Unarmed woman is shot by Police in Capitol. The People Who Scream ‘Police Brutality’ Don’t Care.

Moving goalposts.
For the last time, this is about the plans. He planned that idea. It's untechnical. He covered it up by going to the supreme court, proving he's not cooperating with the jan 6 commission about what he did and didn't do when his fascist tried to overturn the elections. And his fascist did that because Donald encouraged them 21 times to fight in the context of doing that physically vs just 1 lousy time he mentioned peaceful. And you're conceding to all of this by not able to dispute it.

You're playing shenanigans as if those 2000 to 2500 didn't fight their way in.
The entire world saw it was utterly violent. And you're conceding by not being able to deny there was no violent entry.

That's your opinion. Does it look like I care about your opinion?
I got a source.

How about you quote me on it. Point stands.
The predominantly white cops have no problem killing black people who they think are just resisting, even when they are obviously not doing that.
While the predominantly white cops showed to have a massive problem shooting a predominantly white fascist crowed attacking them.

 

Looking at the New York Times compilation of police shooting deaths, there are about 10-20 unarmed blacks that were shot per year (depending upon which year). With the number of police interactions per year numbering into the tens of millions, that in no way indicates that one would expect any of these 2500 people to have been shot if they were black.

Your insinuation is silly, and not bore out by the numbers even remotely.

 

But not illegal?

I'm simply asking what you meant by people getting "killed when they go beyond resisting and fight cops." You used Floyd as an example, which is weird because he did not fight any cops. He did however resist.

Floyd DID resist. Of course, this does not mean that he should have been killed.

What about the Muslims? Still avoiding it ay? No wonder! You cannot support that claim!

 

You're conceding to my previous post/point by not able to dispute it.

You're conceding to my previous post/point by not able to dispute it.

Not when the cops were lynching him. And it's telling you're joking around the murder of a black person with a comment like this.
point sands:
The predominantly white cops have no problem killing black people who they think are just resisting, even when they are obviously not doing that. While the predominantly white cops showed to have a massive problem shooting a predominantly white fascist crowed attacking them.

 

As I stated closet racist enter the argument "don't resist if you do not want to be killed". That crap flies here all the time when some black person gets killed on this forum. So that backfires here just as well, when seeing 2000 to 2500 attacking cops and only 1 gets killed by 1 bullet. While there is a massive difference between so called "resisting" as Floyd did and attacking.

 

So let me get this straight... You bring up the "dont resist if you do not want to be killed" argument, and then you proceed to argue against the notion that you just presented?...

LOL, cmon. Keep your silly strawmen arguments to yourself. If you want to debate something I have said, I am more than happy to respond, but I am NOT going to argue against an argument that you are falsely trying to put into my mouth.

I do not play the troll game that you seem so fond of playing. Please take it elsewhere.

 

Nothing illegal about that!

Many of them DID fight their way in! There's just no evidence of the exact number.

Yes, I'm not TRYING to deny that there was a violent entry. It was VERY violent! But that doesn't mean that everyone was violent. Simple!

You have not linked to a source which refers to footage which shows over 2000 individual acts of violence towards cops!

WTF? Saying that he resisted and that he should not have been killed is "joking" about his murder?

Your assumption.

Saying "fight" is not promoting "the idea to be violent." That's just silly.

Why are you using Floyd as an example of people getting "killed when they go beyond resisting and fight cops" when he did not fight any cops?

 

The notion is that black people get killed all the time when "resisting" by the predominantly white police force, while the predominantly white police force only dared to shoot 1 bullet when they were massively attacked by 1000's of predominantly white fascists. So yeah.. there is a "slight different" approach.

 

In a federal investigation of foreign involvement in an election and specifically interfering with voting machines which would become evidence of that who would seize the evidence? The federal government. The only issue here is that it is the DoD instead of DoJ but there are not enough federal marshalls to do it.

Dumb plan but just having a proposal written up by legal counsel as to what laws would apply and how to it would be implemented is NOT a crime. And of course it was rejected.

 

The point is that it was covered up, and Chris is unable to explain how it was ethnical or legal. And he pushed the goalpost to just legal. You're free to try and explain how ethnical it is to decide it's the national security agencies to mingle into seizing the votes because the orange stain personally would order them to.

 

You're comparing MANY incidents involving black people to ONE incident involving white people.

 

I've already explained how it is LEGAL and you agree that it was legal!

 

@notme: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/unarmed-woman-is-shot-by-police-in-capitol-the-people-who-scream-‘police-brutality’-don’t-care.583573/page-84#post-1073318757

 

You're now childishly pushing the goalposts again from "illegal and not ethnical" to just "illegal".
So it stands: For the last time, this is about the plans. He planned that idea. It's untechnical. He covered it up by going to the supreme court, proving he's not cooperating with the jan 6 commission about what he did and didn't do when his fascist tried to overturn the elections. And his fascist did that because Donald encouraged them 21 times to fight in the context of doing that physically vs just 1 lousy time he mentioned peaceful. And you're conceding to all of this by not able to dispute it.

My point is (post 2050): Trump unleashed the BIGGEST assault on democracy since centuries in the US by motivating with his speech his 2000 to 2500 violent fascists to attack the Capitol to undo the elections into his advantage. You stand noted that you're down talking the assault by whining around it wasn't that big.

And so you childishly pushed the goalpost from the amount of people who participated in attacking the Capitol to the unkown amount of people specifically fighting the cops.

It remains undeniable that the attack on the Capitol was violent.

He wasn't resisting when handcuffed. That's just made up by the people who lynched him as an excuse to lynch him.

The context of "fight" remains to be violent since pop pop and the trial by combat.

You're not responding to my question.

 

Pardon me for jumping in to this battle royal you two have going but are you actually defending a POTUS who explored the idea of seizing voting machines because he didn't go through with it? Really!

WASHINGTON, Feb 1 (Reuters) - Then-President Donald Trump was directly involved in efforts to use national security agencies to seize voting machines after his 2020 election loss, pressing his lawyer to make queries as advisers drafted two versions of a related executive order, media reports said.

The New York Times, citing three people familiar with the matter, reported on Monday that Trump directed Rudy Giuliani to call the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to determine whether it could legally take control of voting machines in key swing states.

That effort came amid two previously reported attempts to seize the machines: Trump's outside advisers pressing to have the Defense Department confiscate them and Trump asking Attorney General Bill Barr whether the Justice Department could take them. Barr immediately rejected the suggestion, the Times said.

Trump's advisers drafted a second version of an executive order directing the DHS to take control of voting equipment, the Times and CNN reported. The first version, reported last month by Politico, called on the Defense Department to take the machines.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/tr...ans-seize-voting-machines-reports-2022-02-01/

The mere fact that he would not only privately contemplate such a violation of our democracy but have staff members look in to it is perhaps the most blatant evidence yet of his unfitness to hold the office. And that's saying a lot considering all the other things he did.

 

Is there no circumstance in which it would be justified for a President to seize voting machines?

 

Well?