January 6, 2021: Insurrection or “normal tourist” visitation?

[jhu72]

That would put DOJ in a pickle. Indict, trouble. Let him run again, bigger trouble.

What to do?

Do their job and enforce the laws? Much bigger threat to not enforce the law, if for no other reason than the precedent that sets.

... if they have a case, it must be prosecuted. To do anything else sends the message that there is no law, no justice. Game over.

[MDlaxfan76]

Using the logic of one or two posters, it's okay to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger if the gun jams. You were never really in danger.

If you stab someone in the heart and miss the aorta that person was also never in danger. Your definition of "logic" is very interesting and subject to your own personal interpretation.

Actually, that's quite incorrect.
If you "stab someone in the heart", with or without hitting the aorta, the person is likely to die. Very much "in danger".

Not sure what you were going for, cradle, but you missed the mark...

[MDlaxfan76]

Anderson,
If your post was intended for me - you can sleep well. Geneva Convention and "Rules of Engagement". ????? Bill Clinton had Osama in sights - armed - ready for the kill. He did not engage - Osama was a smart guy - he always had a woman or a kid at his side - you know that pesky thing - rules of engagement. As a forgiving country - we all get to hear lawyers tell us how we can wind up in jail. How many lives and how many dollars? We do not just off people cause we can, burn their land, randomly fire. As a COUNTRY we have grown. If you want to wear the "big boy pants" wear them. So no, your analogy is foreign to me if that was directed at me.

Dis - yes I was there - hot man, if that was not he$$ - it depicted what I know of it. I only know of fatty as someone who likes weed, guns and I think is a libertarian - keep pushing a narrative - eventually it may come true.

What the heck does that have to do with Anderson's analogy?

Are you trying to say that Trump was like Clinton not taking out bin Laden because they didn't think they could do it without collateral damage? You think Trump was concerned about "collateral damage"???

Anderson is saying that Trump pulled the trigger and the gun jammed, failing not because he decided not to pull the trigger but because of lack of adequate preparation to fire.

A few Republicans, thank goodness, stood in the way of Trump, most stood aside, and some actively participated. What Judge Luttig has warned us about, as "clear and present danger" is that the MAGA GOP is running off the sorts of Republicans who stood in the way in 2020 and replacing them in various key states and key positions with those pledged to either stand aside or actively help next time.

That's not ok with me, is it really ok with you?

[cradleandshoot]

Using the logic of one or two posters, it's okay to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger if the gun jams. You were never really in danger.

If you stab someone in the heart and miss the aorta that person was also never in danger. Your definition of "logic" is very interesting and subject to your own personal interpretation.

Actually, that's quite incorrect.
If you "stab someone in the heart", with or without hitting the aorta, the person is likely to die. Very much "in danger".

Not sure what you were going for, cradle, but you missed the mark...

I didn't miss the mark. If you miss the heart the stab wound is little more than a flesh wound. If you try and shoot someone and the gun jams the effect is the same. What the topic is about is intent as in did the initial attempt at bodily harm purposely create the possibility of injury or death.

[LandM]

MD,
Mea culpa if Anderson is saying Trump tried pulling a trigger - really? You and Anderson are saying that Trump tried pulling a trigger - to what and to where????? Three drunks and an idiot were out-gunned by a couple of state senators; voting clerks and a few state representatives. The voters of GA are doing the ultimate FU to your boy! What happens to the clown car show when DJT is dead? Who are you going to kick the can down the road DeSantis

Anderson "referenced" two posters - I made the ASSumption I was one of them - my bad, apologizes. Again, tell me how OUR democracy was in peril. You cannot nor will you - keep kicking that can - you might get a goal eventually.

[RedFromMI]

Using the logic of one or two posters, it's okay to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger if the gun jams. You were never really in danger.

If you stab someone in the heart and miss the aorta that person was also never in danger. Your definition of "logic" is very interesting and subject to your own personal interpretation.

Actually, that's quite incorrect.
If you "stab someone in the heart", with or without hitting the aorta, the person is likely to die. Very much "in danger".

Not sure what you were going for, cradle, but you missed the mark...

I didn't miss the mark. If you miss the heart the stab wound is little more than a flesh wound. If you try and shoot someone and the gun jams the effect is the same. What the topic is about is intent as in did the initial attempt at bodily harm purposely create the possibility of injury or death.

Bull. Only if the stab would is less than a quarter inch deep or so. You don't have to hit the heart to kill someone.

Some other possibilities - hit the spinal column (especially in the neck). Carotid artery in neck. Femoral artery in leg/groin. These can be rapidly fatal. Since I am not a medical doctor, I am sure that one of them can enlighten you.

And even a stab wound into the abdomen, missing major blood vessels can hit more "minor" ones that could allow one to either bleed out, or cause sepsis that cannot be easily treated. Danger is definitely there.

[LandM]

MD,
Maybe news to you and those who want to go and fight the good fight with no skin in the game:

Another Rule of Engagement and Geneva Conventions - you cannot spit on the grave of your dead enemy - your spitting on the grave.

[MDlaxfan76]

Using the logic of one or two posters, it's okay to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger if the gun jams. You were never really in danger.

If you stab someone in the heart and miss the aorta that person was also never in danger. Your definition of "logic" is very interesting and subject to your own personal interpretation.

Actually, that's quite incorrect.
If you "stab someone in the heart", with or without hitting the aorta, the person is likely to die. Very much "in danger".

Not sure what you were going for, cradle, but you missed the mark...

I didn't miss the mark. If you miss the heart the stab wound is little more than a flesh wound. If you try and shoot someone and the gun jams the effect is the same. What the topic is about is intent as in did the initial attempt at bodily harm purposely create the possibility of injury or death.

Glad you're not a doctor, cradle!

No, the aorta is not the heart. It's the largest artery. Carries blood away from the heart.
Hitting the aorta definitely "in danger" yes.
But you said "stab someone in the heart and miss the aorta"...nope, you can miss the aorta and kill someone if you actually hit the heart or another coronary artery.

Now, you want to change your analogy and say "miss the heart"...and here too, you would be wrong, depending on what you hit/cut instead. Yes, very much "in danger".

You might get lucky and be saved in time (that's what the miss provides, more time) but you were very much "in danger".
Try it, you won't like it...ohhh, you don't want to "try it"???
Why, because you have a (rational) reptilian concern about being wrong, being "in danger"?
oops, I hit the heart (or aorta) or any other coronary artery???

Yeah, "in danger".
Only "lucky" if there's a clean miss.

Now, let's say someone tries to stab you in the heart, trying to kill you, but they "miss" enough such that the paramedics and docs get to you in time. You gonna want the cat who tried to stab you prosecuted?

Or would you say, "never mind, I was never "in danger"?"

[youthathletics]

... Trump is done as a presidential candidate. Martha McCallum yesterday proved it is possible to embarras a right wing media whore. He still for the most part controls the republiCON party, but those who would vote for him in 2024 are fewer than in 2020. I will be very surprised if he gets the party nomination. By July 2024 he will be greatly diminished and have lost control of the party, but will still have a say in who the candidate is - he will continue to carry the banner for the most deplorable, still a significant republiCON voting block. It is going to be very difficult to unite the republiCON party for 2024. The anti Trump block will be much larger than in 2020.

#QFP

Quoted for permanency?

Posterity.

[MDlaxfan76]

MD,
Maybe news to you and those who want to go and fight the good fight with no skin in the game:

Another Rule of Engagement and Geneva Conventions - you cannot spit on the grave of your dead enemy - your spitting on the grave.

what the heck are you talking about "skin in the game"? I'm an American citizen, with family who are American citizens, what more "skin in the game" do I need to be concerned with a "clear and present danger" threatening our country, our democracy?

Take this up with Judge Luttig...have you bothered, yet, to watch his testimony?

[LandM]

MD,
I did not watch his testimony - I did read what you linked.
I also read the Brookings report as linked by Sea
In total it was over the 300 pages - I did read it and did the best that I could to follow it - it did not change my opinion but I did - thank you for sending that

We are ALL AMERICANS - we all pay taxes - we all have separate values and beliefs - I am way less smarter then you - Dartmouth never recruited me to play football at 18 in NV - this thread is focused on one guy - he got to be one guy because one other politician was worse then him - that is hard for me to fathom.

BUT 74 million people voted for that 1 guy - why be divisive? Why not find a common ground =- get along - smoke some smorshes and do some back yard BBQ? Why - have we become a country where we cannot just find a way to put aside differences? Do the right thing.

I want to say as best as I can - if you want to strap it on - it is easy to puff - not so easy when the jerk flying in a pi$$ant country that your fellow Mericans have no clue your in.

[LandM]

BTW - my wife - my partner - asked that I stop - so I will - best of luck to all of you.

[cradleandshoot]

Using the logic of one or two posters, it's okay to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger if the gun jams. You were never really in danger.

If you stab someone in the heart and miss the aorta that person was also never in danger. Your definition of "logic" is very interesting and subject to your own personal interpretation.

Actually, that's quite incorrect.
If you "stab someone in the heart", with or without hitting the aorta, the person is likely to die. Very much "in danger".

Not sure what you were going for, cradle, but you missed the mark...

I didn't miss the mark. If you miss the heart the stab wound is little more than a flesh wound. If you try and shoot someone and the gun jams the effect is the same. What the topic is about is intent as in did the initial attempt at bodily harm purposely create the possibility of injury or death.

Glad you're not a doctor, cradle!

No, the aorta is not the heart. It's the largest artery. Carries blood away from the heart.
Hitting the aorta definitely "in danger" yes.
But you said "stab someone in the heart and miss the aorta"...nope, you can miss the aorta and kill someone if you actually hit the heart or another coronary artery.

Now, you want to change your analogy and say "miss the heart"...and here too, you would be wrong, depending on what you hit/cut instead. Yes, very much "in danger".

You might get lucky and be saved in time (that's what the miss provides, more time) but you were very much "in danger".
Try it, you won't like it...ohhh, you don't want to "try it"???
Why, because you have a (rational) reptilian concern about being wrong, being "in danger"?
oops, I hit the heart (or aorta) or any other coronary artery???

Yeah, "in danger".
Only "lucky" if there's a clean miss.

Now, let's say someone tries to stab you in the heart, trying to kill you, but they "miss" enough such that the paramedics and docs get to you in time. You gonna want the cat who tried to stab you prosecuted?

Or would you say, "never mind, I was never "in danger"?"

I'm lucky dude MD. Way back in 1979 I had my first leave after graduating Ft Benning and heading to Ft Bragg. My friend and I were gassing up his car after a night of celebrating. Several folks at the gas station relieved us of our money by waving a machete in our face. When the one guy stabbed me in the leg he just missed my femoral artery. You familiar with that other major blood carrying vessel? A lotta blood but no major damage. I enjoyed your anatomy lecture. I do understand that the average FLP including yourself has no heart or other major arteries to worry about. I can understand why such a wound would be of no concern to you. The fact you are a lifelong Republican certainly verified by most liberals on our forum is proof that you don't have a heart anyway.

[ardilla secreta]

Using the logic of one or two posters, it's okay to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger if the gun jams. You were never really in danger.

If you stab someone in the heart and miss the aorta that person was also never in danger. Your definition of "logic" is very interesting and subject to your own personal interpretation.

Actually, that's quite incorrect.
If you "stab someone in the heart", with or without hitting the aorta, the person is likely to die. Very much "in danger".

Not sure what you were going for, cradle, but you missed the mark...

What if you cut out someone’s heart, ran over it with a SUV, but put it back in the cavity and gave him a Kit Kat to boot. No harm no foul?

[Typical Lax Dad]

MD,
I did not watch his testimony - I did read what you linked.
I also read the Brookings report as linked by Sea
In total it was over the 300 pages - I did read it and did the best that I could to follow it - it did not change my opinion but I did - thank you for sending that

We are ALL AMERICANS - we all pay taxes - we all have separate values and beliefs - I am way less smarter then you - Dartmouth never recruited me to play football at 18 in NV - this thread is focused on one guy - he got to be one guy because one other politician was worse then him - that is hard for me to fathom.

BUT 74 million people voted for that 1 guy - why be divisive? Why not find a common ground =- get along - smoke some smorshes and do some back yard BBQ? Why - have we become a country where we cannot just find a way to put aside differences? Do the right thing.

I want to say as best as I can - if you want to strap it on - it is easy to puff - not so easy when the jerk flying in a pi$$ant country that your fellow Mericans have no clue your in.

He’s just being divisive. Not sure why he bothered to show up. Move on.

[MDlaxfan76]

Using the logic of one or two posters, it's okay to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger if the gun jams. You were never really in danger.

If you stab someone in the heart and miss the aorta that person was also never in danger. Your definition of "logic" is very interesting and subject to your own personal interpretation.

Actually, that's quite incorrect.
If you "stab someone in the heart", with or without hitting the aorta, the person is likely to die. Very much "in danger".

Not sure what you were going for, cradle, but you missed the mark...

I didn't miss the mark. If you miss the heart the stab wound is little more than a flesh wound. If you try and shoot someone and the gun jams the effect is the same. What the topic is about is intent as in did the initial attempt at bodily harm purposely create the possibility of injury or death.

Glad you're not a doctor, cradle!

No, the aorta is not the heart. It's the largest artery. Carries blood away from the heart.
Hitting the aorta definitely "in danger" yes.
But you said "stab someone in the heart and miss the aorta"...nope, you can miss the aorta and kill someone if you actually hit the heart or another coronary artery.

Now, you want to change your analogy and say "miss the heart"...and here too, you would be wrong, depending on what you hit/cut instead. Yes, very much "in danger".

You might get lucky and be saved in time (that's what the miss provides, more time) but you were very much "in danger".
Try it, you won't like it...ohhh, you don't want to "try it"???
Why, because you have a (rational) reptilian concern about being wrong, being "in danger"?
oops, I hit the heart (or aorta) or any other coronary artery???

Yeah, "in danger".
Only "lucky" if there's a clean miss.

Now, let's say someone tries to stab you in the heart, trying to kill you, but they "miss" enough such that the paramedics and docs get to you in time. You gonna want the cat who tried to stab you prosecuted?

Or would you say, "never mind, I was never "in danger"?"

I'm lucky dude MD. Way back in 1979 I had my first leave after graduating Ft Benning and heading to Ft Bragg. My friend and I were gassing up his car after a night of celebrating. Several folks at the gas station relieved us of our money by waving a machete in our face. When the one guy stabbed me in the leg he just missed my femoral artery. You familiar with that other major blood carrying vessel? A lotta blood but no major damage. I enjoyed your anatomy lecture. I do understand that the average FLP including yourself has no heart or other major arteries to worry about. I can understand why such a wound would be of no concern to you. The fact you are a lifelong Republican certainly verified by most liberals on our forum is proof that you don't have a heart anyway.

You must enjoy ranting; and not actually responding
Glad they missed your femoral, and indeed 'lucky'.
Sounds like the garden is coming along great; I can practically taste those tomatoes...

[MDlaxfan76]

MD,
I did not watch his testimony - I did read what you linked.
I also read the Brookings report as linked by Sea
In total it was over the 300 pages - I did read it and did the best that I could to follow it - it did not change my opinion but I did - thank you for sending that

We are ALL AMERICANS - we all pay taxes - we all have separate values and beliefs - I am way less smarter then you - Dartmouth never recruited me to play football at 18 in NV - this thread is focused on one guy - he got to be one guy because one other politician was worse then him - that is hard for me to fathom.

BUT 74 million people voted for that 1 guy - why be divisive? Why not find a common ground =- get along - smoke some smorshes and do some back yard BBQ? Why - have we become a country where we cannot just find a way to put aside differences? Do the right thing.

I want to say as best as I can - if you want to strap it on - it is easy to puff - not so easy when the jerk flying in a pi$$ant country that your fellow Mericans have no clue your in.

I'm 100% in favor of finding common ground whenever and wherever we can. I get all kinds of grief for that from some of the other posters on here, but that's my preference.

But that doesn't mean not taking seriously the hard realities we face as a nation.

Here's Luttig's written statement: https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/16/politics ... index.html

Worth the read, and all the more so when one understands where he's coming from.

A couple of clips:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTDQDwUyeBg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOW8w7pFVgw

But listen to your wife!

[NattyBohChamps04]

Using the logic of one or two posters, it's okay to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger if the gun jams. You were never really in danger.

If you stab someone in the heart and miss the aorta that person was also never in danger. Your definition of "logic" is very interesting and subject to your own personal interpretation.

Actually, that's quite incorrect.
If you "stab someone in the heart", with or without hitting the aorta, the person is likely to die. Very much "in danger".

Not sure what you were going for, cradle, but you missed the mark...

What if you cut out someone’s heart, ran over it with a SUV, but put it back in the cavity and gave him a Kit Kat to boot. No harm no foul?

You can literally pull a man's heart out of his chest and hold it in your hand with no effect. I saw it in an archaeology documentary titled "The Temple of Doom".

[jhu72]

Using the logic of one or two posters, it's okay to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger if the gun jams. You were never really in danger.

If you stab someone in the heart and miss the aorta that person was also never in danger. Your definition of "logic" is very interesting and subject to your own personal interpretation.

Actually, that's quite incorrect.
If you "stab someone in the heart", with or without hitting the aorta, the person is likely to die. Very much "in danger".

Not sure what you were going for, cradle, but you missed the mark...

What if you cut out someone’s heart, ran over it with a SUV, but put it back in the cavity and gave him a Kit Kat to boot. No harm no foul?

You can literally pull a man's heart out of his chest and hold it in your hand with no effect. I saw it in an archaeology documentary titled "The Temple of Doom".

[Typical Lax Dad]

Using the logic of one or two posters, it's okay to point a gun at someone and pull the trigger if the gun jams. You were never really in danger.

If you stab someone in the heart and miss the aorta that person was also never in danger. Your definition of "logic" is very interesting and subject to your own personal interpretation.

Actually, that's quite incorrect.
If you "stab someone in the heart", with or without hitting the aorta, the person is likely to die. Very much "in danger".

Not sure what you were going for, cradle, but you missed the mark...

What if you cut out someone’s heart, ran over it with a SUV, but put it back in the cavity and gave him a Kit Kat to boot. No harm no foul?

You can literally pull a man's heart out of his chest and hold it in your hand with no effect. I saw it in an archaeology documentary titled "The Temple of Doom".