Politics Project 2025/Agenda 47/Behind the Curtain: Trump allies pre-screen loyalists for unprecedented power

[jonnyboy]

You're the one who should get your facts straight. USCP Officer Brian Sicknick “passed away due to injuries sustained while on-duty.” Yes, he died of strokes after the event, but the Medical Examiner told the Washington Post that while Sicknick died of natural causes, “all that transpired played a role in his condition.”

So I’m right.

 

[e_blazer]

So I’m right.

No, you're not. When actions lead to an unnecessary death, those who instigated those actions still bear responsibility. There are a lot of drunk drivers in prison for killing accident victims who died from injuries sustained in the wreck.

 

[PtldPlatypus]

It was a boring political quote

Sure, I'm the one who sounds ridiculous.

 

[jonnyboy]

EDIT: And you totally ignored the second part of my post. What do you suppose the right would have done if leftists had done the exact same thing as the right did on Jan. 6th? We don't have to imagine too hard. Fox still makes political hay with the riots in Portland and the occupation of the courthouse.

There are a lot of drunk drivers in prison for killing accident victims who died from injuries sustained in the wreck.

Your hypotheticals don’t mean anything and aren’t rooted in any sort of reality. Screaming “what if (blank) happened!” is just a way for you to avoid addressing reality.

Are you suggesting that if something different happened, it would be a different thing that happened? Riveting.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

When did it stop being it was really Antifa dressed as MAGAs that stormed the Capitol?

 

[jonnyboy]

Same tactics as with covid too. “The science has changed.” Well that’s convenient.

“Yes, but what if the mortality rate would’ve been 5%, 20%, or even 50%!!??”

Um, it wasn’t. So piss off?

 

[e_blazer]

Your hypotheticals don’t mean anything and aren’t rooted in any sort of reality. Screaming “what if (blank) happened!” is just a way for you to avoid addressing reality.

Are you suggesting that if something different happened, it would be a different thing that happened? Riveting.

A. I haven't screamed at you. I've been very direct in answering your questions and asking my own. You're the one who always plays the panicky lefty card.

B. A hypothetical is a reasonable approach in a debate. It's intended to make one consider how things look from a different vantage point than one's own. Your refusal to respond in any reasoned way indicates that your mind is sealed tight.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[jonnyboy]

A. I haven't screamed at you. I've been very direct in answering your questions and asking my own. You're the one who always plays the panicky lefty card.

B. A hypothetical is a reasonable approach in a debate. It's intended to make one consider how things look from a different vantage point than one's own. Your refusal to respond in any reasoned way indicates that your mind is sealed tight.

There is no reason to examine hypotheticals when there are actual events to point to.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[e_blazer]

There is no reason to examine hypotheticals when there are actual events to point to.

Absolutely true. So, why is it that the Jan. 6th "demonstration" at the Capitol is viewed so differently by most MAGA supporters than the occupation of the Federal Courthouse in Portland?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Absolutely true. So, why is it that the Jan. 6th "demonstration" at the Capitol is viewed so differently by most MAGA supporters than the occupation of the Federal Courthouse in Portland?

In Portland, ANTIFA burned down the courthouse. The building we see there now is really Hillary in a disguise.

 

[jonnyboy]

Absolutely true. So, why is it that the Jan. 6th "demonstration" at the Capitol is viewed so differently by most MAGA supporters than the occupation of the Federal Courthouse in Portland?

Maybe because a federal building was set on fire with people inside while they tried to block off the exits? I don’t know. Why was it viewed differently by the mainstream media?

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Maybe because a federal building was set on fire with people inside while they tried to block off the exits? I don’t know. Why was it viewed differently by the mainstream media?

There were buildings set on fire, the Federal Courthouse was not one of them.

The courthouse had recently been restored after this summer’s vandalism, which included broken windows and graffiti. Federal officials said there were an estimated $2.3 million in damage to federal buildings in Oregon during this summer’s protests, including $1.6 million in damage to the federal courthouse.

https://www.opb.org/article/2021/03/12/protesters-vandalize-portlands-federal-courthouse-again/

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

No, you're not. When actions lead to an unnecessary death, those who instigated those actions still bear responsibility. There are a lot of drunk drivers in prison for killing accident victims who died from injuries sustained in the wreck.

hmmm. With this premise, does that mean anyone who has a heart attack from watching a scary movie can sue the creators of said movie?

Or a Loud rock concert causes hearing damage, can they sue?

How about if a man walks into a store and robs it at gunpoint, and im a customer nearby who has a heart attack, can i sue the robber?

Genuinely asking.

however I will also say, saying someone was killed during the riots, implies physically killed to death.
It sounds fluffed.
Someone died from a heart attack initiated from stress from the riots would be more apt.

Lastly, for all the bellowing about cops not hiring qualified people, suffering a heart attack?
Any officer not able to handle that type of stress should not be a cop, right? And so then he was not stable or healthy to begin with.
So yeah, summing it up, saying an officer was killed during the riots, is largely twisted to fit a narrative.

 

[barfo]

In Portland, ANTIFA burned down the courthouse. The building we see there now is really Hillary in a disguise.

That's not Hillary! That's Kamala!

barfo

 

[SlyPokerDog]

That's not Hillary! That's Kamala!

barfo

Secret double disguise, Hillary, disguised as Kamala, disguised as a courthouse.

 

[crandc]

Sounds like Swan Lake. Rothbart disguised as knight with daughter disguised as Odette.
If it doesn't make sense go see the ballet.

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

There were buildings set on fire, the Federal Courthouse was not one of them.

The courthouse had recently been restored after this summer’s vandalism, which included broken windows and graffiti. Federal officials said there were an estimated $2.3 million in damage to federal buildings in Oregon during this summer’s protests, including $1.6 million in damage to the federal courthouse.

https://www.opb.org/article/2021/03/12/protesters-vandalize-portlands-federal-courthouse-again/

I think you mean "GET your FUcKING FACTS STRAIGHT!!!"

 

[TradeNurkicNow]

This conversation sucks.

jonnyboy, are you an actual trump supporter or are you just here to poke at the libs? what's your deal

EDIT: I legit dont know I havent been here for like 10 years

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

In Portland, ANTIFA burned down the courthouse. The building we see there now is really Hillary in a disguise.

Maybe because a federal building was set on fire with people inside while they tried to block off the exits? I don’t know. Why was it viewed differently by the mainstream media?

There were buildings set on fire, the Federal Courthouse was not one of them.

The courthouse had recently been restored after this summer’s vandalism, which included broken windows and graffiti. Federal officials said there were an estimated $2.3 million in damage to federal buildings in Oregon during this summer’s protests, including $1.6 million in damage to the federal courthouse.

https://www.opb.org/article/2021/03/12/protesters-vandalize-portlands-federal-courthouse-again/

You sure about that?

https://ktvz.com/news/crime-courts/...rthouse-fence-18-arrested-on-federal-charges/

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/police/news/read.cfm?id=251013

https://www.oregonlive.com/portland...ntown-portland-protesters.html?outputType=amp

https://www.yahoo.com/news/rioters-set-fire-federal-courthouse-162333860.html

https://www.newsweek.com/portland-protesters-smash-courthouse-doors-set-fire-us-flag-1575635

https://www.opb.org/news/article/po...-munitions-protest-courthouse/?outputType=amp

https://www.justice.gov/usao-or/pr/...attempting-set-fire-federal-courthouse-during

 

[PtldPlatypus]

hmmm. With this premise, does that mean anyone who has a heart attack from watching a scary movie can sue the creators of said movie?

They could sue, just like the people who sued McDonalds for causing their obesity. However, those lawsuits have been dismissed, and it seems likely that one of this nature would be as well, because the person is willingly engaging in an activity with the expectation of being scared. It is generally difficult to hold someone liable for providing exactly what you requested from them.

Or a Loud rock concert causes hearing damage, can they sue?

This would actually have a bit more validity, as it is well-documented what decibel levels cause hearing damage, and it is understood that humans will be in attendance, so if one can legitimately document that the volume surpassed safe levels, everyone involved in making the environment unsafe could legitimately be liable. Though, it would be tough to prove that a single incident caused an individual's hearing loss, as it would be likely that said individual would also have other contributing factors (other concerts, earbud usage, swimming, frequent air-pressure changes, illness, etc.) to which one could point as defense against the claim.

How about if a man walks into a store and robs it at gunpoint, and I'm a customer nearby who has a heart attack, can I sue the robber?

Again, you can always sue, and especially if you receive a post-incident diagnosis of a stress-induced cardiomyopathy, then there would absolutely be a legitimate case. This third example is even more relevant to the premise @e_blazer mentions, because it involves the intentional commission of an illegal act (like driving drunk, or storming the capitol).

Also, while discussing the validity of this premise, it's good to remember the concept of "felony murder": if one commits a violent felony, and someone dies--whether directly or indirectly--as a result of that felony, then the felon is also guilty of murder. For example: the offender intends to commit the felony of robbing a bank. A third-party bystander, a bank worker, tries to stop the robbery. They pull out a gun aiming to shoot the offending bank robber but instead hit and kill a customer at the bank. The offending bank robber can be charged with felony murder even though he did not shoot anyone. (example pulled from the link above)

This is a long-standing legal precedent.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

They could sue, just like the people who sued McDonalds for causing their obesity. However, those lawsuits have been dismissed, and it seems likely that one of this nature would be as well, because the person is willingly engaging in an activity with the expectation of being scared. It is generally difficult to hold someone liable for providing exactly what you requested from them.


This would actually have a bit more validity, as it is well-documented what decibel levels cause hearing damage, and it is understood that humans will be in attendance, so if one can legitimately document that the volume surpassed safe levels, everyone involved in making the environment unsafe could legitimately be liable. Though, it would be tough to prove that a single incident caused an individual's hearing loss, as it would be likely that said individual would also have other contributing factors (other concerts, earbud usage, swimming, frequent air-pressure changes, illness, etc.) to which one could point as defense against the claim.


Again, you can always sue, and especially if you receive a post-incident diagnosis of a stress-induced cardiomyopathy, then there would absolutely be a legitimate case. This third example is even more relevant to the premise @e_blazer mentions, because it involves the intentional commission of an illegal act (like driving drunk, or storming the capitol).

Also, while discussing the validity of this premise, it's good to remember the concept of "felony murder": if one commits a violent felony, and someone dies--whether directly or indirectly--as a result of that felony, then the felon is also guilty of murder. For example: the offender intends to commit the felony of robbing a bank. A third-party bystander, a bank worker, tries to stop the robbery. They pull out a gun aiming to shoot the offending bank robber but instead hit and kill a customer at the bank. The offending bank robber can be charged with felony murder even though he did not shoot anyone. (example pulled from the link above)

This is a long-standing legal precedent.

Have I ever told you how much i love your posts?

thanks for the info and it makes sense.

I still think its twisting the truth a bit to say a police officer was killed while defending the capital. Somewhat semantics i suppose, but to me, it reads as though someone killed him directly.
An officer died of a heart attack while defending the capital seems the more apt description of events that took place.
Described in a more vicious way seems like more narrative than reality, aimed at stirring up a base to further hate.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

 

[PCmor7]

Obviously, instead of children, you should have a multi-national corporation.

 

[PCmor7]

Have I ever told you how much i love your posts?

thanks for the info and it makes sense.

I still think its twisting the truth a bit to say a police officer was killed while defending the capital. Somewhat semantics i suppose, but to me, it reads as though someone killed him directly.
An officer died of a heart attack while defending the capital seems the more apt description of events that took place.
Described in a more vicious way seems like more narrative than reality, aimed at stirring up a base to further hate.

Would the officer have had a heart attack and died then if not for a violent mob to be overrunning the cops? I watched the footage of that day, and it seemed pretty vicious ... you don't count as a war casualty only if you take a bullet to the temple from a gun on the other side or your vehicle is blown up by an IED. I also don't think the manner of the officer's death and some viciousness scale matters to their family and friends.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

Would the officer have had a heart attack and died then if not for a violent mob to be overrunning the cops? I watched the footage of that day, and it seemed pretty vicious ... you don't count as a war casualty only if you take a bullet to the temple from a gun on the other side or your vehicle is blown up by an IED. I also don't think the manner of the officer's death and some viciousness scale matters to their family and friends.

But it matters in the court of law. 1st degree, 2nd degree. Manslaughter, there are many degrees.
Im truly sorry for the loss the family and friends had, but yes….The viscousness does matter in the court of law. Would the officer had had a heart attack in many stressful situations? Sounds likely and he probably shouldn't have been a patrol officer to begin with.
No one healthy died from the jan 6th riots, as disgusting as it was.

This is a bit like saying some who died in a car crash who had covid, died from covid. Sorry. Not buying it as “someone was killed” in the riots.

 

[PCmor7]

But it matters in the court of law. 1st degree, 2nd degree. Manslaughter, there are many degrees.
Im truly sorry for the loss the family and friends had, but yes….The viscousness does matter in the court of law. Would the officer had had a heart attack in many stressful situations? Sounds likely and he probably shouldn't have been a patrol officer to begin with.
No one healthy died from the jan 6th riots, as disgusting as it was.

This is a bit like saying some who died in a car crash who had covid, died from covid. Sorry. Not buying it as “someone was killed” in the riots.

I think now you're getting into details in such a manner that it seems you are avoiding the very obvious fact that when you undertake in violent action, there's a good chance someone is going to get injured or killed and THAT also matters in a court of law, as much or more than the viciousness of the manner of how they are killed.

Also, when you have the mob calling for deaths, that also goes to predisposition, which the law and juries also take into account.

Therefore, regardless of you buying it or not, even if you want to play into legal semantics, you probably would lose.

 

[SharpeScooterShooter]

I think now you're getting into details in such a manner that it seems you are avoiding the very obvious fact that when you undertake in violent action, there's a good chance someone is going to get injured or killed and THAT also matters in a court of law, as much or more than the viciousness of the manner of how they are killed.

Also, when you have the mob calling for deaths, that also goes to predisposition, which the law and juries also take into account.

Therefore, regardless of you buying it or not, even if you want to play into legal semantics, you probably would lose.

its not semantics. Its missrepresentation.
Do you call it semantics when one is found guilty of 1st degree murder compared to someone convicted of involuntary manslaughter?

you call it semantics. I call truthful representation and so do the courts.

Curious. Was anyone convicted of this officers heart attack death? Not in peoples minds, but in a court of law?

 

[PtldPlatypus]

Need to get in here and clarify--dude had 2 strokes, not a heart attack. And since he had no physical injuries, it honestly requires a bit of a stretch of the imagination to claim that the riot cause his strokes.