to stop insurrection, when such thing exists only in the imagination of anti Trump people. There is no reasonable evidence for insurrection. At the worst, there was a semi violent riot, but nothing that indicates insurrection, a revolt against the U.S. constitution and rule of law, by Trump supporters.

The proof for this is that the one who evidently incited the event, Ray Epps, is still free and had no serious consequences. He told people to go into the Capitol. By what I know, Trump didn't say people should go there and he didn't arrange a coup. Trump and his supporters where there to tell their opinion, which should be allowed.
 

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
Difficult to do anything to stop insurrection, when such thing exists only in the imagination of anti Trump people. There is no reasonable evidence for insurrection. At the worst, there was a semi violent riot, but nothing that indicates insurrection, a revolt against the U.S. constitution and rule of law, by Trump supporters.

There was a coup plot: Trump's "fake election" scheme.

The rioters benefitted the fake elector scheme by delaying the vote. Whether they would have further helped Trump's plan by assassinating Mike Pence if they found him is a bit hypothetical, since they didn't find him.

So... are you arguing:

- the rioters are innocent of insurrection because they didn't know about Trump's plans, or
- Trump's plans didn't constitute a coup attempt?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
There is no reasonable evidence for insurrection.
Several people have already been tried and convicted of participating in a violent uprising with the intent of breaching the Capitol to prevent the certification of the electoral college results and to harm at least Pelosi and Pence.
At the worst, there was a semi violent riot ...
What's semi-violent? How many people need to be assaulted and how many need to be hurt or killed for something to be called violent by you? For me, as soon as there is physical content with the intent to harm, that's unqualified violence.
... but nothing that indicates insurrection, a revolt against the U.S. constitution and rule of law, by Trump supporters.
That's exactly what it was. The constitution is what authorizes and requires Congress to officially certify the presidential election results.
Difficult to do anything to stop insurrection, when such thing exists only in the imagination of anti Trump people.
Whatever you call it, Trump did nothing to stop it for several hours. He'll likely be convicted for that just as the parents of that mass murderer were for their criminal negligence. Trump's crimes were greater than that. Trump's role was like Manson's, which was more active than those negligent parents. Like Trump, Manson didn't actually get dirty himself. He had others do it for him. As you probably know, Manson was convicted.
the one who evidently incited the event, Ray Epps, is still free and had no serious consequences.
Trump will be held responsible for the insurrection as well as the other elements of the failed self-coup such as his famous call to Raffensberger in Georgia and those fake electors. Many others will as well. It looks like Eastman, Giuliani, and Meadows will become convicted felons soon. Powell and Chesebro have already pled guilty. Stone seems to be in the prosecutor's crosshairs. The heads of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers are doing time for seditious conspiracy, and one of them wasn't in DC on J6:

4 Proud Boys Leaders Convicted of Seditious Conspiracy in US Capitol Attack
Four Oath Keepers Found Guilty of Seditious Conspiracy Related to U.S. Capitol Breach
By what I know, Trump didn't say people should go there
Sure he did:
  • "Tuesday’s hearing focused in part on a tweet Trump sent on December 19, 2020, in which he called for a “big protest” at the coming joint session of Congress on January 6 and told his supporters, “Be there, will be wild!
Moreover, his people understood that as a call to violence:
  • "We were basically just following what [Trump] said" -- Stephen Ayres, who pleaded guilty breaching the Capitol on January 6
  • "One user asked, 'Is the 6th D-Day? Is that why Trump wants everyone there?'" Raskin said. "Another asserted, 'Trump just told us to all come armed.' A third took it even further: 'It will be wild means we need volunteers for the firing squad.'"
he didn't arrange a coup
He probably didn't do the arranging, but he will be tried for authorizing and allowing the insurrection as well as for election interference in Georgia. Arizona seems poised to follow Georgia's footsteps and indict Trump for election interference in that state. I don't know if he'll have to face any chargers regarding the fake electors.
 

jimb

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Difficult to do anything to stop insurrection, when such thing exists only in the imagination of anti Trump people. There is no reasonable evidence for insurrection. At the worst, there was a semi violent riot, but nothing that indicates insurrection, a revolt against the U.S. constitution and rule of law, by Trump supporters.

The proof for this is that the one who evidently incited the event, Ray Epps, is still free and had no serious consequences. He told people to go into the Capitol. By what I know, Trump didn't say people should go there and he didn't arrange a coup. Trump and his supporters where there to tell their opinion, which should be allowed.
THIS IS TOTALLY UNTRUE PROPAGANDA. We all saw it LIVE on television.

Trump wanted his people to disrupt and prevent the constitutionally lawful election of the next President by the states' electors.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Several people have already been tried and convicted of participating in a violent uprising with the intent of breaching the Capitol to prevent the certification of the electoral college results and to harm at least Pelosi and Pence.
Kangaroo courts are efficient. :D
What's semi-violent? How many people need to be assaulted and how many need to be hurt or killed for something to be called violent by you? For me, as soon as there is physical content with the intent to harm, that's unqualified violence.
They didn't even burn a car, like it is common in the "mostly peaceful" protests of democrats.
That's exactly what it was. The constitution is what authorizes and requires Congress to officially certify the presidential election results.
I think there was just reason to demand that all things are checked before accepting the result. It should not be unlawful to demand fair elections. It is not an insurrection to want that the integrity of the elections is taken care of.
Sure he did:
  • "Tuesday’s hearing focused in part on a tweet Trump sent on December 19, 2020, in which he called for a “big protest” at the coming joint session of Congress on January 6 and told his supporters, “Be there, will be wild!
Are protests illegal in U.S?
Moreover, his people understood that as a call to violence:
  • "We were basically just following what [Trump] said" -- Stephen Ayres, who pleaded guilty breaching the Capitol on January 6
What were the words of Trump that they were following? Can it be checked that Trump said so?
  • ...'Trump just told us to all come armed.'...
Difficult to believe that. Maybe he was listening to Ray Epps.

How do you explain Ray Epps had no serious consequences, even though he is the only one evidently inciting the insurrection?

It is very sad that the last land of the free has been destroyed and turned into some kind of lower than 3rd world communist dystopia.
 

1213

Well-Known Member
Trump wanted his people to disrupt and prevent the constitutionally lawful election of the next President by the states' electors.
By what I see, Trump wanted that before accepting the result, all problems about elections are checked.
 
Top