Page 837 of 848
Re: 2020 Elections - Led to Historic Impeachment #2
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:13 pm
by Typical Lax Dad
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:10 pm
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:04 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:01 pm
It must have been the time he spent in Colorado where he was radicalized.
Or when he moved! Just thought it was funny..... Multiple Ohioans arrested also.
I have asked myself this question... what were they trying to prove?
The were wronged and had the election stolen from them. Trump said so.
Re: 2020 Elections - Led to Historic Impeachment #2
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:19 pm
by Kismet
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:10 pm
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:04 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:01 pm
It must have been the time he spent in Colorado where he was radicalized.
Or when he moved! Just thought it was funny..... Multiple Ohioans arrested also.
I have asked myself this question... what were they trying to prove?
Maybe just how stupid they really are?
![Laughing :lol:](./images/smilies/icon_lol.gif)
Re: 2020 Elections - Led to Historic Impeachment #2
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:21 pm
by DMac
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:26 am
We're pretty much in agreement, then, I'm just not as defensive on behalf of the vast majority of military veterans who have their heads screwed on straight, thank you very much, as you are. But I do agree. Wholeheartedly.
My own hypothesis is that the reason why more of the ex-military folks are showing up in the initial waves of arrests, proportionate to the overall population,
Do we know this to be the case? Do we know there weren't more ex football players, mechanics, hunters, or butchers for examples? is that the FBI (I'm not talking about the media) is focused on the vanguard group breaching the Capitol, which has been described by a journalist on the spot as being organized, paramilitary style group(s)
Paramilitary style groups who would likely be quickly assumed to be ex military when in fact that's not the case., coordinating and geared up in tactical gear.
Any wannabe be military person who never wore the uniform of any branch can buy this stuff and go play Rambo. Mixed in with that vanguard were "eccentrics" who were more performative and thus recognizable. So, they, too are in the early arrests. My hypothesis is that the FBI is most concerned, however, with grabbing up those considered the highest risk for future actions, and evidence of organization and military training (whether US military or just militia in the backwoods)
I'm bettin' more of them were "militia in the backwoods" types....a bunch of wannabe soldiers who were never willing to take on the challenge of being a real one. would be considered most risky. So, too, the networks of the most rapid white supremacist, white nationalists, and other anti-pluralistic, anti-government types...so, who is communicating with whom?
Now, this hypothesis does presuppose that the militias and such groups have a disproportionate share of ex-US military as well...I take your point to heart that it's nevertheless the fanatics, including those who may never had any sort of actual combat training or experience, just wannabes...but wannabe is dangerous too.
This is where we will never agree, I do not presuppose, as you and a whole lot of others do, that ex military are more inclined to be a part of these militias any more so than all the rest of the nuts/fanatics in the population. We do know (from the FBI) that these various groups do target disaffected veterans for recruitment, so it's not really a surprise if this supposition would be accurate.
Now I've got a favor to ask. SEALs, acronym, all caps ('cept for the plural part). I've pointed this out a number of times, please remember this as you've made that mistake several times and it annoys me every time. TIA.
Re: 2020 Elections - Led to Historic Impeachment #2
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:26 pm
by MDlaxfan76
DMac wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:21 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:26 am
We're pretty much in agreement, then, I'm just not as defensive on behalf of the vast majority of military veterans who have their heads screwed on straight, thank you very much, as you are. But I do agree. Wholeheartedly.
My own hypothesis is that the reason why more of the ex-military folks are showing up in the initial waves of arrests, proportionate to the overall population,
Do we know this to be the case? Do we know there weren't more ex football players, mechanics, hunters, or butchers for examples? is that the FBI (I'm not talking about the media) is focused on the vanguard group breaching the Capitol, which has been described by a journalist on the spot as being organized, paramilitary style group(s)
Paramilitary style groups who would likely be quickly assumed to be ex military when in fact that's not the case., coordinating and geared up in tactical gear.
Any wannabe be military person who never wore the uniform of any branch can buy this stuff and go play Rambo. Mixed in with that vanguard were "eccentrics" who were more performative and thus recognizable. So, they, too are in the early arrests. My hypothesis is that the FBI is most concerned, however, with grabbing up those considered the highest risk for future actions, and evidence of organization and military training (whether US military or just militia in the backwoods)
I'm bettin' more of them were "militia in the backwoods" types....a bunch of wannabe soldiers who were never willing to take on the challenge of being a real one. would be considered most risky. So, too, the networks of the most rapid white supremacist, white nationalists, and other anti-pluralistic, anti-government types...so, who is communicating with whom?
Now, this hypothesis does presuppose that the militias and such groups have a disproportionate share of ex-US military as well...I take your point to heart that it's nevertheless the fanatics, including those who may never had any sort of actual combat training or experience, just wannabes...but wannabe is dangerous too.
This is where we will never agree, I do not presuppose, as you and a whole lot of others do, that ex military are more inclined to be a part of these militias any more so than all the rest of the nuts/fanatics in the population. We do know (from the FBI) that these various groups do target disaffected veterans for recruitment, so it's not really a surprise if this supposition would be accurate.
Now I've got a favor to ask. SEALs, acronym, all caps ('cept for the plural part). I've pointed this out a number of times, please remember this as you've made that mistake several times and it annoys me every time. TIA.
Sorry...and yes, you have done so repeatedly...don't ever mean to annoy you, it's simply not part of my consciousness, not a matter of any sort of purposeful disregard. I suspect you know that, hope so.
Re: 2020 Elections - Led to Historic Impeachment #2
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:39 pm
by DMac
Yup, I know that. Bet you'll get it right next time.
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
Re: 2020 Elections - Led to Historic Impeachment #2
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 3:17 pm
by kramerica.inc
OR ELSE!!!
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
Re: 2020 Elections - Led to Historic Impeachment #2
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 3:48 pm
by youthathletics
DMac wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:39 pm
Yup, I know that. Bet you'll get it right next time.
Reminds me, what ever happened to wahoomurph...he loved throwing down some banter and SEAL chatter. Not to mention some Latin that sent me to google search quite often.
Re: 2020 Elections - Led to Historic Impeachment #2
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 4:32 pm
by cradleandshoot
Kismet wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:19 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:10 pm
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:04 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:01 pm
It must have been the time he spent in Colorado where he was radicalized.
Or when he moved! Just thought it was funny..... Multiple Ohioans arrested also.
I have asked myself this question... what were they trying to prove?
Maybe just how stupid they really are?
they succeeded then.
Re: 2020 Elections - Led to Historic Impeachment #2
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 4:35 pm
by cradleandshoot
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:13 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:10 pm
Typical Lax Dad wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:04 pm
cradleandshoot wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:01 pm
It must have been the time he spent in Colorado where he was radicalized.
Or when he moved! Just thought it was funny..... Multiple Ohioans arrested also.
I have asked myself this question... what were they trying to prove?
The were wronged and had the election stolen from them. Trump said so.
Then they are really gonna think they have been wronged when cellmate Bubba looks at them with a twinkle in his eye.
![Surprised :o](./images/smilies/icon_e_surprised.gif)
Re: 2020 Elections - Led to Historic Impeachment #2
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 5:34 pm
by DMac
...and the headline will read; Veteran rapes cellmate.
Bubba probably spent some time in the Air Force.
Re: 2020 Elections - Led to Historic Impeachment #2
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 6:10 pm
by MDlaxfan76
DMac wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 2:39 pm
Yup, I know that. Bet you'll get it right next time.
Sheesh, I hope so.
Re: 2020 Elections - Led to Historic Impeachment #2
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 6:18 pm
by DMac
Didn't mean it as harshly as it might sound, was just funnin' a little.
Would bet the next time you use it, it won't be as a sea creature, but
rather a human (warrior) though.
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
Re: 2020 Elections - Led to Historic Impeachment #2
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:36 pm
by njbill
Biden says he doesn’t think there are 17 Republican votes to convict T****. This seems to reflect the current reality, but it’s a little surprising he would be so blunt about that assessment. Why not just say, “that’s up to the Senate”?
Re: 2020 Elections - Led to Historic Impeachment #2
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 8:15 pm
by youthathletics
njbill wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:36 pm
Biden says he doesn’t think there are 17 Republican votes to convict T****. This seems to reflect the current reality, but it’s a little surprising he would be so blunt about that assessment. Why not just say, “that’s up to the Senate”?
Because he knows it is stupid, partisan BS, and telling the right...let's work together and stop being so damned divisive. And, we need to re-fill the swamp.
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
Re: 2020 Elections - Led to Historic Impeachment #2
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 8:20 pm
by old salt
njbill wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:36 pm
Biden says he doesn’t think there are 17 Republican votes to convict T****. This seems to reflect the current reality, but it’s a little surprising he would be so blunt about that assessment. Why not just say, “that’s up to the Senate”?
Perhaps he's signaling a lack of enthusiasm for this post election impeachment process.
Re: 2020 Elections - Trump FIRED
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 8:30 pm
by njbill
Regardless, once the House impeaches the president or anybody else, the Senate is constitutionally obligated to hold a trial. That’s just the way the constitution works.
I understand the argument that since he is out of office, the trial is now moot. But I think that argument is outweighed by the necessity to lay down an historical marker that a president who incites an insurrection to overthrow an election should be impeached, convicted, and disqualified, whenever he commits those acts, even if in the very last days of his term.
No other single person has ever in our country’s history done anything more damaging to our system of government. The only other thing more damaging, which was not caused by one single person, was the Civil War.
Re: 2020 Elections - Trump FIRED
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 9:27 pm
by RedFromMI
Rachel Maddow just completed an interview of Schumer, and when done, she said while the interview was going on McConnell announced he was caving on the organizing resolution for the Senate. And taking the offer Schumer originally made to split committee memberships evenly with all chairpersons from the D side. (What the Senate did the last time it was 50-50)
Re: 2020 Elections - Led to Historic Impeachment #2
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:14 pm
by MDlaxfan76
DMac wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 6:18 pm
Didn't mean it as harshly as it might sound, was just funnin' a little.
Would bet the next time you use it, it won't be as a sea creature, but
rather a human (warrior) though.
No worries, I'll try.
But I'm a numbskull sometimes so I'm leaving open the possibility I'll blow it again.
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
Re: 2020 Elections - Led to Historic Impeachment #2
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:24 pm
by MDlaxfan76
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 8:20 pm
njbill wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:36 pm
Biden says he doesn’t think there are 17 Republican votes to convict T****. This seems to reflect the current reality, but it’s a little surprising he would be so blunt about that assessment. Why not just say, “that’s up to the Senate”?
Perhaps he's signaling a lack of enthusiasm for this post election impeachment process.
Nope, he's lowering expectations for a conviction.
He's saying it will impact their legislative agenda, but that it must go forward...and the more that's been learned the more obvious that's the case. He's signaling hard that's the case.
He just wants the Senate to work both tracks, legislation and impeachment process.
He's also quite correct that the likelihood of conviction is low, given the reality of the fear the GOP Senators have of being primaried. It's a political reality, but he's also quite clear that it's necessary despite the impact on his legislative agenda...which is his own #1 priority.
Re: 2020 Elections - Led to Historic Impeachment #2
Posted: Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:28 pm
by old salt
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:24 pm
old salt wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 8:20 pm
njbill wrote: ↑Mon Jan 25, 2021 7:36 pm
Biden says he doesn’t think there are 17 Republican votes to convict T****. This seems to reflect the current reality, but it’s a little surprising he would be so blunt about that assessment. Why not just say, “that’s up to the Senate”?
Perhaps he's signaling a lack of enthusiasm for this post election impeachment process.
Nope, he's lowering expectations for a conviction.
He's saying it will impact their legislative agenda, but that it must go forward...and the more that's been learned the more obvious that's the case. He's signaling hard that's the case.
He just wants the Senate to work both tracks, legislation and impeachment process.
He's also quite correct that the likelihood of conviction is low, given the reality of the fear the GOP Senators have of being primaried. It's a political reality, but he's also quite clear that it's necessary despite the impact on his legislative agenda...which is his own #1 priority.
...or he's thinking about what could happen to him if the GOP take back the House in '24.