I think you are assuming the Republican Politicals are adept with weapons. The people will follow a leader with good plans. Well I would hope they would. Owning the other side does take less effort……
Advertisement
by The Black Forrest » Fri May 07, 2021 10:03 am
by Zurkerx » Fri May 07, 2021 10:49 am
by Kedri » Fri May 07, 2021 10:57 am
The Black Forrest wrote:Helidan wrote:Great. A shitty holiday dedicated to a shitty person. If they propose a Trump day when he kicks the bucket, I am going to lose it.
Make sure you have a couple buckets planned. You know it will happen. Far too many cultists out there. Even my relatives will tell you he was the best President ever! Can’t explain what he did to be great and yet he was……
by Borderlands of Rojava » Fri May 07, 2021 12:21 pm
Political Geography wrote:The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Semi related note:
Listening to "In the name of god" by Sabaton, reading YouTube comments.
Someone said that they think that the Jan 6th Terrorist attack was done by ""leftists"".
God they still fall for that lie.
I'm so tired of all this shit.
Well then you can probably understand how tired *I* am of hearing rightists called ""terrorists""
They didn't terrify me. Did they terrify you? Do you think staff and Congresspeople are more easily terrorized than shop owners or police? Do you think rightist "terrorists" deserve harsher treatment than leftist "rioters"? And if so, why?
by Farnhamia » Fri May 07, 2021 12:42 pm
Borderlands of Rojava wrote:Political Geography wrote:
Well then you can probably understand how tired *I* am of hearing rightists called ""terrorists""
They didn't terrify me. Did they terrify you? Do you think staff and Congresspeople are more easily terrorized than shop owners or police? Do you think rightist "terrorists" deserve harsher treatment than leftist "rioters"? And if so, why?
Considering that you're angry about rightists being called terrorists, I will guess you are right wing. Therefore of course you weren't scared because it wasn't you who would have been sent to the firing squad if the fever dream of those insurrectionists came true. It would be many of us. You've consistently downplayed what happened on January 6th and yet we all saw the footage. We saw an angry mob storm the capitol with zip ties and a gallows outside looking for senators. I'm sorry the rightists in the capitol made themselves look like terrorists by, you know, being terrorists.
by Atheris » Fri May 07, 2021 12:48 pm
Farnhamia wrote:Borderlands of Rojava wrote:
Considering that you're angry about rightists being called terrorists, I will guess you are right wing. Therefore of course you weren't scared because it wasn't you who would have been sent to the firing squad if the fever dream of those insurrectionists came true. It would be many of us. You've consistently downplayed what happened on January 6th and yet we all saw the footage. We saw an angry mob storm the capitol with zip ties and a gallows outside looking for senators. I'm sorry the rightists in the capitol made themselves look like terrorists by, you know, being terrorists.
Maybe January 6th was Act Like A Terrorist Day, you don't know. I heard those folks were happy, jolly patriots who totally wanted to shout encouragement to their elected representatives while the certification of the election was happening. They were all smiles while they were roaming around picking up souvenirs and posting selfies on the internet.
by Senkaku » Fri May 07, 2021 12:57 pm
Political Geography wrote:
I do recognize intimidation as a crime.
Political Geography wrote:The Black Forrest wrote:
Angry words do not get a pass when it’s threats of violence against a person while fighting police and entering a building where that person was located. The Secret Service also takes such threats rather serious.
So seriously that they shot someone. When that proved sufficient to stop the others breaking down a door, they stopped.
That the Secret Service were present, along with police, and only found it necessary to shoot and kill ONE person, really demonstrates how little risk there actually was to Congress people.
Political Geography wrote:The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Semi related note:
Listening to "In the name of god" by Sabaton, reading YouTube comments.
Someone said that they think that the Jan 6th Terrorist attack was done by ""leftists"".
God they still fall for that lie.
I'm so tired of all this shit.
Well then you can probably understand how tired *I* am of hearing rightists called ""terrorists""
They didn't terrify me. Did they terrify you?
Do you think staff and Congresspeople are more easily terrorized than shop owners or police?
Do you think rightist "terrorists" deserve harsher treatment than leftist "rioters"? And if so, why?
by Atheris » Fri May 07, 2021 1:03 pm
Political Geography wrote:The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Semi related note:
Listening to "In the name of god" by Sabaton, reading YouTube comments.
Someone said that they think that the Jan 6th Terrorist attack was done by ""leftists"".
God they still fall for that lie.
I'm so tired of all this shit.
Well then you can probably understand how tired *I* am of hearing rightists called ""terrorists""
They didn't terrify me. Did they terrify you?
Do you think staff and Congresspeople are more easily terrorized than shop owners or police?
Do you think rightist "terrorists" deserve harsher treatment than leftist "rioters"? And if so, why?
by Kowani » Fri May 07, 2021 1:03 pm
by Exalted Inquellian State » Fri May 07, 2021 2:15 pm
Borderlands of Rojava wrote:Political Geography wrote:
Well then you can probably understand how tired *I* am of hearing rightists called ""terrorists""
They didn't terrify me. Did they terrify you? Do you think staff and Congresspeople are more easily terrorized than shop owners or police? Do you think rightist "terrorists" deserve harsher treatment than leftist "rioters"? And if so, why?
Considering that you're angry about rightists being called terrorists, I will guess you are right wing. Therefore of course you weren't scared because it wasn't you who would have been sent to the firing squad if the fever dream of those insurrectionists came true. It would be many of us. You've consistently downplayed what happened on January 6th and yet we all saw the footage. We saw an angry mob storm the capitol with zip ties and a gallows outside looking for senators. I'm sorry the rightists in the capitol made themselves look like terrorists by, you know, being terrorists.
by Vassenor » Fri May 07, 2021 2:30 pm
Political Geography wrote:The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Semi related note:
Listening to "In the name of god" by Sabaton, reading YouTube comments.
Someone said that they think that the Jan 6th Terrorist attack was done by ""leftists"".
God they still fall for that lie.
I'm so tired of all this shit.
Well then you can probably understand how tired *I* am of hearing rightists called ""terrorists""
They didn't terrify me. Did they terrify you? Do you think staff and Congresspeople are more easily terrorized than shop owners or police? Do you think rightist "terrorists" deserve harsher treatment than leftist "rioters"? And if so, why?
by Kowani » Fri May 07, 2021 2:34 pm
Rep. Elise Stefanik is only looking to serve one term in GOP leadership.
The New York Republican is telling her GOP colleagues that she only intends to finish out the rest of this current term as conference chair if she is ultimately elevated to the No. 3 leadership position, according to multiple Republican lawmakers familiar with the conversation.
Then, in the new Congress, she intends to seek the top job on the House Education and Labor Committee, those sources said.
Stefaik’s pledge to limit her time in GOP leadership is just one of several assurances she is making to other House Republicans as she works quickly to lock down support for her leadership bid. While she is widely expected to clinch the post after embattled Conference Chair Liz Cheney likely gets the boot next week, some lawmakers on the far-right have grumbled about her voting scorecard. Other members of the conference have complained they feel boxed in by House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), who is whipping members hard to support Stefanik.
While other GOP members expressed interest in the position, so far none have formally stepped into the race to challenge Stefanik.
Stefanik, a moderate turned Trump ally, is also vowing to toe the party line and not buck leadership whenever they are whipping for or against something — a promise intended to assuage colleagues that she will not rock the boat like Cheney. The current No. 3 not only voted to impeach Donald Trump but also bucked the party a handful of other times on certain votes.
Her pledge of a limited time in leadership comes as some conservative House members have voiced concern about her more moderate record. On Wednesday, members of the House Freedom Caucus aired their grievances on a phone call. Those gripes include that she has a conservative scorecard of less than 50 percent and that McCarthy and others have quickly moved to install her into the position, giving the ultra-conservative caucus no room to express their preferences of who should lead GOP messaging ahead of 2022, POLITICO first reported. Stefanik is also expected to speak before the HFC on Monday as part of her effort to reach out to members who are hesitant -- if not outright opposed -- to her rise to the leadership post, according to sources.
But with Stefanik only vowing to fill out the rest of this term in leadership, it could assuage not only the conservative hard-liners, but other members who have complained about how speedy the Cheney replacement process has been. Several other Republicans have expressed interest in the conference chair position at some point, including Rep. Jim Banks (R-Ind.), chairman of the Republican Study Committee, and Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), the vice conference chair.
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.), who is currently expected to introduce the resolution to oust Cheney from leadership, is term-limited out as the top Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee, clearing the way for Stefanik to run for the top panel post next Congress. Stefanik is also a member of the high-profile House Intelligence Committee, where she propelled herself to GOP stardom during Trump’s first impeachment.
House Republicans will gather next Wednesday at 9 a.m. for their weekly conference meeting, where the vote on Cheney is expected to come up. A separate vote on her replacement would then need to take place, though the timing on that vote is still to be determined.
by Galloism » Fri May 07, 2021 2:38 pm
Gravlen wrote:When a defense attorney for fellow alleged rioter Anthony Antonio said his client had “Fox-itus” and “Fox-mania” after watching Fox News for months under lockdown while recently unemployed — and that he began to believe the programming spread by Fox News and Trump — Copeland took great offense and let all of the participants know it.
“I would like to object!” Copeland screamed. “That’s not pertinent!”
Not guilty by reason ofinsanitywatching too much Fox News
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Fri May 07, 2021 2:46 pm
Gravlen wrote:When a defense attorney for fellow alleged rioter Anthony Antonio said his client had “Fox-itus” and “Fox-mania” after watching Fox News for months under lockdown while recently unemployed — and that he began to believe the programming spread by Fox News and Trump — Copeland took great offense and let all of the participants know it.
“I would like to object!” Copeland screamed. “That’s not pertinent!”
Not guilty by reason ofinsanitywatching too much Fox News
by Kowani » Fri May 07, 2021 2:57 pm
Nevada, a state where district attorneys are fond of death sentences, is close to repealing capital punishment. When the Assembly passed a bill to abolish the death penalty in April, the chamber’s Democrats, who hold the majority, all voted in its favor, sending it to the Democrat-controlled Senate.
But a pair of Democratic senators, both of whom work as prosecutors when the legislature is not in session, may derail the effort. Nicole Cannizzaro is the Senate majority leader and has not committed to bringing forward the legislation, Assembly Bill 395. Melanie Scheible leads the Judiciary Committee, which has yet to hold a hearing or vote on the bill. The clock is ticking; the bill would need to pass the committee by next week, and the entire legislative session is winding down at the end of May.
Cannizzaro and Scheible are deputy district attorneys in the office of Clark County (Las Vegas) DA Steve Wolfson. Wolfson is a staunch foe of death penalty abolition who has sought death sentences in dozens of cases over his tenure, testified against AB 395, and is trying to schedule an execution just as this debate is coming to a head in the state Capitol.
“There’s an apparent conflict of interest, where the people that are making laws are enforcing laws,” Scott Coffee, a longtime public defender in Clark County who has worked on many capital cases, told The Appeal: Political Report. “Walking into that office after repealing the death penalty would be kind of like walking into the Red Sox dugout after trading Babe Ruth.” Neither Cannizzaro nor Scheible responded to requests for comment for this article.
The Nevada Association of District Attorneys, the state’s prosecutorial lobby, has been urging lawmakers to reject AB 395. Its president, Elko County DA Tyler Ingram, testified against abolishing the death penalty in the Assembly. “Throughout Nevada, prosecutors make the decision to seek the death penalty sparingly and judiciously,” Ingram told the Assembly. “It is reserved for the worst of the worst.”
But Nevada prosecutors have pursued the death penalty so frequently that they have helped make their state an outlier even by national standards.
Nevada has about 70 people on death row. Relative to the state’s population, that is the second-highest number in the country, behind Alabama. The numbers are “completely out of whack with the rest of the country and the rest of the free world, to be quite honest,” said Coffee, who blames a “culture” where DAs seek death sentences “in volume because it’s always been sought in volume.”
And state prosecutors have filed notices seeking death sentences in dozens of additional cases—but have either failed to secure them or else dropped their quest. Critics say prosecutors use these notices to gain leverage in plea negotiations.
The Nevada District Attorneys Association, contacted through its president and through two registered lobbyists, did not respond to requests for comment.
For Assemblymember Steve Yeager a Democrat who is a chief sponsor of AB 395, the death penalty gives prosecutors an alarming degree of discretion over someone’s life.
Yeager worked as a public defender in Clark County for eight years, going up against the county’s prosecutors. He says he already opposed the death penalty before that experience, but his resolve hardened when he witnessed the “unjustifiable differences” in how prosecutors handled similar cases. A disproportionate share of the people on Nevada’s death row are Black, and Yeager says last summer’s protests for racial justice have helped push this bill further than similar measures have gone in the past.
AB 395, as currently drafted, would commute the sentences of people on Nevada’s death row to life without the possibility of parole—in addition to barring future death sentences.
Nevada has not executed anyone since 2006, in part due to its difficulties obtaining execution drugs from manufacturers. But abolition advocates point to the resurgence of federal executions under President Donald Trump to warn that a pause could end at any moment.
Wolfson, the Clark County DA, is looking to break Nevada’s stretch by trying to schedule an execution for Zane Michael Floyd, who was sentenced to death in 2000 for the murders of four people. There is a hearing scheduled in state court for next week, shortly before the deadline by which the Judiciary Committee must act on AB 395, though a federal judge said on Thursday that he may intervene to block the proceedings.
Holly Welborn, policy director at the ACLU of Nevada and a member of the Nevada Coalition Against the Death Penalty, says the DAs’ involvement in the death penalty debate this year mirrors how they’ve torpedoed past criminal justice reform proposals. She regrets that lawmakers let them have such sway in legislative proceedings.
“It’s almost like they have a veto, that everything has to be signed off by the DAs, by some law enforcement entity,” Welborn said. Referencing a 2019 omnibus reform bill that several DAs opposed that was weakened before its final passage, she added, “It seems that every change in a bill is at the request of law enforcement, who then still show up and oppose these measures.”
This dynamic has played out before, in ways strikingly similar to the current debate on the death penalty.
In 2019, the Assembly overwhelmingly passed legislation to limit civil asset forfeiture. Advocates who supported the bill called on Cannizzaro to allow a Senate vote on the bill, much like they are doing now with AB 395. But the bill never received a vote in the Senate.
The Nevada District Attorneys Association testified against that asset forfeiture bill in the Senate’s Judiciary Committee. This year, when lawmakers introduced a watered down version that also has yet to get a vote, the association testified against it again. The group has also been resisting a bill that would toughen use-of-force standards for police. [...] Even if the Senate were to pass AB 395, though, Democratic Governor Steve Sisolak has tentatively indicated he may block the legislation. He said he would have a “hard time” supporting a bill that fully abolishes the death penalty.
by Kowani » Fri May 07, 2021 4:22 pm
As we forecast nearly three months ago, a bill introduced in the Nevada Legislature setting up an early presidential primary has now been amended to directly take on New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation status.
When introduced in February by Nevada Assembly Speaker James Frierson with the support of former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the bill's language was at odds with the message of its sponsor. The bill confusingly talked about holding the first primary in the West – not the nation – in late January of presidential election years. When we reported this apparently incongruity between the stated intent of the bill and the language of the bill, a Nevada source close to the legislative process told us the bill would be amended to place Nevada first in the nation.
And that’s now occurred.
On April 8, a committee of the Nevada Assembly voted to amend the bill to say: “… (A) presidential preference primary election must be held for all major political parties on the first Tuesday in February of each presidential election year.”
The Assembly Legislative Operations and Elections Committee then recommended that the full Assembly pass the bill. It’s unclear when the Assembly will vote – we’ve received no response to our inquiries to the Assembly staff.
The committee vote was 7-4, strictly along party lines. All seven yes votes were cast by Democrats, and the four members of the Republican minority voted no.
Nevada Republican National Committeeman Jim DeGraffenreid reminded the committee a public hearing that the bill could a violate Republican National Committee rule that allows Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina to hold their caucuses or primaries up to a month before March 1, but no sooner.
But he noted that it would definitely violate the more specific rule of the Democratic National Committee, which says that Nevada cannot hold nominating contest primary earlier than 10 days before the first Tuesday in March.
Nevada GOP Chair Michael McDonald submitted written testimony opposing the bill, stating, “First in the West is a title we have been proud to wear, and we believe it should continue. Nevada is a battle born -- and battleground -- state. Trying to play chicken with primary dates is not a battle we will win.”
Nevada, by the way, would change its presidential nominating election from a caucus to a primary under the bill. That change was also debated along partisan lines, with Republicans noting that instead of party-funded caucuses, there would instead be a taxpayer-funded primary, which would cost an estimated $5 million.
New Hampshire state law requires the Secretary of State to schedule the leadoff primary seven days ahead of any “similar election.”
If Nevada’s bill becomes law, as it is expected to do, Secretary Bill Gardner would be required to schedule the New Hampshire primary a week ahead of Nevada’s primary, which would place New Hampshire in violation of the rules of both national political parties.
The Granite State would be subject to sanctions from the DNC and possibly, although less likely, the RNC, if Gardner jumped the primary into late January. The state parties’ national convention delegations could be stripped of a percentage of their members.
But that’s occurred in the past – see 2008 and 2012 – and it did not affect the amount of nationwide and worldwide attention New Hampshire drew.
Party rules can be changed, however, and that’s what Nevada Assembly Speaker Frierson is counting on to clear the way for his state to hold its primary the first Tuesday in February. “To be crystal clear, the purpose of this bill is to set Nevada up to be the first presidential nominating state in the nation, not just in the West,” he said during the April hearing.
Unlike New Hampshire, in which the law allows Gardner to set the date at his discretion to stay seven days ahead of other states, the Nevada bill has a set date for its new primary.
When a Republican lawmaker asked Frierson what he plans to do when New Hampshire schedules its primary ahead of Nevada, he said: “We are certainly not able to have a moving scale the way some states do and so our job is to make our case – not just to the RNC and the DNC but also to those other states that we are a better reflection” of the diversity of the nation.
New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Raymond Buckley is well aware of the Nevada law but declined to stir the pot with a comment on Frierson’s statements.
The DNC Rules Committee will, as always, be a major player in the makeup of the 2024 calendar, but the committee is not expected to be named until late summer and is not expected to issue its recommended calendar to the full DNC until next year, with a final DNC decision to come at its August 2022 meeting.
Frierson made his case based on the familiar diversity issue.
“Our diverse population better represents that of the rest of the country, yet our state is small enough for more of our voices to be heard by those vying for the highest elected office in the land,” said Frierson, whose spokesperson did not respond to our request for an interview with the Speaker.
“Our voices are diverse and better reflect the rest of the country than the current nominating structure,” he said. “It's time for Nevada to take its rightful place, not just first in the West, but first in the nation,” he said.
He indicated that he also hopes to neuter New Hampshire’s primary by convincing candidates to campaign in Nevada, rather than the Granite State.
“And I also think that what is important is that we make our case to candidates,” he said. “I think that it would behoove candidates to pitch their positions and make their case before a state’s population that reflects largely what the country looks like.”
by Farnhamia » Fri May 07, 2021 4:30 pm
Kowani wrote:Nevada bill to establish a presidential primary has been amended to provide that the Nevada presidential primary would be the earliest primary in the nationAs we forecast nearly three months ago, a bill introduced in the Nevada Legislature setting up an early presidential primary has now been amended to directly take on New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation status.
When introduced in February by Nevada Assembly Speaker James Frierson with the support of former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the bill's language was at odds with the message of its sponsor. The bill confusingly talked about holding the first primary in the West – not the nation – in late January of presidential election years. When we reported this apparently incongruity between the stated intent of the bill and the language of the bill, a Nevada source close to the legislative process told us the bill would be amended to place Nevada first in the nation.
And that’s now occurred.
On April 8, a committee of the Nevada Assembly voted to amend the bill to say: “… (A) presidential preference primary election must be held for all major political parties on the first Tuesday in February of each presidential election year.”
The Assembly Legislative Operations and Elections Committee then recommended that the full Assembly pass the bill. It’s unclear when the Assembly will vote – we’ve received no response to our inquiries to the Assembly staff.
The committee vote was 7-4, strictly along party lines. All seven yes votes were cast by Democrats, and the four members of the Republican minority voted no.
Nevada Republican National Committeeman Jim DeGraffenreid reminded the committee a public hearing that the bill could a violate Republican National Committee rule that allows Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina to hold their caucuses or primaries up to a month before March 1, but no sooner.
But he noted that it would definitely violate the more specific rule of the Democratic National Committee, which says that Nevada cannot hold nominating contest primary earlier than 10 days before the first Tuesday in March.
Nevada GOP Chair Michael McDonald submitted written testimony opposing the bill, stating, “First in the West is a title we have been proud to wear, and we believe it should continue. Nevada is a battle born -- and battleground -- state. Trying to play chicken with primary dates is not a battle we will win.”
Nevada, by the way, would change its presidential nominating election from a caucus to a primary under the bill. That change was also debated along partisan lines, with Republicans noting that instead of party-funded caucuses, there would instead be a taxpayer-funded primary, which would cost an estimated $5 million.
New Hampshire state law requires the Secretary of State to schedule the leadoff primary seven days ahead of any “similar election.”
If Nevada’s bill becomes law, as it is expected to do, Secretary Bill Gardner would be required to schedule the New Hampshire primary a week ahead of Nevada’s primary, which would place New Hampshire in violation of the rules of both national political parties.
The Granite State would be subject to sanctions from the DNC and possibly, although less likely, the RNC, if Gardner jumped the primary into late January. The state parties’ national convention delegations could be stripped of a percentage of their members.
But that’s occurred in the past – see 2008 and 2012 – and it did not affect the amount of nationwide and worldwide attention New Hampshire drew.
Party rules can be changed, however, and that’s what Nevada Assembly Speaker Frierson is counting on to clear the way for his state to hold its primary the first Tuesday in February. “To be crystal clear, the purpose of this bill is to set Nevada up to be the first presidential nominating state in the nation, not just in the West,” he said during the April hearing.
Unlike New Hampshire, in which the law allows Gardner to set the date at his discretion to stay seven days ahead of other states, the Nevada bill has a set date for its new primary.
When a Republican lawmaker asked Frierson what he plans to do when New Hampshire schedules its primary ahead of Nevada, he said: “We are certainly not able to have a moving scale the way some states do and so our job is to make our case – not just to the RNC and the DNC but also to those other states that we are a better reflection” of the diversity of the nation.
New Hampshire Democratic Party Chair Raymond Buckley is well aware of the Nevada law but declined to stir the pot with a comment on Frierson’s statements.
The DNC Rules Committee will, as always, be a major player in the makeup of the 2024 calendar, but the committee is not expected to be named until late summer and is not expected to issue its recommended calendar to the full DNC until next year, with a final DNC decision to come at its August 2022 meeting.
Frierson made his case based on the familiar diversity issue.
“Our diverse population better represents that of the rest of the country, yet our state is small enough for more of our voices to be heard by those vying for the highest elected office in the land,” said Frierson, whose spokesperson did not respond to our request for an interview with the Speaker.
“Our voices are diverse and better reflect the rest of the country than the current nominating structure,” he said. “It's time for Nevada to take its rightful place, not just first in the West, but first in the nation,” he said.
He indicated that he also hopes to neuter New Hampshire’s primary by convincing candidates to campaign in Nevada, rather than the Granite State.
“And I also think that what is important is that we make our case to candidates,” he said. “I think that it would behoove candidates to pitch their positions and make their case before a state’s population that reflects largely what the country looks like.”
by North Washington Republic » Fri May 07, 2021 4:30 pm
by San Lumen » Fri May 07, 2021 4:44 pm
by Borderlands of Rojava » Fri May 07, 2021 5:35 pm
Exalted Inquellian State wrote:Borderlands of Rojava wrote:
Considering that you're angry about rightists being called terrorists, I will guess you are right wing. Therefore of course you weren't scared because it wasn't you who would have been sent to the firing squad if the fever dream of those insurrectionists came true. It would be many of us. You've consistently downplayed what happened on January 6th and yet we all saw the footage. We saw an angry mob storm the capitol with zip ties and a gallows outside looking for senators. I'm sorry the rightists in the capitol made themselves look like terrorists by, you know, being terrorists.
Look in their sig, he's left wing.
by The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp » Fri May 07, 2021 7:13 pm
Political Geography wrote:The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:500 (alleged) terrorists have been arrested by the FBI. More to come.
Still weaselling the word "terrorist" I see.
Unless the FBI has alleged that they're terrorists, saying "alleged terrorists" is just a lie. You putting the label you prefer on them can't be given authority by the word "alleged".
The moon is allegedly made of cheese. Alleged by NASA? No? Then no, it's not allegedly made of cheese.
by North Washington Republic » Fri May 07, 2021 7:25 pm
The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Political Geography wrote:
Still weaselling the word "terrorist" I see.
Unless the FBI has alleged that they're terrorists, saying "alleged terrorists" is just a lie. You putting the label you prefer on them can't be given authority by the word "alleged".
The moon is allegedly made of cheese. Alleged by NASA? No? Then no, it's not allegedly made of cheese.
I know im late but doing some reading turns out the FBI did infact classify this as terrorism.
by San Lumen » Fri May 07, 2021 8:16 pm
by San Lumen » Fri May 07, 2021 8:20 pm
Users browsing this forum: Bronzite, DeMoNiC sAtAn, Emotional Support Crocodile, GMS Greater Miami Shores 1, HISPIDA, Ineva, Jennismonaf, Landbang Rkipo Islands, San Lumen, The Archregimancy, The Two Jerseys