Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 358: Funeral Parler

(+) Yeah! (+)

Reg posted...

why is wang defending fucking terrorists

why are people responding to wang defending fucking terrorists

This is a good pair of questions.

Boebert is pretty obviously a terrorist too, and single handedly got guns banned from the building as a result.

If anyone gets made an "example of" in Congress, its her.

---

Reg posted...

why is wang defending fucking terrorists

why are people responding to wang defending fucking terrorists

This is what Wang does. Hes the Tim Pool of Board 8.

---

Reg posted...

why is wang defending fucking terrorists

He's a GGer, QAnon are his brethren.

---

LapisLazuli posted...

He's a GGer, QAnon are his brethren.

---

...i mean tim pool is currently in a much better position than Vice is so i'm not sure how insulting that comparison is supposed to be!

though i don't like beanies. terrible hats.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

This is what Wang does.

Well, yes. I'm aware of that. The real important question here is the second one.

I have no excuse for the second one. His bullshit is just particularly difficult to leave alone.

Compared to, say, DeepsPraw, who is just nothing.

But I will disengage.

---

LapisLazuli posted...

Live: Boebert, the congresswoman who was tweeting Pelosi's location during the attack, is at a standoff with Capital police refusing to relinquish her gun.

https://twitter.com/ryanobles/status/1349154724600279042?s=19

By the way they let her in with it lmao

---

KamikazePotato posted...

By the way they let her in with it lmao

Fire the officers.

---

LapisLazuli posted...

Fire the officers.

Agreed.

---

of course they let her in.
another congressman walked around the metal detectors and walked in without giving a fuck, saying he was gonna vote.

if there's no way to enforce it then there's nothing to be done about it. you wanna stop them from going in, arrest 'em. otherwise it doesn't matter.

---

Theres maybe some rule that they cant actually stop a representative who is on their way to a vote? I saw someone say that on Twitter, although Im not sure of its legitimacy.
---

The officers probably feel compelled by the provision of the constitution that says they may not stop a member of Congress from attending Congress. They probably feel they have no choice legally, unless the House expels her.

---

I've had Wang on ignore forever now.

---

https://twitter.com/sahilkapur/status/1349167415922487296?s=21

---

https://twitter.com/themaxburns/status/1349145113935667200?s=21

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://twitter.com/themaxburns/status/1349145113935667200?s=21

This is just sad how far some are still going for him.

---

Well Gym Jordan is a fucking degenerate so...

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

Theres maybe some rule that they cant actually stop a representative who is on their way to a vote? I saw someone say that on Twitter, although Im not sure of its legitimacy.

decided to check twitter too for this. i believe they're talking about this, article 1 section 6:

Section. 6.
The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.
No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

that... actually sounds legit.
you can't be arrested going to or returning from the house unless specifically charged with treason or felony and breach of the peace.


---

So those "bans" are unforceable and meaningless; they're just meant to give out an image.

---

Crescent-Moon posted...

So those "bans" are unforceable and meaningless; they're just meant to give out an image.

Pretty certain that the Dems can in fact pass a law to dock their pay for not wearing masks, at least

---

Wanglicious posted...

Breach of the Peace

Yep

---

Another vote

https://twitter.com/danabashcnn/status/1349177932338630658?s=21

---

Crescent-Moon posted...

So those "bans" are unforceable and meaningless; they're just meant to give out an image.

answer is "maybe."
it depends on the specifics of the language. like as we're reading it there yeah it seems like they'd be covered. but that doesn't mean it says what we think it means as this surely doesn't come up that often. also congress can still impose other punishments for it, though not arrest.

decided to do a little bit of digging and got to an early 1900s case (Williamson v. United States) , where this blurb was mentioned as the judge went super in depth with the history:

A brief consideration of the subject of parliamentary privilege in England will, we think, show the source whence the expression "treason, felony and breach of the peace" was drawn, and leave no doubt that the words were used in England for the very purpose of excluding all crimes from the operation of the parliamentary privilege, and therefore to leave that privilege to apply only to prosecutions of a civil nature. We say this, although the King's Bench, in 1763 ( Rex v. Wilkes, 2 Wils. 151), held that a member of Parliament was entitled to assert his privilege from arrest upon a charge of publishing a seditious libel, the court ruling that it was not a breach of the peace. But, as will hereafter appear, Parliament promptly disavowed any right to assert the privilege in such cases.

so uh... maybe not? as you'd then get into the question of would a violation of this rule be a civil or a criminal charge too. if it's civil, then yes totally toothless. if criminal, different. i don't know how DC rules work on this. technically Congress can make the metal detectors a law too but... yeah.

basically, the second one gets arrested expect a court case.
nobody wants to be responsible for said court case right now so don't expect anything until somebody in the police gets fed up and does it, fully aware that this is in the turf of lawyers now.

---

Wanglicious posted...

shit like stealing a podium or taking a mailer or whatever,

Taking a mailer from her office. What do you think they would've done if she was in there?

"Excuse me, Ma'am, I just want a mailer please."

These are things they did simply because they couldn't achieve their primary objective.

---

i mean that's also the same guy who put a quarter on her desk and wrote her a signed note. not exactly much for brains or planning, he's the type who'd have left behind a bullet if he wanted to do that.

his primary objective was to be a dick and yell at whoever he could.
pending investigation, anyway.

---

Okay, Wang.

Keep defending literal terrorists.

---

Hes the type of guy that doesn't know what to do when there are no people for him to hurt.

And his quarter was just him displaying his naivety about the dangers of a global pandemic.

But keep spouting stuff you found from the white supremacist circles Wang.

---

I haven't been around these topics as long as most of you, is Wang at the Ulti/Nanis level?

---

RaidenGarai posted...

I haven't been around these topics as long as most of you, is Wang at the Ulti/Nanis level?

Eh, not really. Wang doesn't troll. He's just a GGer and very adjacent to the alt right, so he's very quick to defend them and come up with excuses for their actions.

EDIT: So it depends. In a way, he's "better" because he doesn't troll. In a way, he's worse because this is what he actually believes.

---

The thing that always bothers me is that Ulti was always a troll, Nani's was always someone foreign with hard right beliefs. We got to see Wang go from a cool normal dude to this.

---

i tend to argue principles over political alignment. can pretty much narrow down a lot of my stuff to a few set principles there.

---

https://twitter.com/jbarro/status/1349186244165705733?s=21

---

https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/status/1349195548377587713

Rep in Congress says that members of Congress led people through the Capitol on a "reconnaissance" mission the day before the insurrection

what the fuck.

~~~

Meanwhile, in the House right now: https://twitter.com/cimarcos/status/1349203849165340674

During House debate we're getting more details. Insurrectionists tased Capitol Police and tried to shoot one with their own gun. Also one officer is likely to lose his eye.

---

This keeps looking worse every day.

Everybody who walked through those doors needs to be behind bars, as do several congressman and women at this point.

---

https://twitter.com/pamelafessler/status/1349173657579433984?s=21

---

As an abolitionist, i find myself reluctant to agree.

But i don't have a better solution. Removing their ability to ever own a firearm, or to hold public office, and other such limitations don't go far enough to account for the fact that these assholes legitimately tried to overthrow a branch of government.

---

Abolitionist?
---

Up to 5 House Rs:

https://twitter.com/HerreraBeutler/status/1349211904644952064

---

Thread:

https://twitter.com/emmaladyrose/status/1349202637493833732

---

Weird how the same congresspeople who think Metal Detectors are the solution to school shootings don't want to pass through metal detectors because they impede their constitutional rights.

---

I don't know if anyone actually posted this, but Jordan Klepper was actually at the riot:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDJqipoohc&ab_channel=TheDailyShowwithTrevorNoah

---

Wanglicious posted...

do need to clear up who the "they" you mean is.

The group Babbitt was with trying to get into the corridor filled with cops and Secret Service with guns drawn
---

Mitch update:

https://www.axios.com/mcconnell-trump-convict-impeachment-trial-99246975-8c02-47f4-90d3-14a23c00afd1.html

There's a better than 50-50 chance that Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell would vote to convict President Trump in an impeachment trial, sources tell Axios.

Welp... we'll see I guess!

---

Dunno how old this is, but twitter wasn't loading on my phone so I used downforeveryoneorjustme

https://i.imgur.com/tHI4OOi.png

I enjoy this
---

Jakyl25 posted...

The group Babbitt was with trying to get into the corridor filled with cops and Secret Service with guns drawn

i find that one weird. i mean okay, that def falls in the directed insurrection grouping and if you're looking for that quick one liner there ya go, with a strong emphasis on "directed."

i'm less curious on the individuals though and more the leaders because they weren't much more than cattle, which is circling back to the point made/post agreed with.

scenario we saw was basically Babbitt taunting one guy who seemed to be the main leader and the rest followed along. and this repeated itself like 4 times somehow, with the same trend of shove guy -> guy chases him -> mob follows guy. like, at no point did they realize they were being baited? none of them? i'm curious on what communication exists there because that leaves two possibilities: either they're all in on it or there's a select few who are and a bunch of people who just go "oh, crowd's moving." latter would at least make them more on the chaos side a plausible take, even if it's unlikely. that's just looking at it from a reasonable doubt stance though, i'm thinking the most plausible answer is a group of randos were told something, bundled together under a handful of wranglers, and that's why herding them worked so well. would explain why there's no thought by anyone. hell, if there's insiders and the guy being shoved knew of them, maybe he thought "this is one of our own." either case, most of 'em were the useful idiots.

obviously they committed multiple crimes in the process so charge and investigate away, though don't expect much out of 'em, if i'm right it'd mean their idea of what to do next was riding along whatever the crowd was doing/someone said, meaning they don't have a particular plot or plan, it got planted in 'em while they were there. on the other hand, anyone who did come up with that plan or agreed to it beforehand, whole other story and that's who you want to dig into hard because it bypasses the similar rhetoric and focuses on getting current planners better.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Mitch update:

https://www.axios.com/mcconnell-trump-convict-impeachment-trial-99246975-8c02-47f4-90d3-14a23c00afd1.html

Welp... we'll see I guess!

The impeachment is hollow without a conviction, as are McConnell's recent words.

This is pretty much the ultimate "test of character" for him. He crosses into the realm of irredeemable if he blows this one. They need his support to have any chance.

• Axios is told McConnell sees this fight as his legacy defending the Senate and the institution against the verbal attack of the president and the literal attack of his followers.

This is pretty well accurate, even if a lot of this is his own fault. He can still save a LOT of face.


---

https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/1349205216818819075?s=21

---

XIII_rocks posted...

Dunno how old this is, but twitter wasn't loading on my phone so I used downforeveryoneorjustme

https://i.imgur.com/tHI4OOi.png

I enjoy this

Sure you do, DONALD!!
---

We're still not going to forget how long you aided and abetted him though~

---