Jump to content

The Congressman is back yo


congressman

Recommended Posts

Here’s my issue with Kinzinger:

I don’t have a problem if you’re anti-Trump, even if you’re a Republican.  I also don’t have a problem if you believe that 6 Jan was an “insurrection to overturn the election” (lamest insurrection ever if it actually was one lol, so I do question your philosophical bias in that case).  My issue is that when Pelosi/Dem leaders set up the “bipartisan” 6 Jan committee but then wouldn’t allow the Republican leadership to choose their members, then it was obvious that this was anything but “bipartisan” and all it was ever going to be is just be a witch-hunt against Trump/his supporters in the House, etc.  And when Adam then joined their committee, only because the Dems knew he was against Trump, then he joined the witch-hunt/political theater.  If he would have then left the Republican Party to be an independent I would have said he followed his conscience, but he didn’t.

The question now is this:  Does he know he’s being used by Pelosi?  If so, then what does he get out of it?  Surely Adam can’t actually believe that the committee is anything but political theater?  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Looks like Adam is working really hard to get that “token GOP” contributor job on MSNBC, CNN, etc.  As he gets closer to that job, he starts changing his stance on “rights”.

“Look, I have opposed a ban, you know, fairly recently. I think I’m open to a ban now. It’s going to depend on what it looks like because there’s a lot of nuances on what constitutes, you know, certain things,” Kinzinger told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” when asked if he still opposed “a ban on the kind of assault weapons that were used in the shooting.”

But he used to say…

https://kinzinger.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=126991

https://www.foxnews.com/media/second-amendment-red-flag-laws-mass-shootings
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, HeloDude said:

Looks like Adam is working really hard to get that “token GOP” contributor job on MSNBC, CNN, etc.  As he gets closer to that job, he starts changing his stance on “rights”.

“Look, I have opposed a ban, you know, fairly recently. I think I’m open to a ban now. It’s going to depend on what it looks like because there’s a lot of nuances on what constitutes, you know, certain things,” Kinzinger told CNN’s Dana Bash on “State of the Union” when asked if he still opposed “a ban on the kind of assault weapons that were used in the shooting.”

But he used to say…

https://kinzinger.house.gov/issues/issue/?IssueID=126991

https://www.foxnews.com/media/second-amendment-red-flag-laws-mass-shootings
 

 

I support a ban on morons like him from serving in congress.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
5 hours ago, HU&W said:

Kinzinger interview transcript with cbs.  It makes me wonder if he’s a mole trying to expose the real purpose behind the Jan 6 commission, or if he just wants to be a good team player for Pelosi.  
 

https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/adam-kinzinger-transcript-face-the-nation-05-01-2022/#app

As an Air Force reservist and veteran he has a responsibility to ask about what happened with Ashley Babbit, and I've yet to see one person on the commission ask why a woman/veteran was murdered by a federal entity on capital grounds and no justice was served. 

Edited by FLEA
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 4
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, herkbier said:

Murdered?

We need to be consistent. I didn't support police overuse of force in George Floyd and I don't support it here. Consistency is key. Without consistency there is no rule of law. You don't get to fire a random round untargeted into a group of rioters. Besides, protest are "supposed" to make you uncomfortable. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, FLEA said:

We need to be consistent. I didn't support police overuse of force in George Floyd and I don't support it here. Consistency is key. Without consistency there is no rule of law. You don't get to fire a random round untargeted into a group of rioters. Besides, protest are "supposed" to make you uncomfortable. 

I agree with most of your sentiment but the dynamics were a bit different here than your average street protest no?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, uhhello said:

I agree with most of your sentiment but the dynamics were a bit different here than your average street protest no?

Nope. Believe it or not, SF doesn't have authority to shoot people trying to force their way in a SCIF either. There is a Use of Force spectrum and it went totally out the window here because political leadership wasn't concerned with the victim. The only crime here was trespass and democrats have consistently held that trespass on its own is not a sufficient reason to use force. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, FLEA said:

Nope. Believe it or not, SF doesn't have authority to shoot people trying to force their way in a SCIF either. There is a Use of Force spectrum and it went totally out the window here because political leadership wasn't concerned with the victim. The only crime here was trespass and democrats have consistently held that trespass on its own is not a sufficient reason to use force. 

I'm tracking.  I think it's a bit disingenuous to compare firing into a street protest bunch versus a somewhat organized group of people smashing through doors/windows in the capitol.  Still not justified but not the same level.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, FLEA said:

As an Air Force reservist and veteran he has a responsibility to ask about what happened with Ashley Babbit, and I've yet to see one person on the commission ask why a woman/veteran was murdered by a federal entity on capital grounds and no justice was served. 

Wasn't she part of the same crowd that:

Wanted to hang the vice president

Physically assaulted capitol police in order to gain access to the capitol.

Sprayed bear spray/pepper spray at police trying to keep them out

Failed to comply with instructions to stay back/disperse with law enforcement who are sworn to protect the capitol grounds and members of Congress/staff.

 

Tragic as her death is, the police were doing thier job. 

 

 

Edited by mudhen69
  • Upvote 8
  • Downvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, mudhen69 said:

Wasn't she part of the same crowd that:

Wanted to hang the vice president

Physically assaulted capitol police in order to gain access to the capitol.

Sprayed bear spray/pepper spray at police trying to keep them out

Failed to comply with instructions to stay back/disperse with law enforcement who are sworn to protect the capitol grounds and members of Congress/staff.

 

Tragic as her death is, the police were doing thier job. 

 

 

Nope. That's not how the justice system works. In fact she was on video discouraging the crowd from damaging property and taking things from the building. 

Look man, I don't like BLM riots either. But I don't get to shoot randomly into the crowd to tell them to get out of a private business. That's not how it works. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Nope. That's not how the justice system works. In fact she was on video discouraging the crowd from damaging property and taking things from the building. 

 

You mean the video where the group of protesters were attempting to break down a barricaded door with armed police behind it; and then she subsequently tried to climb thorough?  https://www.nbcnews.com/video/capitol-shooting-that-led-to-ashli-babbitt-s-death-captured-on-video-99180613572

How was that supposed to go down? What is a police officer supposed to do when faced with this situation? Were police supposed to help her through the door and thank her for her efforts in "discouraging the crowd"?

What am I missing here? If there is another video or a different side of the story, I am all ears. 

47 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Look man, I don't like BLM riots either. But I don't get to shoot randomly into the crowd to tell them to get out of a private business. That's not how it works. 

What does this have to do with BLM? Are you suggesting the police officer randomly shot into the crowd? I fail to see the connection. 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, herkbier said:

Murdered?
LARP'd herself to death?

Fixed that for you.

6 hours ago, FLEA said:

You don't get to fire a random round untargeted into a group of rioters. Besides, protest are "supposed" to make you uncomfortable. 

Nobody fired randomly into the crowd.  A reasonable, and quite forgiving, threshold for (proxy) self-defense was established by the officer and she found herself in position to be first to test it out.  She was very deliberately targeted and she alone suffered the appropriate consequences. Nothing random about it.

6 hours ago, FLEA said:

Nope. Believe it or not, SF doesn't have authority to shoot people trying to force their way in a SCIF either. There is a Use of Force spectrum and it went totally out the window here because political leadership wasn't concerned with the victim. The only crime here was trespass and democrats have consistently held that trespass on its own is not a sufficient reason to use force. 

A completely disingenuous comparison as there is no reasonable expectation of threat to life.

Do our enemies know that they can just waltz onto Whiteman and steal a nuke because SF can't actually do anything about it?  It's just trespassing and theft, right?

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 6
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Mark1 said:

Fixed that for you.

Nobody fired randomly into the crowd.  A reasonable, and quite forgiving, threshold for (proxy) self-defense was established by the officer and she found herself in position to be first to test it out.  She was very deliberately targeted and she alone suffered the appropriate consequences. Nothing random about it.

A completely disingenuous comparison as there is no reasonable expectation of threat to life.

Do our enemies know that they can just waltz onto Whiteman and steal a nuke because SF can't actually do anything about it?  It's just trespassing and theft, right?

I could give you my own opinion but I wouldnt do it as well as this guy who is an actual attorney and works on use of force cases. There are several facets of Ashli's killing that are irregular with contemporary norms for use or force. 

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/569827-justified-shooting-or-fair-game-shooter-of-ashlii-babbitt-makes-shocking/amp/

 

My point with the comparison to BLM, is if we are going to scrape through the dirt every time an unarmed person is shot by police I support of a democratic narrative, we need to do that in all cases. Not just ones that support our political party. 

Edited by FLEA
  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2022 at 12:30 PM, FLEA said:

We need to be consistent. I didn't support police overuse of force in George Floyd and I don't support it here. Consistency is key. Without consistency there is no rule of law. You don't get to fire a random round untargeted into a group of rioters. Besides, protest are "supposed" to make you uncomfortable. 

Ok, I see what your doing. Fair game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/11/2022 at 6:31 PM, Mark1 said:

Fixed that for you.

Nobody fired randomly into the crowd.  A reasonable, and quite forgiving, threshold for (proxy) self-defense was established by the officer and she found herself in position to be first to test it out.  She was very deliberately targeted and she alone suffered the appropriate consequences. Nothing random about it.

A completely disingenuous comparison as there is no reasonable expectation of threat to life.

Do our enemies know that they can just waltz onto Whiteman and steal a nuke because SF can't actually do anything about it?  It's just trespassing and theft, right?

She was straight up murdered. The cops own statements show that.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rep. Adam Kinzinger shares threatening letter sent to his family
https://mol.im/a/10934535


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

That was stupid. I’m not sure free advertising for idiots or psychopaths is the best plan.


Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2022 at 1:27 AM, arg said:

She was straight up murdered. The cops own statements show that.

 

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.  Don't trespass, break down doors, shatter windows and hop barricades clearly meant to keep you out and you likely won't get shot...easy as that.  Hard to feel sorry for someone like this.  

Edited by SocialD
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/20/2022 at 12:27 AM, arg said:

She was straight up murdered.

 

10 hours ago, SocialD said:

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.  Don't trespass, break down doors, shatter windows and hop barricades clearly meant to keep you out and you likely won't get shot...easy as that.

Two things can be true at the same time.  Ashley Babbitt shouldn't have been where she was, but that doesn't completely exonerate the Capitol Police, or anyone else who was involved.

I'd like to see a complete, non-partisan review of Jan 6th, but it seems that's never going to happen, given the current political climate.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Duck said:

That was stupid. I’m not sure free advertising for idiots or psychopaths is the best plan.

Yeah, it does seem like a lot of grandstanding.  I would have assumed just about any Congressman of note would receive at least a handful of similar letters every year.  Lots of crazies out there, after all.

Sure enough, from the article:

Quote

Last May, U.S. Capitol Police reported that the number of threats against lawmakers more than doubled from the previous year. The department said it had investigated about 9,000 potential threats in 2020. 

9000 potential threats, spread over 535 Congressmen and Senators.  I assume Kinzinger probably has a selection of letters he could have chosen from when he published this one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...