|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 28, 2021 17:23:14 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Jul 29, 2021 10:58:24 GMT -8
Wow, the wet dream of the far right..a civil war between Texas and California. Yea, that's likely! Of course FOXnews gets a ton of hits when they post any California story. For example, "California fires" gets a ton of comments like "burn up the DemocRats" "all because of terrible forest management" "libbies fault" "warming trend is a hoax" etc. But oops!..Idaho is on fire and so is Montana. "I love the poorly educated".
|
|
|
|
Post by bnastyaztecs on Jul 29, 2021 13:22:13 GMT -8
California Defies Doom With No. 1 U.S. Economy"No one anticipated the latest data readout showing the Golden State has no peers among developed economies for expanding GDP, creating jobs, raising household income, manufacturing growth, investment in innovation, producing clean energy and unprecedented wealth through its stocks and bonds. All of which underlines Governor Gavin Newsom’s announcement last month of the biggest state tax rebate in American history. By adding 1.3 million people to its non-farm payrolls since April last year — equal to the entire workforce of Nevada — California easily surpassed also-rans Texas and New York. At the same time, California household income increased $164 billion, almost as much as Texas, Florida and Pennsylvania combined, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. No wonder California’s operating budget surplus, fueled by its surging economy and capital gains taxes, swelled to a record $75 billion." "While pundits have long insisted California policies are bad for business, reality belies them." " The most trusted measure of economic strength says California is the world-beater among democracies. The state’s gross domestic product increased 21% during the past five years, dwarfing No. 2 New York (14%) and No. 3 Texas (12%), according to data compiled by Bloomberg." "Texas can’t match California’s innovation. The percentage of Texas facilities for R&D is less than half California’s at 8.2%." " California reigns supreme with the GDP-equivalent of $40.2 billion derived from agriculture, forest and hunting in 2020. That’s greater than the output from the next five largest states — Iowa, Washington, Illinois, Texas and Nebraska — combined, according to data compiled by Bloomberg." www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2021-06-14/california-defies-doom-with-no-1-u-s-economyIt's not even a comparison between the states...one is strong and handsome/beautiful...the other gets our castoffs...if there ever was a civil war...CA would crush them with our economy...similar to what the Union did in the Civil War and the US did in WWII...CA would roll them with our economy....
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Jul 30, 2021 10:03:14 GMT -8
I just don't know. I think we in CA have a huge, I mean HUGE unfunded debt. That would be the very, very generous pension plans. Sooner or later that will have to be paid for. I don't think government can just tax its way out of the problem.
As for California's cast-offs, you can't be serious. We all know some of those. They are solid people who have worked hard to have enough resources to be able to move. That would also include many in their 20s and 30s who simply cannot afford to buy a house. My wife's grandson, a terrific , hard working guy wants to get married, but he and his fiancé can't find anything they can afford.
I will bet that almost all of those who are leaving or are thinking about leaving would rather stay here, but the financial situation is getting so tough that they feel they must move.
My wife and I are like many folks. Too old (78 and 85) to be able to withstand a serious move, but not happy about what is happening in this state. More and more, this state is looking like a feudal society, with an small upper tier (investors and hi-tech) with enough money to afford the astronomical cost of living and a huge mass of poor people who can barely get by and have very little to look forward to in the future.
Does anyone really think that what is happening in San Francisco and Los Angeles (homeless encampments, cast-off needles, etc.) bodes well for this state? Can anyone point to trends that will turn this sad situation around?
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by azteccc on Aug 2, 2021 11:41:05 GMT -8
The title of this thread makes me laugh, only because of recent events. I've had the fortune of living in many different states, and each one of them (but especially Oregon and Texas) has the worst inferiority complex about California that I've ever seen. Like, it is part of the fabric of their state to hate California and create some perceived rivalry.
As someone who has had the fortune of spending the majority of their years in California, I can't begin to describe how funny it is that other states think a rivalry exists. It's like AztecMesa insisting SDSU football has a rivalry with Alabama or USC. They are simply too much of an afterthought for those lucky enough to live here to even care about their state. Hard to care about Texas when you're sipping a Stone at Torrey Pines or tripling an Oregonians salary in the Bay for the same exact job. Sure, complain about housing prices or put t-shirts in your airport that say "Ain't Cali" (recent event at DFW)... Enjoy that, we'll be good over here.
To the point about homeless and needles, anyone traveled enough to go to Salem or Austin understands it ain't a Cali thing. You don't want to deal with big city/big state living?? Enjoy Lubbock, clowns. We'll send you a postcard.
Maybe one day we'll have a statewide saying "Don't Texas my California!" Hahaha, no we won't.
|
|
|
|
Post by uwphoto on Aug 2, 2021 12:06:09 GMT -8
The title of this thread makes me laugh, only because of recent events. I've had the fortune of living in many different states, and each one of them (but especially Oregon and Texas) has the worst inferiority complex about California that I've ever seen. Like, it is part of the fabric of their state to hate California and create some perceived rivalry. As someone who has had the fortune of spending the majority of their years in California, I can't begin to describe how funny it is that other states think a rivalry exists. It's like AztecMesa insisting SDSU football has a rivalry with Alabama or USC. They are simply too much of an afterthought for those lucky enough to live here to even care about their state. Hard to care about Texas when you're sipping a Stone at Torrey Pines or tripling an Oregonians salary in the Bay for the same exact job. Sure, complain about housing prices or put t-shirts in your airport that say "Ain't Cali" (recent event at DFW)... Enjoy that, we'll be good over here. To the point about homeless and needles, anyone traveled enough to go to Salem or Austin understands it ain't a Cali thing. You don't want to deal with big city/big state living?? Enjoy Lubbock, clowns. We'll send you a postcard. Maybe one day we'll have a statewide saying "Don't Texas my California!" Hahaha, no we won't. Yes, like the wonderful Texas coastline.."where industry meets the sea". I'll stick with the Big Sur Coast. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 5, 2021 9:57:47 GMT -8
Well, I guess I was wrong. No reason at all to worry about California's future, right?
Seriously, there is plenty to worry about here. I've lived in CA since 1942. It's still a great place, sure. But the insane cost of living all by itself is a huge problem.
I will repeat my question. Can anyone point to trends that promise to solve our most pressing problems?
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by Spud on Aug 5, 2021 16:10:00 GMT -8
The title of this thread makes me laugh, only because of recent events. I've had the fortune of living in many different states, and each one of them (but especially Oregon and Texas) has the worst inferiority complex about California that I've ever seen. Like, it is part of the fabric of their state to hate California and create some perceived rivalry. As someone who has had the fortune of spending the majority of their years in California, I can't begin to describe how funny it is that other states think a rivalry exists. It's like AztecMesa insisting SDSU football has a rivalry with Alabama or USC. They are simply too much of an afterthought for those lucky enough to live here to even care about their state. Hard to care about Texas when you're sipping a Stone at Torrey Pines or tripling an Oregonians salary in the Bay for the same exact job. Sure, complain about housing prices or put t-shirts in your airport that say "Ain't Cali" (recent event at DFW)... Enjoy that, we'll be good over here. To the point about homeless and needles, anyone traveled enough to go to Salem or Austin understands it ain't a Cali thing. You don't want to deal with big city/big state living?? Enjoy Lubbock, clowns. We'll send you a postcard. Maybe one day we'll have a statewide saying "Don't Texas my California!" Hahaha, no we won't. As a Navy brat myself, I've lived all over the Country (and even in Guam). There literally isn't any other state that I would willingly move to with the lone exception of Hawaii (Maui). Have fun in Texas, Oregon, Idaho, or where ever these folks want to move. 3 years of real seasons will get old fast. |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Aug 5, 2021 19:54:18 GMT -8
The title of this thread makes me laugh, only because of recent events. I've had the fortune of living in many different states, and each one of them (but especially Oregon and Texas) has the worst inferiority complex about California that I've ever seen. Like, it is part of the fabric of their state to hate California and create some perceived rivalry. As someone who has had the fortune of spending the majority of their years in California, I can't begin to describe how funny it is that other states think a rivalry exists. It's like AztecMesa insisting SDSU football has a rivalry with Alabama or USC. They are simply too much of an afterthought for those lucky enough to live here to even care about their state. Hard to care about Texas when you're sipping a Stone at Torrey Pines or tripling an Oregonians salary in the Bay for the same exact job. Sure, complain about housing prices or put t-shirts in your airport that say "Ain't Cali" (recent event at DFW)... Enjoy that, we'll be good over here. To the point about homeless and needles, anyone traveled enough to go to Salem or Austin understands it ain't a Cali thing. You don't want to deal with big city/big state living?? Enjoy Lubbock, clowns. We'll send you a postcard. Maybe one day we'll have a statewide saying "Don't Texas my California!" Hahaha, no we won't. Well said!!! |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 5, 2021 20:31:19 GMT -8
Well, I guess I was wrong. No reason at all to worry about California's future, right? Seriously, there is plenty to worry about here. I've lived in CA since 1942. It's still a great place, sure. But the insane cost of living all by itself is a huge problem. I will repeat my question. Can anyone point to trends that promise to solve our most pressing problems? AzWm We're still waiting for you to answer the myriad of questions in the insurrection thread. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 10, 2021 23:43:22 GMT -8
Well, I guess I was wrong. No reason at all to worry about California's future, right? Seriously, there is plenty to worry about here. I've lived in CA since 1942. It's still a great place, sure. But the insane cost of living all by itself is a huge problem. I will repeat my question. Can anyone point to trends that promise to solve our most pressing problems? AzWm We're still waiting for you to answer the myriad of questions in the insurrection thread. Remind me of the questions. Your post hints that you think I somehow approve of what happened on Jan. 6th in DC. I hope you will assure me that such is not really your attitude. If not, your insinuation is obscene and does you no credit. (I am getting really, really tired of the posts that clearly accuse me of being a Trump supporter. Apparently unless one does not call for Trump's imprisonment for life, or better yet the death penalty, one is considered a Trump apologist. There are plenty of people who openly support Trump and want him to run in '24. Try taking a few shots at some of them. I feel like someone who happened to witness a serious fire and is, because of that fact, accused of being an arsonist.) AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by johneaztec on Aug 11, 2021 0:01:35 GMT -8
We're still waiting for you to answer the myriad of questions in the insurrection thread. Remind me of the questions. Your post hints that you think I somehow approve of what happened on Jan. 6th in DC. I hope you will assure me that such is not really your attitude. If not, your insinuation is obscene and does you no credit. (I am getting really, really tired of the posts that clearly accuse me of being a Trump supporter. Apparently unless one does not call for Trump's imprisonment for life, or better yet the death penalty, one is considered a Trump apologist. There are plenty of people who openly support Trump and want him to run in '24. Try taking a few shots at some of them. I feel like someone who happened to witness a serious fire and is, because of that fact, accused of being an arsonist.) AzWm Yep, and that gets old. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 11, 2021 10:09:27 GMT -8
We're still waiting for you to answer the myriad of questions in the insurrection thread. Remind me of the questions. Your post hints that you think I somehow approve of what happened on Jan. 6th in DC. I hope you will assure me that such is not really your attitude. If not, your insinuation is obscene and does you no credit. (I am getting really, really tired of the posts that clearly accuse me of being a Trump supporter. Apparently unless one does not call for Trump's imprisonment for life, or better yet the death penalty, one is considered a Trump apologist. There are plenty of people who openly support Trump and want him to run in '24. Try taking a few shots at some of them. I feel like someone who happened to witness a serious fire and is, because of that fact, accused of being an arsonist.) AzWm Why do you feel the need to be melodramatic for no obvious purpose? You brought up unrelated, trivial statements about who died, whose fault it was, how long it took to identify victims....stuff that has nothing to do with the importance of what actually took place on January 6th. I don't care where your political ideology lies, but you are consistent in your extreme lack of criticism. You feign outrage and it ends up a paragraph later with "But....well, maybe....I don't know....maybe..." - Nobody is asking you to call for someone to spend life in prison. Spare the theatrics : THIS is an awful, tone-deaf, deflectonist response. "As bad as the riot was, there is one thing that worries me more. That is the obvious attempt by the Democrats to portray ALL their political opponents as, in essence, being as guilty as those who stormed the Capitol. That of course is rubbish. I can't imagine that, out of the 74 million Trump voters, more than a handful actually approve of what happened on Jan. 6th." AzWm A) Insurrection, not riot. B) Not even remotely close to true, accurate or the same level of threat. C) Courtesy of slate.com...this sure doesn't sound like a "small percentage" - And you're speculating and throwing stuff out there with no sense of direction. "The situation within the GOP is grave. Polls taken in April and May show that among rank-and-file Republicans, disbelief in the government’s legitimacy has hardly subsided. Two-thirds to three-quarters of Republicans continue to say that President Joe Biden was illegitimately elected. More than 60 percent say the election was “stolen from Trump.” When they’re asked who “the true President is right now,” most Republicans say it’s Trump. And more than 30 percent of Republicans reject a basic premise of democracy: that “the loser in an election must concede defeat.” THAT is the problem. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 11, 2021 13:28:51 GMT -8
What rank-and-file Republicans think about the government's legitimacy is interesting, and even important. But I am not a Republican. Again, why do you continue to post replies that clearly imply that I am a GOP partisan; or worse yet, a Trump acolyte?
I've lost count of the number of times I have made this clear, but I'll give it another go. I did not support Trump and did not vote for him. He is, in my view, the worst qualified person to serve as POTUS since at least the Civil War. I endorse almost all the bad things said against him. (One exception is the charge that he was a willing agent of Russia.) His actions since the election have been indefensible.
I am curious about one thing. I've been meaning to post this question. Is there any decision or policy from Trump's years as POTUS that, if it had originated from a different GOP President, you would not have condemned in equally harsh terms? Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, either Bush, or perhaps a different Republican (Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, etc.)? If your honest answer is "no", then one must conclude that, in your opinion, no government except one on the Left can ever be legitimate. If your answer is not "no", then I would be interested to hear something that in your opinion Trump did that does not automatically amount to treason or at least an assault on common decency.
I'm not asking that you cite something that you endorse without reservation. Let me cite an example of something done by a former President that I think was a bad idea but nevertheless not beyond the pale. That was JFK's nomination of his brother to serve as Attorney General. What I am asking is this; how pathological is your hated of Donald J. Trump?
I judge the legitimacy of the federal government and the legitimacy of the governments of the several states by how faithful they are to the U.S. Constitution. That faithfulness, no matter the party in power, has declined markedly over the past century.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 11, 2021 13:42:24 GMT -8
One more thing. I am not an advocate of prayer. But if I were, I would pray that Donald Trump would just go away. My fear is that he might well bring about something far worse than another Trump administration: another Democratic administration.
Trump = a bleeding hemorrhoid
A Democratic administration = Colon cancer.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 11, 2021 14:23:11 GMT -8
What rank-and-file Republicans think about the government's legitimacy is interesting, and even important. But I am not a Republican. Again, why do you continue to post replies that clearly imply that I am a GOP partisan; or worse yet, a Trump acolyte? I've lost count of the number of times I have made this clear, but I'll give it another go. I did not support Trump and did not vote for him. He is, in my view, the worst qualified person to serve as POTUS since at least the Civil War. I endorse almost all the bad things said against him. (One exception is the charge that he was a willing agent of Russia.) His actions since the election have been indefensible. I am curious about one thing. I've been meaning to post this question. Is there any decision or policy from Trump's years as POTUS that, if it had originated from a different GOP President, you would not have condemned in equally harsh terms? Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, either Bush, or perhaps a different Republican (Jeb Bush, Carly Fiorina, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum, etc.)? If your honest answer is "no", then one must conclude that, in your opinion, no government except one on the Left can ever be legitimate. If your answer is not "no", then I would be interested to hear something that in your opinion Trump did that does not automatically amount to treason or at least an assault on common decency. I'm not asking that you cite something that you endorse without reservation. Let me cite an example of something done by a former President that I think was a bad idea but nevertheless not beyond the pale. That was JFK's nomination of his brother to serve as Attorney General. What I am asking is this; how pathological is your hated of Donald J. Trump? I judge the legitimacy of the federal government and the legitimacy of the governments of the several states by how faithful they are to the U.S. Constitution. That faithfulness, no matter the party in power, has declined markedly over the past century. AzWm It's very simple - Why do you keep getting called out for the same behavior? Well, because you keep deviating from the topic to try and equate unrelated things like they matter in some existential capacity. This is NOT a policy issue, nor was it ever. You can't stay on topic to address the matter at hand. This thread is about the very real dangers of an obvious coup attempt that has come to light. The very overthrowing of a free election by a party that is beholden to Donald Trump. If you don't believe me, ask Chuck Grassley. Your replies have ranged from "Well it wouldn't have succeeded, so it doesn't matter" to "Democrats are a greater threat" to "Name some policy from a random president" - I mean, no. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 11, 2021 14:30:58 GMT -8
One more thing. I am not an advocate of prayer. But if I were, I would pray that Donald Trump would just go away. My fear is that he might well bring about something far worse than another Trump administration: another Democratic administration. Trump = a bleeding hemorrhoid A Democratic administration = Colon cancer. AzWm It's replies like this that make you seem completely ignorant to reality and a Trump defender. I'm no fan of the current administration, but uh, it's a Rolls-Royce compared to the station wagon we just left behind. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 11, 2021 15:47:53 GMT -8
William, are you alright with this?
Let's be clear what is happening here - The former president is DEFENDING a terrorist and targeting the officer who shot her, after she ignored repeated warnings, after she broke into the Capitol, after she was ordered to stop from climbing through a window inside the building.
Is this the fault of Democrats, too? Is this not a big deal?
|
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 15, 2021 12:43:08 GMT -8
William, are you alright with this? Let's be clear what is happening here - The former president is DEFENDING a terrorist and targeting the officer who shot her, after she ignored repeated warnings, after she broke into the Capitol, after she was ordered to stop from climbing through a window inside the building. Is this the fault of Democrats, too? Is this not a big deal? Ryan: As I understand it, there were many people trying to force their way into the Capitol on January 6th. 100% of them should be prosecuted. But if it was okay to kill this one woman, who, if I understand it correctly, had no firearm, why did the other officers standing next to the shooter not shoot and kill many of others trying to get in? Weren't they all terrorists? If that had happened, would you justify those killings the way you seem to justify this one? If a cop kills someone, even if the circumstances totally exonerate that cop, we know his or her name very, very quickly. Why in this case has the name of the shooter not been revealed? One source I read says Most police departments — including Washington, D.C.’s Metropolitan Police — are required to release an officer’s name within days of a fatal shooting. Not the U.S. Capitol Police, which is controlled by Congress and answers only to Congress.The DOJ has declined to prosecute the man who killed Babbit. That may well be the correct decision. But all the facts of the case, and why the DOJ feels that this man does not merit legal action, is information the American people has a right to know. I will end with two comments. First: I cannot know this for sure without seeing a video of the whole event, but I believe that those trying to force their way in did not quickly retreat after Babbit was shot. They kept trying to get it. With all the turmoil of that moment, I'll bet that most of those trying to get in were not even aware that someone had fired a gun. In other words, the shooting was almost certainly not justified in terms of remedying the situation. I may be totally wrong on this, but it seems to me that the situation (i.e., the attempt by the crowd to gain entrance by force) would not have ended any differently had Babbit NOT been shot. If that's true (and I tend to think that it is), then the shooting was totally unnecessary. Let's remember, this is not a case of someone who got his nose broken in a bar fight. This is the death of a young woman who served her country in the Air Force. Whatever her politics, she did not deserve to be shot. Well, I do hope that she did NOT deserve to be killed because of her politics. Second: I do believe the shooter's state of mind and perception of the situation must be taken into account. Did he fear for his life? Did he believe that the angry crowd would retreat if he did shoot? He may now regret that he shot. I would hope that he is at least asking himself why he used deadly force but the other officers did not. Did he really think that he and the other officers would be killed had be not used his firearm? Let's remember that they, and not the rioters, had pistols. We all remember the one about coming armed with knives (or brass knuckles, etc.) to a gun fight. I am, as I suggested above, at least extremely doubtful that Babbit should have been shot. But we must consider what the shooter knew and thought at the moment. I believe that he should not have used deadly force. As stated above, if he was justified, why did those other officers not just blasted away. Bet the "terrorists" would have noticed if six or seven of their number had suddenly dropped to the ground! And, if they were terrorists, they had it coming. Wouldn't that be the logical interpretation of what Ryan posted above? The shooter must be asked these crucial questions. Once we hear his answers, we all may be satisfied that Babbit's death was at worst a tragic by-product of a horrible day at the Capitol. For now, it looks like the shooter's answers, if indeed he is asked the important questions, will be kept from the public. In any event, there are serious questions that have been raised and should be addressed. One more thing. There is reason to believe that the security around the Capitol should have been much better prepared. Should that not be looked into? AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 15, 2021 12:51:28 GMT -8
William, are you alright with this? Let's be clear what is happening here - The former president is DEFENDING a terrorist and targeting the officer who shot her, after she ignored repeated warnings, after she broke into the Capitol, after she was ordered to stop from climbing through a window inside the building. Is this the fault of Democrats, too? Is this not a big deal? Ryan: As I understand it, there were many people trying to force their way into the Capitol on January 6th. 100% of them should be prosecuted. But if it was okay to kill this one woman, who, if I understand it correctly, had no firearm, why did the other officers standing next to the shooter not shoot and kill many of others trying to get in? Weren't they all terrorists? If that had happened, would you justify those killings the way you seem to justify this one? If a cop kills someone, even if the circumstances totally exonerate that cop, we know his or her name very, very quickly. Why in this case has the name of the shooter not been revealed? One source I read says Most police departments — including Washington, D.C.’s Metropolitan Police — are required to release an officer’s name within days of a fatal shooting. Not the U.S. Capitol Police, which is controlled by Congress and answers only to Congress.The DOJ has declined to prosecute the man who killed Babbit. That may well be the correct decision. But all the facts of the case, and why the DOJ feels that this man does not merit legal action, is information the American people has a right to know. I will end with two comments. First: I cannot know this for sure without seeing a video of the whole event, but I believe that those trying to force their way in did not quickly retreat after Babbit was shot. They kept trying to get it. With all the turmoil of that moment, I'll bet that most of those trying to get in were not even aware that someone had fired a gun. In other words, the shooting was almost certainly not justified in terms of remedying the situation. I may be totally wrong on this, but it seems to me that the situation (i.e., the attempt by the crowd to gain entrance by force) would not have ended any differently had Babbit NOT been shot. If that's true (and I tend to think that it is), then the shooting was totally unnecessary. Let's remember, this is not a case of someone who got his nose broken in a bar fight. This is the death of a young woman who served her country in the Air Force. Whatever her politics, she did not deserve to be shot. Well, I do hope that she did NOT deserve to be killed because of her politics. Second: I do believe the shooter's state of mind and perception of the situation must be taken into account. Did he fear for his life? Did he believe that the angry crowd would retreat if he did shoot? He may now regret that he shot. I would hope that he is at least asking himself why he used deadly force but the other officers did not. Did he really think that he and the other officers would be killed had be not used his firearm? Let's remember that they, and not the rioters, had pistols. We all remember the one about coming armed with knives (or brass knuckles, etc.) to a gun fight. I am, as I suggested above, at least extremely doubtful that Babbit should have been shot. But we must consider what the shooter knew and thought at the moment. I believe that he should not have used deadly force. As stated above, if he was justified, why did those other officers not just blasted away. Bet the "terrorists" would have noticed if six or seven of their number had suddenly dropped to the ground! And, if they were terrorists, they had it coming. Wouldn't that be the logical interpretation of what Ryan posted above? The shooter must be asked these crucial questions. Once we hear his answers, we all may be satisfied that Babbit's death was at worst a tragic by-product of a horrible day at the Capitol. For now, it looks like the shooter's answers, if indeed he is asked the important questions, will be kept from the public. In any event, there are serious questions that have been raised and should be addressed. One more thing. There is reason to believe that the security around the Capitol should have been much better prepared. Should that not be looked into? AzWm Saying nothing would have been a better response. You're actually defending treasonous behavior. The officer has already been cleared by a DOJ investigation, who examined the actual evidence. Ashli Babbitt was a QAnon induced sycophant who broke into the Capitol and attempted to climb in a window after repeated orders to stop. There were members of Congress being evacuated out of the very room she was trying to get into. The officer's name hasn't been revealed because of the obvious threat to his safety. Statements like "We know who he is." Uttered by Donald Trump, naturally. The officer is receiving threats frequently. By the way, speaking of pot and kettle, where's your moral outrage on the BLM protests that you've tried to equate at the same level as an attack on the US Capitol endorsed by a sitting president? Absolutely laughable absurdity of epic proportions. Regarding your last paragraph, it's well documented what happened. The president refused to call in the National Guard. He laughed at the insurrection attempt, on video, with his chief of staff. Security was light on that day on purpose. This was coordinated and planned by the former president and his administration. Meetings at Trump Tower took place with Mo Brooks and other members of Congress loyal to Trump.. Jim Jordan would lead you to believe that Nancy Pelosi was to blame, but the Speaker of the House has no oversight into Capitol Police. That is the purview of the Capitol Police Board, who approves National Guard requests, which are largely overseen in DC under, yes, you guessed it, the president. The tone-deaf response here is numbing. I'm just curious, what should the officer have done? Allow himself to get beaten to death? Hand over his firearm? You are actively defending terrorism, William. Whether you realize it or not, it's really not a great look. If you try to break into the Capitol, you should expect consequences. If you try to inflict mayhem and chaos, you should expect dire consequences. Weird how the party of "back the blue" is deathly silent when doesn't become convenient to their agenda. |
|
