Politics and stuff

[jsence2]

it shows you can't objectively think.

You're defending Trump after four years of the worst presidency in history. You're defending a man who called John McCain a "loser" for being captured, and who dodged the draft.

You're going to have to forgive me for laughing at how absurdly rich that statement is.

[jsence2]

Some of these hot takes are as laughable as the exaggerated coverage. What happened yesterday certainly isn't right, but it's far from what we saw this summer. I wasn't able to follow minute by minute yesterday, but I saw 2 videos of the shooting, the follow up of the 2 by-standers to the shooting outside and numerous pics and clips of other stuff.

The female was shot as she was climbing through a window (side of an entry), unarmed, no real threat to anything. Initial reports would have had you thinking we had an active shooter ready to mow down every Dem politician in there. When it came out she was a protestor and potentially shot by a guard, no one gave a shit. Imagine that happened if this were leftists rushing in against a Trump presidency. The outrage would have burned DC to the ground last night. Even the commentary on social media was a joke. So hypocritical to see 1 side laughing about it, when they know damn well they'd have been crying foul and rioting if it were the other way around.

Speaking of burning DC to the ground... that's what everyone told me was going on. Such a horrible event that they went back in and resumed the vote. What about those "armed standoffs?" Still waiting for the pics of protestors raising their arms at law enforcement and trying to hold their ground or push forward. The only people taking aim were LEO/security as people tried to enter chambers. Nothing came of that.... why? Because it wasn't an armed standoff.

1 building, glass broken, stupid costumes worn, pictures taken in the VP's chair, 1 non-threatening female protestor shot, building cleared out and work resumed within 10 hours. Those are facts. Those facts don't align with commentary. Before anyone wants to chime in about the 3 "other" deaths... someone needs to tell us more than "separate medical emergencies" as the reason.

This "divide" that someone suggested happened over the last 4 years, came from Obama. How do you think Trump came to be? Obama's second term was incredibly divisive, but of course you're a racist if you acknowledge that. Obviously Trump didn't stop the divide, but to think that it starts and ends with him is crazy. This doesn't end when the presidency changes hands and it's far more than just a left/right political divide.

When Obama was nominated, Mitch McConnell stated that his primary goal was to make him a one-term president. He refused to even hold a hearing for numerous judge spots three years before Obama left office.

When Obama wore a tan suit, he was slammed by the right as being "unpresidential".

Obama was accused before even being elected of being a Muslim, a terrorist, and faking being an American citizen.

So please do not claim that Obama and the left was why things got so nasty, when the GOP was attacking him personally before he even took the oath of office.

Let's also keep one other thing in mind: Obama's second term was around the same time that Twitter took off. The rise of social media can directly be tied to when people stopped viewing other people as Americans, and viewing them as "us and them", "Libtards" and "racists".

As for yesterday...People who tried to tear down Confederate statues were treated worse than people who stormed the Capitol yesterday. Please do not compare the actions yesterday with people fighting for racial equality and being fed up with police brutality. There is no comparison to be made.

[GeorgesGoons]

it shows you can't objectively think.

You're defending Trump after four years of the worst presidency in history.

Says who? You and the rest of the left and left media? I, as well as the majority of Americans did well under his presidency. Check your 401k. The deregulation alone that he implemented was great for Americans, but you can't see past your blue glasses to see anything good he did. I can see past my right glasses to say he needs to go away and go extremely far away from politics. What happened yesterday was abhorant and should never have happened. That falls partially on the rhetoric from the past 2 months from Trump. But the media has played a large role as well by dismissing those people as well as everyone on the right as racist, bigots, xenophobic,....etc

[dakshdar]

People should certainly condemn burning businesses and individuals that turn protests into riots - which everyone should freely admit are not the majority of the protestors out there.

Yesterday you had people forcing their way into the Capitol Building on the day in which Congress confirms the election of the next President when every member of Congress was present. And you had a sitting President condone these actions after he riled them up and egged them on. His supporters then carried Confederate flags into the Capitol Building and also removed an American flag from a flagpole outside to fly a TRUMP flag.

On what level is that not a big deal? Because there seems to be some level of equivocation of these two things when one is completely unprecedented...

[jsence2]

it shows you can't objectively think.

You're defending Trump after four years of the worst presidency in history.

Says who? You and the rest of the left and left media? I, as well as the majority of Americans did well under his presidency. Check your 401k. The deregulation alone that he implemented was great for Americans, but you can't see past your blue glasses to see anything good he did. I can see past my right glasses to say he needs to go away and go extremely far away from politics. What happened yesterday was abhorant and should never have happened. That falls partially on the rhetoric from the past 2 months from Trump. But the media has played a large role as well by dismissing those people as well as everyone on the right as racist, bigots, xenophobic,....etc

There is no point discussing this any further with you, as nothing productive will come from it.

[ReignOnU]

Some of these hot takes are as laughable as the exaggerated coverage. What happened yesterday certainly isn't right, but it's far from what we saw this summer. I wasn't able to follow minute by minute yesterday, but I saw 2 videos of the shooting, the follow up of the 2 by-standers to the shooting outside and numerous pics and clips of other stuff.

The female was shot as she was climbing through a window (side of an entry), unarmed, no real threat to anything. Initial reports would have had you thinking we had an active shooter ready to mow down every Dem politician in there. When it came out she was a protestor and potentially shot by a guard, no one gave a shit. Imagine that happened if this were leftists rushing in against a Trump presidency. The outrage would have burned DC to the ground last night. Even the commentary on social media was a joke. So hypocritical to see 1 side laughing about it, when they know damn well they'd have been crying foul and rioting if it were the other way around.

Speaking of burning DC to the ground... that's what everyone told me was going on. Such a horrible event that they went back in and resumed the vote. What about those "armed standoffs?" Still waiting for the pics of protestors raising their arms at law enforcement and trying to hold their ground or push forward. The only people taking aim were LEO/security as people tried to enter chambers. Nothing came of that.... why? Because it wasn't an armed standoff.

1 building, glass broken, stupid costumes worn, pictures taken in the VP's chair, 1 non-threatening female protestor shot, building cleared out and work resumed within 10 hours. Those are facts. Those facts don't align with commentary. Before anyone wants to chime in about the 3 "other" deaths... someone needs to tell us more than "separate medical emergencies" as the reason.

This "divide" that someone suggested happened over the last 4 years, came from Obama. How do you think Trump came to be? Obama's second term was incredibly divisive, but of course you're a racist if you acknowledge that. Obviously Trump didn't stop the divide, but to think that it starts and ends with him is crazy. This doesn't end when the presidency changes hands and it's far more than just a left/right political divide.

When Obama was nominated, Mitch McConnell stated that his primary goal was to make him a one-term president. He refused to even hold a hearing for numerous judge spots three years before Obama left office.

When Obama wore a tan suit, he was slammed by the right as being "unpresidential".

Obama was accused before even being elected of being a Muslim, a terrorist, and faking being an American citizen.

So please do not claim that Obama and the left was why things got so nasty, when the GOP was attacking him personally before he even took the oath of office.

Let's also keep one other thing in mind: Obama's second term was around the same time that Twitter took off. The rise of social media can directly be tied to when people stopped viewing other people as Americans, and viewing them as "us and them", "Libtards" and "racists".

As for yesterday...People who tried to tear down Confederate statues were treated worse than people who stormed the Capitol yesterday. Please do not compare the actions yesterday with people fighting for racial equality and being fed up with police brutality. There is no comparison to be made.

- What McConnell tried is nothing new. That's gone on since well before we were around.

- I've got not clue what point you're trying to make about the color of Obama's suit.

- Where we were politically prior to Obama taking office vs where we were at the end was a huge leap in terms of division. The comments frequently thrown at Trump are that he should be bringing us together. While I don't care for the Bush's, they weren't sowing these levels of discontent from the White House. It was late in Obama's first term and it ramped up all through his second term. Throwing in stuff about how he was attacked prior to taking office applies the same to Trump as well. So if you're going to use that kind of stuff to justify it, it goes both ways. I mean, that is of course if you also don't follow the mantra of "rules for thee, but not for me."

- I absolutely agree that the rise in social media played a part. It's as if you understand that it ramped up in this time period, but you're not willing to come out and say it.

- 1.) I must have missed a non-threatening, unarmed civilian being shot during the the Confederate statue stuff. 2.) As for comparing the 2, I never said 1 was equal to another. Which again, actually further proves the point I was making. If you didn't see any of it and just listened to the narratives or read the social media posts, you'd have thought DC was burning to the ground. However, earlier this year, "the mostly peaceful protests" actually did burn tons of buildings to the ground.

Since you decided to just run off and take the post elsewhere, let's get back to the facts as I typed them yesterday...

1 building, glass broken, stupid costumes worn, pictures taken in the VP's chair, 1 non-threatening female protestor shot, building cleared out and work resumed within 10 hours. Those are facts. Those facts don't align with commentary. Before anyone wants to chime in about the 3 "other" deaths... someone needs to tell us more than "separate medical emergencies" as the reason.

As for the 3 others... a random heart attack from an older guy with high blood pressure, a random stroke for an older transport driver and the 3rd sounds like it could have been a lady that fell and either hit her head or was trampled in a mob of people. Of course, that's all not going to sound so scary, so you won't be getting updates on those from an official news source. Furthermore, the 2 "bombs" were not actually bombs, nor anything resembling a bomb. The active shooter was never active... nor was there a shooter (other than the guard). Armed standoff? I guess, if LEO pointing guns at civilians who don't have drawn weapons is an armed standoff. I've read conflicting reports about an officer that was hit with fire extinguisher in the head dying, but then I saw a retraction, but also saw later dated posts that he died. That would actually be the most violent act by any of the protesters that I've found. If there's something else out there, feel free to add it. But I believe I've more than made the point that the headlines, the Tweets, the news coverage, etc that you're hearing certainly doesn't align with the language used to describe what happened this summer.

[jsence2]

People should certainly condemn burning businesses and individuals that turn protests into riots - which everyone should freely admit are not the majority of the protestors out there.

Yesterday you had people forcing their way into the Capitol Building on the day in which Congress confirms the election of the next President when every member of Congress was present. And you had a sitting President condone these actions after he riled them up and egged them on. His supporters then carried Confederate flags into the Capitol Building and also removed an American flag from a flagpole outside to fly a TRUMP flag.

On what level is that not a big deal? Because there seems to be some level of equivocation of these two things when one is completely unprecedented...

This, this, a thousand times this. If you changed "Trump supporters" to "antifa and BLM", oh boy how the tune would change...

Trump when unarmed people protested against racism and police brutality: "When the looting starts, the shooting starts"

Trump when armed protesters storm the Capitol w the VP and the entire Congress inside: "We love you"

[ReignOnU]

People should certainly condemn burning businesses and individuals that turn protests into riots - which everyone should freely admit are not the majority of the protestors out there.

Yesterday you had people forcing their way into the Capitol Building on the day in which Congress confirms the election of the next President when every member of Congress was present. And you had a sitting President condone these actions after he riled them up and egged them on. His supporters then carried Confederate flags into the Capitol Building and also removed an American flag from a flagpole outside to fly a TRUMP flag.

On what level is that not a big deal? Because there seems to be some level of equivocation of these two things when one is completely unprecedented...

I don't think anyone has said that it isn't a big deal. If so, quote it with context. What I've said is that it isn't anything compared to what we saw this summer and the language being used to describe it is every bit as negative and much more. If all of those people rushed in there, burned it down, physically harmed staff, spray painted "Fuck DNC," "Death to Dems" or some other crazy stuff, then I think there's a case to be had. But trying to dress it up as the saddest thing to ever happen in America's history, like many people are, is a joke. They took the vote, in the building, hours after this happened. There was 10x more negative stuff said about this than when Seattle protestors tried to trap officers in a building and burn them alive. I don't care what your reasoning is behind it, nor where it happens... how this was covered and explained vs how other events are covered and explained is just another prime example of how pathetic our media is. The fact that more people seem to be going along with it is honestly kind of scary.

[ReignOnU]

People should certainly condemn burning businesses and individuals that turn protests into riots - which everyone should freely admit are not the majority of the protestors out there.

Yesterday you had people forcing their way into the Capitol Building on the day in which Congress confirms the election of the next President when every member of Congress was present. And you had a sitting President condone these actions after he riled them up and egged them on. His supporters then carried Confederate flags into the Capitol Building and also removed an American flag from a flagpole outside to fly a TRUMP flag.

On what level is that not a big deal? Because there seems to be some level of equivocation of these two things when one is completely unprecedented...

This, this, a thousand times this. If you changed "Trump supporters" to "antifa and BLM", oh boy how the tune would change...

Trump when unarmed people protested against racism and police brutality: "When the looting starts, the shooting starts"

Trump when armed protesters storm the Capitol w the VP and the entire Congress inside: "We love you"

I'll play...

If this was a Trump win and ANTIFA/BLM was "protesting" that vote wouldn't have happened. It would have been burned down and there would have been far more violence.

These next 2 lines are exactly the kind of non-sense writing that drives people away from the media. You're taking the context of looting/shooting way out of line to make it sound like he justified and encouraged it. Then you follow it up with some outlandish crap... you might as well have said "The blood-thristy mob, dressed in tribal war gear, launched a savage attack up on the Capital. With guns drawn, they seized possession of the building, as they stalked their prey through the halls, eager to hunt them down and take their lives." GTFO with that shit.

[jsence2]

Reign, you're dismissing this based on the result being "not very bad".

The President of the United States and his supporters encouraged and incited an armed mob to march to the United States Capitol and force their way inside because he didn't like that he lost the election, and is too much of an egotistical narcissist to accept he lost.

They had guns. They had multiple coolers of molotov cocktails. They had two pipe bombs. They were trying to subvert an election by violent means.

You cannot simply claim that it wasn't a dark day in the history of the United States because they were determined to go back to work that night. We are the beacon of "democracy" around the world and the world saw what happened. And they were shocked by it. If we saw this in another country, we would denounce it, and rightly so.

People protested racism outside the White House and were met with tear gas. These people forced their way into the halls of Congress, holding Confederate flags and carrying illegally possessed firearms (they weren't registered w DC police) and were trying to stop the counting of legal votes... and they were met with selfies and allowed to walk out. They fired gunshots into the Senate chamber.

To pretend this wasn't a horrific act because it wasn't worse than it was is to whitewash one of the darkest days of our democracy. And it's continuing to be stoked by the qanon nut jobs on Parler, evidenced by the further violent actions today in Washington, Arizona, and Michigan.

[jsence2]

People should certainly condemn burning businesses and individuals that turn protests into riots - which everyone should freely admit are not the majority of the protestors out there.

Yesterday you had people forcing their way into the Capitol Building on the day in which Congress confirms the election of the next President when every member of Congress was present. And you had a sitting President condone these actions after he riled them up and egged them on. His supporters then carried Confederate flags into the Capitol Building and also removed an American flag from a flagpole outside to fly a TRUMP flag.

On what level is that not a big deal? Because there seems to be some level of equivocation of these two things when one is completely unprecedented...

This, this, a thousand times this. If you changed "Trump supporters" to "antifa and BLM", oh boy how the tune would change...

Trump when unarmed people protested against racism and police brutality: "When the looting starts, the shooting starts"

Trump when armed protesters storm the Capitol w the VP and the entire Congress inside: "We love you"

I'll play...

If this was a Trump win and ANTIFA/BLM was "protesting" that vote wouldn't have happened. It would have been burned down and there would have been far more violence.

These next 2 lines are exactly the kind of non-sense writing that drives people away from the media. You're taking the context of looting/shooting way out of line to make it sound like he justified and encouraged it. Then you follow it up with some outlandish crap... you might as well have said "The blood-thristy mob, dressed in tribal war gear, launched a savage attack up on the Capital. With guns drawn, they seized possession of the building, as they stalked their prey through the halls, eager to hunt them down and take their lives." GTFO with that shit.

You say that... And then follow it up by saying I'm saying outlandish crap. This is going nowhere, so I will move on.

[ReignOnU]

People should certainly condemn burning businesses and individuals that turn protests into riots - which everyone should freely admit are not the majority of the protestors out there.

Yesterday you had people forcing their way into the Capitol Building on the day in which Congress confirms the election of the next President when every member of Congress was present. And you had a sitting President condone these actions after he riled them up and egged them on. His supporters then carried Confederate flags into the Capitol Building and also removed an American flag from a flagpole outside to fly a TRUMP flag.

On what level is that not a big deal? Because there seems to be some level of equivocation of these two things when one is completely unprecedented...

This, this, a thousand times this. If you changed "Trump supporters" to "antifa and BLM", oh boy how the tune would change...

Trump when unarmed people protested against racism and police brutality: "When the looting starts, the shooting starts"

Trump when armed protesters storm the Capitol w the VP and the entire Congress inside: "We love you"

I'll play...

If this was a Trump win and ANTIFA/BLM was "protesting" that vote wouldn't have happened. It would have been burned down and there would have been far more violence.

These next 2 lines are exactly the kind of non-sense writing that drives people away from the media. You're taking the context of looting/shooting way out of line to make it sound like he justified and encouraged it. Then you follow it up with some outlandish crap... you might as well have said "The blood-thristy mob, dressed in tribal war gear, launched a savage attack up on the Capital. With guns drawn, they seized possession of the building, as they stalked their prey through the halls, eager to hunt them down and take their lives." GTFO with that shit.

You say that... And then follow it up by saying I'm saying outlandish crap. This is going nowhere, so I will move on.

I've got months and multiple burned cities to support my statement. You got... umm... yeah, moving on is the right call here.

[ReignOnU]

Reign, you're dismissing this based on the result being "not very bad".

The President of the United States and his supporters encouraged and incited an armed mob to march to the United States Capitol and force their way inside because he didn't like that he lost the election, and is too much of an egotistical narcissist to accept he lost.

They had guns. They had multiple coolers of molotov cocktails. They had two pipe bombs. They were trying to subvert an election by violent means.

You cannot simply claim that it wasn't a dark day in the history of the United States because they were determined to go back to work that night. We are the beacon of "democracy" around the world and the world saw what happened. And they were shocked by it. If we saw this in another country, we would denounce it, and rightly so.

People protested racism outside the White House and were met with tear gas. These people forced their way into the halls of Congress, holding Confederate flags and carrying illegally possessed firearms (they weren't registered w DC police) and were trying to stop the counting of legal votes... and they were met with selfies and allowed to walk out. They fired gunshots into the Senate chamber.

To pretend this wasn't a horrific act because it wasn't worse than it was is to whitewash one of the darkest days of our democracy. And it's continuing to be stoked by the qanon nut jobs on Parler, evidenced by the further violent actions today in Washington, Arizona, and Michigan.

It's not a dismissal. I haven't once said it was. It's a comparison of coverage between the 2. As for all of these other items you've noted, either I've seen them dismissed (pipe bombs) or there hasn't been confirmation of who/how/for sure. Meanwhile, we watched on TV as live news showed us people barricading officers in a police station and dousing it with gas (or another flammable substance). There was tons of exaggerated reporting yesterday, compared to literal fires behind a set where reporters were telling us it was mostly ok.

[jsence2]

People should certainly condemn burning businesses and individuals that turn protests into riots - which everyone should freely admit are not the majority of the protestors out there.

Yesterday you had people forcing their way into the Capitol Building on the day in which Congress confirms the election of the next President when every member of Congress was present. And you had a sitting President condone these actions after he riled them up and egged them on. His supporters then carried Confederate flags into the Capitol Building and also removed an American flag from a flagpole outside to fly a TRUMP flag.

On what level is that not a big deal? Because there seems to be some level of equivocation of these two things when one is completely unprecedented...

This, this, a thousand times this. If you changed "Trump supporters" to "antifa and BLM", oh boy how the tune would change...

Trump when unarmed people protested against racism and police brutality: "When the looting starts, the shooting starts"

Trump when armed protesters storm the Capitol w the VP and the entire Congress inside: "We love you"

I'll play...

If this was a Trump win and ANTIFA/BLM was "protesting" that vote wouldn't have happened. It would have been burned down and there would have been far more violence.

These next 2 lines are exactly the kind of non-sense writing that drives people away from the media. You're taking the context of looting/shooting way out of line to make it sound like he justified and encouraged it. Then you follow it up with some outlandish crap... you might as well have said "The blood-thristy mob, dressed in tribal war gear, launched a savage attack up on the Capital. With guns drawn, they seized possession of the building, as they stalked their prey through the halls, eager to hunt them down and take their lives." GTFO with that shit.

You say that... And then follow it up by saying I'm saying outlandish crap. This is going nowhere, so I will move on.

I've got months and multiple burned cities to support my statement. You got... umm... yeah, moving on is the right call here.

I've got first hand knowledge and experience of the antagonistic tactics of the police against peaceful protestors which led to violence. I've been attacked with tear gas while peacefully marching down a street. Do you forget where I live?!

I'm moving on because I have no desire to expend the energy to fight with someone who sides with the literal Nazis, fascists, anti-Semites, and qanon fucksticks who stormed our nation's Capitol in an attempt to subvert a democratic election, while telling me how bad "anteefuh" is and decrying someone stealing some stuff from Target. Have a good night.

[cougnix]

Anyone that compares the the protests of yesterday to the protests of the summer and tries to downplay yesterday in comparison obviously shows the proof of white privilege . Protests against racial injustice that is met with force and a president that calls them "thugs" is not the same as protests about false claims of voter fraud that is met with little resistance and is condoned by that same president shows the white privilege.

But I am positive that it's the news media that is skewing all the events of yesterday.

[jsence2]

Anyone that compares the the protests of yesterday to the protests of the summer and tries to downplay yesterday in comparison obviously shows the proof of white privilege . Protests against racial injustice that is met with force and a president that calls them "thugs" is not the same as protests about false claims of voter fraud that is met with little resistance and is condoned by that same president shows the white privilege.

But I am positive that it's the news media that is skewing all the events of yesterday.

Coug, didn't you hear? It was actually Antifa in Pelosi's office yesterday, pretending to be Trump supporters! It's all over Fox News and Parler!

When the investigations are done, it will be proven that Trump and his administration prevented the proper security being in place yesterday. The governor of Maryland all but rated him out today in his press conference, and Gen Honore (former member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) said tonight, in comments he admitted could lead to him being court martialed, that there was 100% complicity from the Capitol police and the Trump administration in allowing it to happen.

We all know how those "protestors" would have been greeted had it been a BLM protest and not a bunch of white Trump supporters.

[GeorgesGoons]

I'm moving on because I have no desire to expend the energy to fight with someone who sides with the literal Nazis, fascists, anti-Semites, and qanon fucksticks who stormed our nation's

And there it is, the right are racist, nazis, anti-semites and fascists. Didn't take long.

Nobody here has sides with anyone that did that crap at the capital. The narrative is the problem from the media. You said they had pipe bomb, molotov cocktails, guns....show me where this has been reported. I honestly have not seen this.

[jsence2]

I'm moving on because I have no desire to expend the energy to fight with someone who sides with the literal Nazis, fascists, anti-Semites, and qanon fucksticks who stormed our nation's

And there it is, the right are racist, nazis, anti-semites and fascists. Didn't take long.

Nobody here has sides with anyone that did that crap at the capital. The narrative is the problem from the media. You said they had pipe bomb, molotov cocktails, guns....show me where this has been reported. I honestly have not seen this.

There were people there from the Proud Boys, who are literally fucking fascists. Baked Alaska was in Pelosi's office, and he is literally a Nazi.

One guy had a hoodie that said "Camp Auschwitz" on the front, and "Staff" on the back.

I mean... You could see how I might call them Nazis.

(btw, I never said "the right" in what I said. I was talking about the people who stormed the Capitol.)

And those items were reported by the mouth of the DC chief of police.

[GeorgesGoons]

Anyone that compares the the protests of yesterday to the protests of the summer and tries to downplay yesterday in comparison obviously shows the proof of white privilege . Protests against racial injustice that is met with force and a president that calls them "thugs" is not the same as protests about false claims of voter fraud that is met with little resistance and is condoned by that same president shows the white privilege.

But I am positive that it's the news media that is skewing all the events of yesterday.

They are both thugs for committing crimes. Has nothing to do with white privilege, which is a great cop out for anyone on the left.

[GeorgesGoons]

I'm moving on because I have no desire to expend the energy to fight with someone who sides with the literal Nazis, fascists, anti-Semites, and qanon fucksticks who stormed our nation's

And there it is, the right are racist, nazis, anti-semites and fascists. Didn't take long.

Nobody here has sides with anyone that did that crap at the capital. The narrative is the problem from the media. You said they had pipe bomb, molotov cocktails, guns....show me where this has been reported. I honestly have not seen this.

There were people there from the Proud Boys, who are literally fucking fascists. Baked Alaska was in Pelosi's office, and he is literally a Nazi.

One guy had a hoodie that said "Camp Auschwitz" on the front, and "Staff" on the back.

I mean... You could see how I might call them Nazis.

(btw, I never said "the right" in what I said. I was talking about the people who stormed the Capitol.)

And those items were reported by the mouth of the DC chief of police.

Glad you didn't say the Proud Boys are racist....being one of the leaders is black. At least you have that on your side compared to the rest of the media. As far as Alaska, I have no clue what the hell you are talking about.

Guy with a nazi hoodie, can we lump him in with the same group of people that want cops dead?

And you said, "I have no desire to expend the energy to fight with someone who sides with the literal Nazis, fascists, anti-Semites, and qanon fucksticks who stormed our nation's capital." Reign and I have only spoken about the hypocrisy of the outcry here but not the same outcry for what happened during the summer by the media. Both instances were done by criminals and should be locked up. But here in Omaha, all the crime that took place during the riots, breaking into buildings and destruction of property, will not be brought up on charges the DA said. Could you imagine the outcry if the AG said they won't press charges for people that stormed (not looted or burned down) the capital. That is the hypocrisy that I am talking about. The left wants it one way for them but want it completely different when its on the other side, in the name of white privilege and social justice