Former NYPD officer sentenced to 10 years in prison for assaulting a police officer on January 6

[LaosLover]

Um, why didn't he pardon these losers when he could?

 

Another fund raising scam in the making. You notice no names of people he supposedly helped or cancelled checks have forthcoming. And no publicity of when these stinky polyester tee shirt wearers supposedly showed up at Mar A Lago. 

 

Trump doesn't write checks for his suckers -ever. They send to check to Him -always.

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, KanchanaburiGuy said:

The word "patriot" is open to interpretation. Who you believe is a "patriot" very much depends on your perspective.

 

In a way, it's a lot like religion.

 

Whether you are Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Christian, et cetera, you will believe that YOU'VE got the right answers.......... and everyone else has it wrong. 

 

If you believe that things should basically stay the same or regress to an earlier percieved ideal......... (a Conservative, generally speaking)............ then you're never going to consider people who want to make wholesale changes......... "Patriots."

 

If you think things can be a lot better than they have been and that we need to do away with the mistakes and attitudes of the past........... (a Liberal/Progressive, generally speaking).......... then you're never going to consider people who are hidebound and resistant to change........... "Patriots."

 

Each perspective has their own definition of what a "patriot" is. Each perspective will deny that the other guy's definition of "patriot " is valid!

 

-------------#

 

In 1776, a "Patriot" was a person who was prepared to commit treason. That was the Founding Father's perspective.

 

To the British, though, a "Patriot" was a person who would fight to keep the Colonies........... Colonies!

 

Very different perspectives........ and very different understandings of what a "Patriot" was!

 

---------------

 

To me, a "Patriot" is a person who's goal is to achieve a  BEST VERSION of the United States. So-called "Conservatives" have certain ideas about what that means.......... and.......... so-called "Liberals/Progressives" have certain ideas about what that means. Both sides have some good ideas............ and........... both sides have some bad ideas!

 

But whether ~~I~~ think their ideas are bad or good......... doesn't define for me whether or not I think they are a "Patriot!" 

 

If they sincerely want to work for the BETTERMENT of America.......... even if they want to do it in ways I personally do not believe in.......... I'm STILL willing to call them "Patriots!"

 

So, the question is..........

 

Regardless of YOUR OWN views of the events of Jan 6th............ do you think the insurrectionists were trying to do harm, and nothing but............ or............ were they trying to do what the treasonous Founding Fathers......... (our ultimate definition of what an "American Patriot!" is)............ aimed to do in 1776?

 

(Here's a hint: The quicker you come to an answer............ the less you've actually thought about it! Because it really isn't "as simple as all that!")

 

Cheers!

 

If you swear an oath to uphold the constitution, the rule of law and defend America against all enemies foreign and domestic, then attack the Capitol in an attempt to halt the certification of an election and the peaceful transition of power you are not a Patriot.

 

Away with you and your justification of Federal Crimes.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

50 minutes ago, LaosLover said:

Yeah, another brit enjoying the physical security of the special relationship while hoping the US fails.

Born in San Diego. Lived 59 of my 65 years in Washington, California, Arizona, Oregon, Maryland & New Jersey. (The remainder in Thailand.)

 

I own houses in Prescott Valley, AZ, and Portland, OR.

 

Yeah, sure, "a brit!" Good catch!

 

HAHAHA!

Edited September 3, 2022 by KanchanaburiGuy

[LaosLover]

Just now, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Born in San Diego. Lived 59 of my 65 years in Washington, California, Arizona, Oregon, Maryland & New Jersey. (The remainder in Thailand.)

 

I own houses in Prescott Valley, AZ, and Portland, OR.

 

Yeah, sure, "a brit!"

 

HAHAHA!

Well then, fair enough.

 

But retorting HAHAHA! is on the demented side. A little tightly wound, huh?

 

As long as I'm here, how does being a Trumpie go down on average in the mostly lefty expat pop.?

[KanchanaburiGuy]

24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

If you swear an oath to uphold the constitution, the rule of law and defend America against all enemies foreign and domestic, then attack the Capitol in an attempt to halt the certification of an election and the peaceful transition of power you are not a Patriot.

 

Away with you and your justification of Federal Crimes.

If you've sworn to protect the Union and the Constitution and you believe the election has been stolen by fraudulent means..............

 

Which is the "Patriotic" way to go.........

 

To let the person elected by fraudulent means become President anyway, because it's not POLITE to refuse to accept an outcome, even one you are confident was fraudulent?

 

Is allowing what you believe is a crime to go unchallenged........... the "Patriotic" thing?

 

Or............

 

Is righting-the-wrong by whatever means are available to you........... the "Patriotic" thing?

 

See, to me, if the final delayed act of the Revolutiony War had been for a British General to subvert the election of George Washington and take control of the Presidency......... I'd say, upon learning what went wrong........ the Government would have been fully justified in removing him by any means......... even though he may have had the ballots to show he was "elected!" (Fraud then would have been incredibly easy!)

 

What they shouldn't have done.......... what they never should have done............ is say, "Well, you cheated and we know you cheated. But we'll let you, Mr British General, remain our President, anyway!"

 

--------------

 

If you believe Trump......... (and far, far, FAR too many do!).......... then helping him retain a Presidency that is *ahem*......... "rightly his"........... IS the "Patriotic" thing.......... (even if you have to break the law to do it!) (Because allowing a wrongly elected President to STAY in office......... would be an even greater wrong!)

 

 

 

 

[Bkk Brian]

4 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

If you've sworn to protect the Union and the Constitution and you believe the election has been stolen by fraudulent means..............

 

Which is the "Patriotic" way to go.........

 

To let the person elected by fraudulent means become President anyway, because it's not POLITE to refuse to accept an outcome, even one you are confident was fraudulent?

 

Is allowing what you believe is a crime to go unchallenged........... the "Patriotic" thing?

 

Or............

 

Is righting-the-wrong by whatever means are available to you........... the "Patriotic" thing?

 

See, to me, if the final delayed act of the Revolutiony War had been for a British General to subvert the election of George Washington and take control of the Presidency......... I'd say, upon learning what went wrong........ the Government would have been fully justified in removing him by any means......... even though he may have had the ballots to show he was "elected!" (Fraud then would have been incredibly easy!)

 

What they shouldn't have done.......... what they never should have done............ is say, "Well, you cheated and we know you cheated. But we'll let you, Mr British General, remain our President, anyway!"

 

--------------

 

If you believe Trump......... (and far, far, FAR too many do!).......... then helping him retain a Presidency that is *ahem*......... "rightly his"........... IS the "Patriotic" thing.......... (even if you have to break the law to do it!) (Because allowing a wrongly elected President to STAY in office......... would be an even greater wrong!)

 

 

 

 

More ramblings, the justice system and rule of law does not agree with you no matter how many excuses you make for this loon.

[transam]

8 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

If you've sworn to protect the Union and the Constitution and you believe the election has been stolen by fraudulent means..............

 

Which is the "Patriotic" way to go.........

 

To let the person elected by fraudulent means become President anyway, because it's not POLITE to refuse to accept an outcome, even one you are confident was fraudulent?

 

Is allowing what you believe is a crime to go unchallenged........... the "Patriotic" thing?

 

Or............

 

Is righting-the-wrong by whatever means are available to you........... the "Patriotic" thing?

 

See, to me, if the final delayed act of the Revolutiony War had been for a British General to subvert the election of George Washington and take control of the Presidency......... I'd say, upon learning what went wrong........ the Government would have been fully justified in removing him by any means......... even though he may have had the ballots to show he was "elected!" (Fraud then would have been incredibly easy!)

 

What they shouldn't have done.......... what they never should have done............ is say, "Well, you cheated and we know you cheated. But we'll let you, Mr British General, remain our President, anyway!"

 

--------------

 

If you believe Trump......... (and far, far, FAR too many do!).......... then helping him retain a Presidency that is *ahem*......... "rightly his"........... IS the "Patriotic" thing.......... (even if you have to break the law to do it!) (Because allowing a wrongly elected President to STAY in office......... would be an even greater wrong!)

 

 

 

 

The one thing you don't do is take the law into your own hands..

The fruitcake brigade are waiting in the wings to jump on the wagon...????

[KanchanaburiGuy]

58 minutes ago, LaosLover said:

Well then, fair enough.

 

But retorting HAHAHA! is on the demented side. A little tightly wound, huh?

 

As long as I'm here, how does being a Trumpie go down on average in the mostly lefty expat pop.?

I am not a "trumpie." I LOATHE the man. But facts are facts and truth is truth. THAT'S the side I'm on.

 

Facts first, opinions second. Not......... Opinions first, and inconvenient facts get selectively ignored.

 

But here's where I've come from in THIS conversation.........

 

I was taught............ "If you can't argue a topic effectively from both sides....... you should probably keep quiet and listen. You don't know enough about it, yet."

 

Thus.......

 

I can argue what some might call the "trumpie" point of view, because I've taken the time to try to understand it. I'm able to put my  mind into their  frame of mind, then express things that might fit that framework.

 

Around here, so many mindless, ideologically-tainted things get said............ to which I think SOMEONE ought to step up and give reasoned and rational responses to. (Rather than just equally bloviated, ideologically-tainted responses from the other side!)

 

That's what ~~I~~ try to provide.

 

The one thing it almost guarantees me, though.......... is that I'll get hated by everyone........ at least at one time or another.

 

But I'm okay with that!

 

HAHAHA! (Loud, but not maniacal! 555)

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

20 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

If you've sworn to protect the Union and the Constitution and you believe the election has been stolen by fraudulent means..............

 

Which is the "Patriotic" way to go.........

 

To let the person elected by fraudulent means become President anyway, because it's not POLITE to refuse to accept an outcome, even one you are confident was fraudulent?

 

Is allowing what you believe is a crime to go unchallenged........... the "Patriotic" thing?

 

Or............

 

Is righting-the-wrong by whatever means are available to you........... the "Patriotic" thing?

 

See, to me, if the final delayed act of the Revolutiony War had been for a British General to subvert the election of George Washington and take control of the Presidency......... I'd say, upon learning what went wrong........ the Government would have been fully justified in removing him by any means......... even though he may have had the ballots to show he was "elected!" (Fraud then would have been incredibly easy!)

 

What they shouldn't have done.......... what they never should have done............ is say, "Well, you cheated and we know you cheated. But we'll let you, Mr British General, remain our President, anyway!"

 

--------------

 

If you believe Trump......... (and far, far, FAR too many do!).......... then helping him retain a Presidency that is *ahem*......... "rightly his"........... IS the "Patriotic" thing.......... (even if you have to break the law to do it!) (Because allowing a wrongly elected President to STAY in office......... would be an even greater wrong!)

 

 

 

 

If, after over 60 court hearings rule no election fraud you still believe there is election fraud you have left the realms of rationality.

 

The election was not stolen.

[Chomper Higgot]

Just now, KanchanaburiGuy said:

I am not a "trumpie." I LOATHE the man. But facts are facts and truth is truth. THAT'S the side I'm on.

 

Facts first, opinions second. Not......... Opinions first, and inconvenient facts get selectively ignored.

 

But here's where I've come from in THIS conversation.........

 

I was taught............ "If you can't argue a topic effectively from both sides....... you should probably keep quiet and listen. You don't know enough about it, yet."

 

Thus.......

 

I can argue what some might call the "trumpie" point of view, because I've taken the time to try to understand it. I'm able to put my  mind into their  frame of mind, then express things that might fit that framework.

 

Around here, so many mindless, ideologically-tainted things get said............ to which I think SOMEONE ought to step up and give reasoned and rational responses to. (Rather than just equally bloviated, ideologically-tainted responses from the other side!)

 

That's what ~~I~~ try to provide.

 

The one thing it almost guarantees me, though.......... is that I'll get hated by everyone........ at least at one time or another.

 

But I'm okay with that!

 

HAHAHA! (Loud, but not maniacal! 555)

 

 

Another claim to be neutral with ‘both-siding’ it.

 

There are only two sides, right, constitutional, legal and democratic v mob violence, lies and treachery.

 

The election was fair, there was no significant voter fraud, no votes disappeared, no votes conjured out of thin air - Trump lost.

 

 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

13 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

More ramblings, the justice system and rule of law does not agree with you no matter how many excuses you make for this loon.

If you understand the philosophy of governance, you understand that sometimes you HAVE TO do things that are outsie the law, when the law becomes a hindrance rather than a help.

 

That's why Lincoln suspended part of the Constitution during the Civil war, for example. That's why it was horrible....... but appropriate!....... to isolate the japanese in WWII!

 

Sometimes you have to think BIGGER than what fits on a bumper sticker! *wink*

[Bkk Brian]

9 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

If you understand the philosophy of governance, you understand that sometimes you HAVE TO do things that are outsie the law, when the law becomes a hindrance rather than a help.

 

That's why Lincoln suspended part of the Constitution during the Civil war, for example. That's why it was horrible....... but appropriate!....... to isolate the japanese in WWII!

 

Sometimes you have to think BIGGER than what fits on a bumper sticker! *wink*

Be prepared for 10 years in the slammer as well.

 

"You were the aggressor, no doubt about it," the judge added."

 

"telling Webster that he "constructed an alternative truth" that was "utterly fanciful."

 

"I need to tell you that because it's just the facts," the judge said."

 

 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Bkk Brian

[SunnyinBangrak]

11 hours ago, bendejo said:

In anything to do with DT or MAGA it's not a matter of believable, it's about sympathetic.  That crying performance Rittenhouse put on was just like my spoiled nephew trying to convince his mother he didn't want to go to school that day.  I don't think anybody with kids of their own couldn't see it was a an act, but they let him walk.  Crossed state lines with an automatic weapon and whilst in that other state did use that weapon to kill people in self-defense.  Goes back to the "well-behaved tourist" stupidity.

 

 

What you say about Rittenhouse may be a popular narrative of the left. I well remember the threads where this narrative was set in stone. But it is factually incorrect.

 

"In a post-verdict tweet, U.S. Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-New York, called the outcome "heartbreaking." 

"Justice cannot tolerate armed persons crossing state lines looking for trouble while people engage in First Amendment-protected protest," he wrote.

Part of that statement -- the claim Rittenhouse was armed when he crossed state lines -- was repeated by many in the wake of the verdict.

But that information is wrong "

 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/nov/26/jerrold-nadler/nadler-wrong-claim-rittenhouse-crossed-state-line-/

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

26 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

If you understand the philosophy of governance, you understand that sometimes you HAVE TO do things that are outsie the law, when the law becomes a hindrance rather than a help.

 

That's why Lincoln suspended part of the Constitution during the Civil war, for example. That's why it was horrible....... but appropriate!....... to isolate the japanese in WWII!

 

Sometimes you have to think BIGGER than what fits on a bumper sticker! *wink*

’If you understand the philosophy of governance’.

 

Under the circumstances of the subject crimes I cannot think of any more inappropriate argument.

 

If you understand the philosophy of governance you abide by the results of elections and you don’t attack the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the election result just because your guy lost by millions of votes.

 

Give it up already, Trump lost.

 

[Bluespunk]

1 hour ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

If you understand the philosophy of governance, you understand that sometimes you HAVE TO do things that are outsie the law, when the law becomes a hindrance rather than a help.

 

That's why Lincoln suspended part of the Constitution during the Civil war, for example. That's why it was horrible....... but appropriate!....... to isolate the japanese in WWII!

 

Sometimes you have to think BIGGER than what fits on a bumper sticker! *wink*

Suspending the parts of the constitution during a civil war is not the same as trying to violently prevent the transition of power, after free and completely fair elections, just because your candidate lost. 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Bluespunk

[Bkk Brian]

53 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

’If you understand the philosophy of governance’.

 

Under the circumstances of the subject crimes I cannot think of any more inappropriate argument.

 

If you understand the philosophy of governance you abide by the results of elections and you don’t attack the Capitol in an attempt to stop the certification of the election result just because your guy lost by millions of votes.

 

Give it up already, Trump lost.

 

I'm afraid he thinks that just because Webster believed the conspiracy theories that the election was stolen that made him a patriot and offers some excuse. Total B.S.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

1 hour ago, Bluespunk said:

Suspending the parts of the constitution during a civil war is not the same as trying to violently prevent the transition of power, after free and completely fair elections, just because your candidate lost. 

Of course it is not the same. But it is close enough to the same if you understand that sometimes, there are higher purposes than the law alone can remedy. 

 

I believe that just like FDR and Lincoln, Trump and his ardent Supporters.......... (which number in the tens of millions, by the way!)......... believed they were truly and sincerely pursuing just such a "higher purpose"----an extra-legal  "higher purpose." 

 

In their  minds, they were not trying to "steal" an election. They were trying to remedy an error that had already been made!

 

They weren't trying to circumvent legitimate election results! They were trying to correct the wrong done by ILLEGITIMATE election results!

 

And if the election HAD BEEN "illegitimate?"

 

If the wrong man HAD BEEN  *cough*cough* "elected?"

 

Then what happened on Jan 6th would have been a legitimate response to correct the error! It would not have been justifiable as a FIRST response, but would have become an appropriate response......if all other, less aggressive attempts failed!

 

Because if an election results in a person getting elected ILLEGITIMATELY.......... it is the responsibility of the sitting President to make sure that that person cannot take office!

 

(This is EXACTLY why it was okay for Mr Obama to investigate Mr Trump and his campaign, both before and after the election in 2016........ and especially BEFORE Trump took office!

 

There WAS Russian interference. There may have been collusion. There may have been a coordinated conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign, which Trump himself may have been a part of. Trump campaign officials DID lie on numerous occasions, denying their many contacts with Russia.

 

It was critical that Obama have as many answers to these questions as possible BEFORE turning over the reins to a man who might have been a Russian Agent!

 

Because doing nothing about it until afterwards; until AFTER Trump took office?.......... That would have been much, much worse!)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 3, 2022 by KanchanaburiGuy

[Bluespunk]

7 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Of course it is not the same. But it is close enough

No it’s not.
 

Nothing like the same thing. 
 

For a start there was no election fraud and the civil war was real. 
 

Absolutely zero evidence of fraud and nothing to justify treasonous attempts to overturn the electoral process. 

Edited September 3, 2022 by Bluespunk

[Phoenix Rising]

4 hours ago, LaosLover said:

Well then, fair enough.

 

But retorting HAHAHA! is on the demented side. A little tightly wound, huh?

 

As long as I'm here, how does being a Trumpie go down on average in the mostly lefty expat pop.?

I wouldn't call people who see trump for what he is lefties, I would call then sane and grounded in reality.

[Phoenix Rising]

3 hours ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

If you've sworn to protect the Union and the Constitution and you believe the election has been stolen by fraudulent means..............

Scores of judges (some of the appointed by trump!) have ruled there are no grounds to believe this and legions of Republicans have since the election turned every stone trying to find any evidence of the mindblowingly comprehensive and genius conspiracy needed to pull this off.

What have they found? A, big, fat NADA.

So if you still believe "the election has been stolen by fraudulent means" you need to seek the help of a mental health care professional.

 

End of/'nuff said, finito la musica, la fin.

Edited September 3, 2022 by Phoenix Rising

[Chomper Higgot]

24 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Of course it is not the same. But it is close enough to the same if you understand that sometimes, there are higher purposes than the law alone can remedy. 

 

I believe that just like FDR and Lincoln, Trump and his ardent Supporters.......... (which number in the tens of millions, by the way!)......... believed they were truly and sincerely pursuing just such a "higher purpose"----an extra-legal  "higher purpose." 

 

In their  minds, they were not trying to "steal" an election. They were trying to remedy an error that had already been made!

 

They weren't trying to circumvent legitimate election results! They were trying to correct the wrong done by ILLEGITIMATE election results!

 

And if the election HAD BEEN "illegitimate?"

 

If the wrong man HAD BEEN  *cough*cough* "elected?"

 

Then what happened on Jan 6th would have been a legitimate response to correct the error! It would not have been justifiable as a FIRST response, but would have become an appropriate response......if all other, less aggressive attempts failed!

 

Because if an election results in a person getting elected ILLEGITIMATELY.......... it is the responsibility of the sitting President to make sure that that person cannot take office!

 

(This is EXACTLY why it was okay for Mr Obama to investigate Mr Trump and his campaign, both before and after the election in 2016........ and especially BEFORE Trump took office!

 

There WAS Russian interference. There may have been collusion. There may have been a coordinated conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign, which Trump himself may have been a part of. Trump campaign officials DID lie on numerous occasions, denying their many contacts with Russia.

 

It was critical that Obama have as many answers to these questions as possible BEFORE turning over the reins to a man who might have been a Russian Agent!

 

Because doing nothing about it until afterwards; until AFTER Trump took office?.......... That would have been much, much worse!)

 

 

 

 

 

 

Violent overthrow in response to believing lies is not a legitimate response.

 

The legitimate response was to present the case for election fraud to the courts.

 

That was tried over 60 times in front of over 60 judges and was kicked out every single time.

 

There was no legitimate reason to attack the Capitol,

 

Give it up already, Trump lost.

 

 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

1 hour ago, Bkk Brian said:

I'm afraid he thinks that just because Webster believed the conspiracy theories that the election was stolen that made him a patriot and offers some excuse. Total B.S.

I think if the election HAD BEEN corrupt and Joe Biden HAD BEEN an illegitimate President-Elect......... and the events on Jan 6th REALLY DID represent a last-ditch effort to make sure this illegitimate President-Elect did not take office..........

 

............pretty much everyone in their right mind would be calling Webster a "Patriot" for participating in that day's events!

 

But.......

 

Was the election corrupt? No.

 

Was Joe Biden an illegitimate President-Elect? No.

 

Were the events of Jan 6th a "last-ditch effort to right a wrong?" No.

 

So, how did Webster....... (and thousands of others there on that day, 2000 of which may have entered the Capitol).......... how did he get it so wrong? How?

 

He got it so wrong because a person we are supposed  to be able to believe......... someone no less than The President of the United States...... told him so!

 

Webster is going to have to pay the full price for his own actions. That's fair.

 

But it would be UNFAIR to hold him fully responsible for believing what he believed.......... when he believed it because it came directly from one of the people we are supposed to be able to believe---- The President of the United States!

 

[KanchanaburiGuy]

16 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Violent overthrow in response to believing lies is not a legitimate response.

 

The legitimate response was to present the case for election fraud to the courts.

 

That was tried over 60 times in front of over 60 judges and was kicked out every single time.

 

There was no legitimate reason to attack the Capitol,

 

Give it up already, Trump lost.

 

 

Strawman.

 

Your responding to things I never said.

[Bkk Brian]

14 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Webster is going to have to pay the full price for his own actions. That's fair.

 

But it would be UNFAIR to hold him fully responsible for believing what he believed.......... when he believed it because it came directly from one of the people we are supposed to be able to believe---- The President of the United States!

 

You're now saying the above yet a few posts ago said:

 

I believe:

 

2 to 3 years----appropriate.

 

10 years----inappropriate.

 

He is also fully responsible for believing the conspiracy promoted by Trump and the rest of the cult, when the truth was widely available.

Edited September 3, 2022 by Bkk Brian

[KanchanaburiGuy]

25 minutes ago, Phoenix Rising said:

Scores of judges (some of the appointed by trump!) have ruled there are no grounds to believe this and legions of Republicans have since the election turned every stone trying to find any evidence of the mindblowingly comprehensive and genius conspiracy needed to pull this off.

What have they found? A, big, fat NADA.

So if you still believe "the election has been stolen by fraudulent means" you need to seek the help of a mental health care professional.

 

End of/'nuff said, finito la musica, la fin.

Where did I ever say the anything like "the election has been stolen by fraudulent means". Link please.

 

Every time I've said anything like that, it has always had a context. Every time, the context has been about what OTHER PEOPLE think and believe.

 

Reading comprehension.

It makes a difference.

 

[Phoenix Rising]

5 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Where did I ever say the anything like "the election has been stolen by fraudulent means". Link please.

 

Every time I've said anything like that, it has always had a context. Every time, the context has been about what OTHER PEOPLE think and believe.

 

Reading comprehension.

It makes a difference.

 

I wasn't referring to you but the "OTHER PEOPLE" you were using as examples in your post.

You're right, reading comprehension does make a difference.

[KanchanaburiGuy]

10 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

You're now saying the above yet a few posts ago said:

 

I believe:

 

2 to 3 years----appropriate.

 

10 years----inappropriate.

 

He is also is fully responsible for believing the conspiracy promoted by Trump and the rest of the cult, when the truth was widely available.

Subtleties. They matter sometimes. 

 

Yes, I believe he should have to pay the full price for his actions. Yes, I also believe the full price he's been given was excessive. These two things are not contradictory, though you seem unable to grasp that. (I'd bet money that on appeal, his sentence will be reduced; probably to less than 5 years. Only time will tell, though.)

[Chomper Higgot]

11 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Where did I ever say the anything like "the election has been stolen by fraudulent means". Link please.

 

Every time I've said anything like that, it has always had a context. Every time, the context has been about what OTHER PEOPLE think and believe.

 

Reading comprehension.

It makes a difference.

 

Have you considered jumping straight to the ‘those other people’ who attacked the Capitol were insane defense, because that’s where your arguments are heading?!

[Bkk Brian]

1 minute ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

Subtleties. They matter sometimes. 

 

Yes, I believe he should have to pay the full price for his actions. Yes, I also believe the full price he's been given was excessive. These two things are not contradictory, though you seem unable to grasp that. (I'd bet money that on appeal, his sentence will be reduced; probably to less than 5 years. Only time will tell, though.)

Well he did pay the full price and he is also lucky as the prosecution wanted 17 years

[Chomper Higgot]

7 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Well he did pay the full price and he is also lucky as the prosecution wanted 17 years

He’s lucky he wasn’t shot dead, happens often to people who violently assault officers who are on duty.

 

As a former serving police officer he has no excuse for not knowing the seriousness of his unlawful actions.