Who and What are the 'OATH KEEPERS'?

The rioters aren't charged with insurrection
They will never be charged with insurrection no matter how many definitions you conjure up.
They didn't get charged with insurrection because it would be impossible to convict as I am sure the DOJ has much more experience in this than you do.
You were sold on a fake media claim that will never come true.

 

Which doesn't negate the fact that they attempted an insurrection no matter how much you want it to

 

The semantics are irrelevant at this point

Fewer and fewer people are defending this - case in point - have you not noticed how many fewer right wing me members we have on here lately and of those how many are backing your stance?

 

Did you notice every time you try and conjure up the insurrection claim, then someone explains how it will never happen, posters like yourself try and claim they are defending the rioters?
Just stop. It has nothing to do with defending anyone and I haven't seen a single poster defending the rioters. And neither have you.
Its not an insurrection.
Sorry, Your media hype isn't going to change the charges.

 

That is not what I said

I said essentially that you are looking pretty lonely on this thread

 

If they can't find one person out of 780 that can be charged with attempted insurrection when 100% of the evidence is actually recorded on video from 100 plus cameras, yeah, it negates the fact.

 

Really, how many conservatives on this site have claimed it was an insurrection?
How about none.

 

Nobody has defended the riots at the Capital on any thread.
I have no idea what political site your are reading but it isn't on PF.

 

Nope still doesn't.

 

Haven’t they? Over and over I am reading where it was “unjustified” to shoot someone flagrantly in the act of breaking and entering, how they were welcomed by the police, how they should not be charged etc etc etc. in fact there are two posters on the thread about Trump being called as a witness who are complaining that the defendant should not be charged because “it was only a coat rack”

But they are still not arguing WITH you on this thread lols!

 

No they haven't. Arguing against the lefts conspiracies isn't defending the rioters

Why would they argue with me when they agree with me.

 

If you choose pretend land over common sense and actual events, who am I to burst your bubble.

 

So we are not hearing from the sham committee about the testimony of the protester/rioters/insurrectionist or whatever your "word for the day is".......Why

 

Is there even a charge actually called "insurrection"? I don't think there is. The closest I can think of is seditious conspiracy, which is what they are charging now.

 

Seditious conspiracy is for planning the attack on the Capital.

 

So what do you think the big difference is between sedition and insurrection is? My thesaurus says they are synonyms. And where's the statute for insurrection specifically?

 

If you think insurrection and sedition are synonyms, that would mean the individuals trying to beat down the doors at the SCOTUS to stop Kavanaugh's confirmation are insurrectionist.

The individuals who attacked the WH with rocks, frozen water bottles and explosives forcing the president to be sent to the bunker while burning down the church across the street are insurrectionist

The rioters in DC trying to stop the inauguration are insurrectionist

The rioters burning federal courthouses are all insurrectionist

The rioters who took over the city of Seattle and destroyed the police station are insurrectionist.

You sure this is the path you want to go down?

 

Those people were charged with seditious conspiracy?

Your original claim involved charges. You said that, since there were no charges of insurrection, it wasn't an insurrection and that claims of insurrection were just a leftist conspiracy theory. Now you are shifting the goalposts. But I'm personally happy to call of those other people insurrectionists as well. They were in the very least violent rioting thugs. I'd go easier on the people who just tried to come in and wave signs, but when it comes to actual, physical attacks and threats, that's a different story.

 

Why would you want to water down the charge of insurrection?
Just to label the rioters at the Capital?
Insurrection has always been an attempt to take control of the government and install your own leaders by force. Just like the Taliban did in Kabul.
Now we are going to move that goal post to anyone who riots against US authority?
Then what are you going to call a military force who takes over the US government. Do we now need a new name for it because its important to use the name we have to label the Capital rioters?

Moving the insurrection goal post will have a disastrous effect against the left given the historical record of the last 4 years. How bad do you want this?

 

Nope.

 

Oh, So you want to apply different definitions depending on your feelings
Got it

 

I don't even know that "insurrection" IS an actual charge, as I've repeatedly said.

Capitol. And I've explicitly said I'm fine with applying the same label to others.

That was not, and has never been, the definition that I've used.

Well, a violent mob DID try riot to try to pressure Congress to install an unelected President. And aside from the violent mob, there were other attempts to do the same. I take those seriously. You expect me to feel bad about that?

 

The problem of watering down definitions to fit a political point, is they ALWAYS come back to bite you.

I have no problem in extended prison terms for those rioters to make examples of them. But if you don't want to see more of it, I would suggest we allow law enforcement to do their jobs and defend against deadly force with deadly force.
Attack law enforcement with rocks, batons and explosives = Deadly force response
Break into the Capital or any other Federal building = Deadly force response
Cross the lawn running for the WH = Deadly force response
Attacking Americans and their businesses with fire bombs = Deadly force response
Gang up on civilians to take them down = Deadly force response

I'm easy to please and you won't hear me crying about Babbitt. As far as I am concerned, she was stupid.

You want to see things turned around, we have to take the gloves off. These entitled idiots have to learn the hard way.

 

Okay. Cool. And? How is that going to come back to bite me?

 

You didn't think this was going to be the last riot response politically, did you?
You want everyone to fall on their swords and label a bunch of idiots fighting with Capital police insurrectionist?
That means you have to provide that definition. Right?

Heres the first one that comes to mind used over and over.
a violent uprising against an authority or government.
And you can now find it as the top return for any Google search

So given the history of violent uprisings against police and federal buildings in just the summer of 2020, you can't think of any other applications?
You going to try and compare a two hour riot against Capital Police to a nine day siege of the city of Seattle burning down their police department?
Ones and insurrection and the other is a riot?
This is where we are going now?