US Capitol Stormers Are Now On No-Fly List And Crying At Airports

[TwitchySeal]

I'm surprised they were so focused on the Trump supporters considering they have just a tad bit of work to do in regards to tightening up their security protocol.

These were the people that literally stormed the Capital during a joint session of congress the day before.  Killed a cop, attacked journalists, broke into and stole from Congress members offices and desks on the floor, chanted 'hang Mike Pence', brought a noose, built a gallows, etc...

[Gyfts]

I'm surprised they were so focused on the Trump supporters considering they have just a tad bit of work to do in regards to tightening up their security protocol.

These were the people that literally stormed the Capital during a joint session of congress the day before.  Killed a cop, attacked journalists, broke into and stole from Congress members offices and desks on the floor, chanted 'hang Mike Pence', brought a noose, built a gallows, etc...

Pfft, amateur numbers. Try 5 dead cops by a BLM radical in 2016 in the span of an hour or over 30 dead during summer BLM riots. But don't worry, that was legitimized by democrats so terrorism only works one way. I'm not saying the rioters didn't deserve it. The TSA is useless posturing. If you told me what the chance was of a capitol rioter blowing up a plane was, anything other than zero would be shocking. TSA doesn't exist to protect anyone, just as a deterrent. Probably put them on a no fly-list so they wouldn't flee perhaps. Or, they could be a security risk. Who knows, that wasn't my main point.

[TwitchySeal]

I'm surprised they were so focused on the Trump supporters considering they have just a tad bit of work to do in regards to tightening up their security protocol.

These were the people that literally stormed the Capital during a joint session of congress the day before.  Killed a cop, attacked journalists, broke into and stole from Congress members offices and desks on the floor, chanted 'hang Mike Pence', brought a noose, built a gallows, etc...

Pfft, amateur numbers. Try 5 dead cops by a BLM radical in 2016 in the span of an hour or over 30 dead during summer BLM riots. But don't worry, that was legitimized by democrats so terrorism only works one way. I'm not saying the rioters didn't deserve it. The TSA is useless posturing. If you told me what the chance was of a capitol rioter blowing up a plane was, anything other than zero would be shocking. TSA doesn't exist to protect anyone, just as a deterrent. Probably put them on a no fly-list so they wouldn't flee perhaps. Or, they could be a security risk. Who knows, that wasn't my main point.

It was legitimized by the literally millions of peaceful protesters around the world.  Trying to lump the 95% of BLM protests that had no violence at all with the 5% that did is as irrational as trying to say that Trump rallies from 2016-2020 were all about violence, hanging Mike Pence and overthrowing the government.  So why do you keep doing it?

[Broly46]

Just to clarify, what’s the normal circumstances a person will be deemed deny into airport?

As long as you have a ticket, valid ID, no bombs or drugs in your bags and you're not on the no fly list, you shouldn't have a problem.

I’m sure being barred from flying doesn’t stop people from going abroad, time to make a drone and fly without an airport?

[nutildah]

Just to clarify, what’s the normal circumstances a person will be deemed deny into airport?

As long as you have a ticket, valid ID, no bombs or drugs in your bags and you're not on the no fly list, you shouldn't have a problem.

I’m sure being barred from flying doesn’t stop people from going abroad, time to make a drone and fly without an airport?

I'd be more inclined to pay off a captain and stow away on a barge headed somewhere off-continent.

[Gyfts]

I'm surprised they were so focused on the Trump supporters considering they have just a tad bit of work to do in regards to tightening up their security protocol.

These were the people that literally stormed the Capital during a joint session of congress the day before.  Killed a cop, attacked journalists, broke into and stole from Congress members offices and desks on the floor, chanted 'hang Mike Pence', brought a noose, built a gallows, etc...

Pfft, amateur numbers. Try 5 dead cops by a BLM radical in 2016 in the span of an hour or over 30 dead during summer BLM riots. But don't worry, that was legitimized by democrats so terrorism only works one way. I'm not saying the rioters didn't deserve it. The TSA is useless posturing. If you told me what the chance was of a capitol rioter blowing up a plane was, anything other than zero would be shocking. TSA doesn't exist to protect anyone, just as a deterrent. Probably put them on a no fly-list so they wouldn't flee perhaps. Or, they could be a security risk. Who knows, that wasn't my main point.

It was legitimized by the literally millions of peaceful protesters around the world.  Trying to lump the 95% of BLM protests that had no violence at all with the 5% that did is as irrational as trying to say that Trump rallies from 2016-2020 were all about violence, hanging Mike Pence and overthrowing the government.  So why do you keep doing it?

Because it's a terrible take to assign arbitrary percentages to an extremist movement that broke out into riots in every major city. I've read that data before and immediately assumed it was a left wing think tank. Their methodology is hardly objective. The capitol hill riot was a singular event, BLM riots went on for months unchecked and then legitimized by democratic politicians lmao. As if it could not get worse.

100k Trump supporters at Washington DC for his rally, 2k begin to riot, maybe 1k, perhaps less, entered the building. So that's a 2% rate of violence? Or is it 1%?

Democratic politicians openly refused to condemn their rabid base from rioting in the streets because it was inconvenient for them politically. Can't agree with Trump, even when it comes to rioting and looting, apparently. It was cowardly of them, and you should admit it if you're going to criticize Trump in the same breath. You don't get to be upset at the capitol riots without recognizing that the BLM riots were also abhorrent which ended up in 100x the damage, 6-7x the number of lives lost, and some multiple of the amount of participants involved

When you tell the thousands of police officers that went through the violence, the billions of damages to small businesses, the families of those who had lost someone, like David Dorn who was killed by a looter and no one gives a fuck about, that the BLM riots were just 5% violent, I'll be sure to tell the leftists that the capitol riot was only 2% violent.

And just on a side note on  link you posted - I read 2 pages of it and it is already littered with falsehoods. It's like they allowed high school kids to do a social science project.

It claimed Ahmaud Arbery was just out jogging when he was shot. That's false. He was trying to rob a house and was running away when police were called. It also claimed Breonna Taylor was killed after police executed a warrant on the wrong house. Completely false - the warrant had Taylor's name and SSN on it.

Are you trying to tell me I need to take these people seriously? C'mon now.

[TwitchySeal]

Because it's a terrible take to assign arbitrary percentages

They aren't arbitrary percentages.  The ACLED is transparent in their methodology and explain it in excruciating detail. https://acleddata.com/acleddatanew/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2020/10/ACLED_USAMethodology_2020.pdf

Every different type of event, how they code it, what the definition of 'violence' is, what makes something an 'protest', 'counter protest' or 'riot' or 'demonstration', how the data is collected, what tools they use, all of the raw data itself - all of it is public. 

I've read that data before and immediately assumed it was a left wing think tank.

They aren't a left wing think tank.  It's basically a non profit project that monitors civil rest globally mostly tracking stuff like potential coups in the middle of Africa.  They're transparent about where their funding comes from and what they do, it's very easy to find.

The capitol hill riot was a singular event, BLM riots went on for months unchecked and then legitimized by democratic politicians lmao. As if it could not get worse.

The violent protests resulted in thousands of arrests.  The movement was legitimized by millions of people around the world supporting it. 

Anyway, since the dozens of protests I claim to have witnessed with my own eyes and the data collected by ACLED from 10,000+ protests over the summer are not credible enough for you - what is your credible source that has demonstrated to you that I am wrong when I say "the vast majority of BLM protests had zero violence". 

You don't have one, do you?  I've looked, genuinely tried to disprove myself, but It's just outrage media that's politically convenient for those who make pwning the libs a priority to believe.  There's definitely violence, and it's a serious issue, but it's painfully obvious that by far, the vast majority of BLM protests have been peaceful - as in not a single punch, broken window, nothing.

[Gyfts]

They aren't arbitrary percentages.  The ACLED is transparent in their methodology and explain it in excruciating detail. https://acleddata.com/acleddatanew/wp-content/uploads/dlm_uploads/2020/10/ACLED_USAMethodology_2020.pdf

Answer me this -- if someone can be so incompetent to not even do the most basic research into two high profile killings (The ACLED, that is), why in the world would I take anything they have to say seriously? They can regurgitate two falsehoods without even reading in two pages about the Ahmaud Arbery shooting where they falsely claim he was just out for a jog, and the Breonna Taylor shooting where they falsely claim the police had executed the wrong search warrant.

You don't have one, do you?  I've looked, genuinely tried to disprove myself, but It's just outrage media that's politically convenient for those who make pwning the libs a priority to believe.  There's definitely violence, and it's a serious issue, but it's painfully obvious that by far, the vast majority of BLM protests have been peaceful - as in not a single punch, broken window, nothing.

I never said the majority of BLM protests were not peaceful. The overall movement is extreme, and the riots that went on for months, along with 35+ dead, along with 1-2 billion dollars worth of damage, was 100% on BLM and constitute left wing violence. But, for some reason, people seem to want to excuse BLM riots while also condemning the capitol riots because this is how politics goes, you see. It would be too reasonable for someone to believe that the capitol riots were terrible, and the BLM riots were terrible.

The problem is democrats legitimized BLM riots and chose to do nothing about it. In fact, they double downed on it -- AOC saying "the point of protests is to make people uncomfortable" or Nancy Pelosi calling federal DHS agents who were ordered to protect a federal building from antifa/BLM rioters "stormtroopers", ordering that they stop protecting the federal building. And here's a beauty - Kamala Harris posting a bail out fund for rioters, looters, and arsonists to be bailed out.

This isn't about pwning the libs, this is me truly in good faith trying to understand this insanity of normalizing the BLM riots as if they were all fine and dandy. I truly don't think you remember how much violence went on during those riots. There's video clips of some looter getting his guts smeared across the pavement as he gets stuck in the wheel well of a FedEx truck. Then there's also video clips of police officers getting mobbed by entire groups 1v10. All for what? A fentanyl junkie who's "alleged" killers will walk free in a few months?

[TwitchySeal]

Answer me this -- if someone can be so incompetent to not even do the most basic research into two high profile killings (The ACLED, that is), why in the world would I take anything they have to say seriously?

You should take them seriously because they clearly are competent and did their research.  I'm not sure why you are saying otherwise.

They use citations for everything.  There's probably 100 citations in the introduction alone.  Media reports, police reports, press releases, literally anything that they aren't the source for (like their data) has a citation.  This is literally what it looks like when something is well sourced.

They can regurgitate two falsehoods without even reading in two pages about the Ahmaud Arbery shooting where they falsely claim he was just out for a jog,

They said Ahmaud Arbery was out jogging, not that he was 'just out for a jog' (it's not the same thing) citing a NY Times article along with the police report and letter from the Georgia DA.

They also said that the shooters suspected him of breaking into homes.

and the Breonna Taylor shooting where they falsely claim the police had executed the wrong search warrant.

They cited the Louisville Government press release saying that it wasn't the wrong home.




Why do you keep trying this?

what is your credible source that has demonstrated to you that I am wrong when I say "the vast majority of BLM protests had zero violence".  

You don't have one, do you?  I've looked, genuinely tried to disprove myself, but It's just outrage media that's politically convenient for those who make pwning the libs a priority to believe.

I never said the majority of BLM protests were not peaceful.

The semantics arguments are so tedious.  You didn't literally say that but you have been implying it over and over.

You don't want to answer because you don't have a good answer.

[Gyfts]

You should take them seriously because they clearly are competent and did their research.  I'm not sure why you are saying otherwise.

They are competent, why exactly?

They said Ahmaud Arbery was out jogging, not that he was 'just out for a jog' (it's not the same thing) citing a NY Times article along with the police report and letter from the Georgia DA. They also said that the shooters suspected him of breaking into homes.

No, they are exactly the same thing. Out for a jog, out jogging, literally synonymous. He was a fleeing criminal, not out jogging. The initial reports were that he was lynched while out for a jog which obviously turned out not to be true so they're reporting the initial info that was wrong. It's like saying school shooter is just going to class, perhaps an evading felon in a police chase is just going for a drive. He wasn't out jogging, he was fleeing after he was caught trespassing and probably stealing.

They cited the Louisville Government press release saying that it wasn't the wrong home.

From your own report that you cited, this is the exact quote:

Louisville, Kentucky, police raided the wrong home while attempting to serve a warrant and exchanged gunfire with one of the occupants; his partner, Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old paramedic who was sleeping at the time, was shot and killed by the officers

This is completely 100% false. She was not sleeping, and it was not the wrong home. Taylor's name was on the warrant. Can you please explain to me why you're not getting this? It's like you're refusing to acknowledge they got the facts wrong. It doesn't matter what they cite -- their assertion is wrong.

The semantics arguments are so tedious.  You didn't literally say that but you have been implying it over and over.

You don't want to answer because you don't have a good answer.

I've noticed that you keep ignoring AOC's tweet on "peaceful" protests or that Nancy Pelosi sided with antifa/BLM rioters by calling DHS officers "stormtroopers "for the crime of guarding a federal court house, perhaps no good answer on that?

But set that aside - my argument is this: Democratic politicians and disingenuous liberals completely ignored months of rioting by BLM over a fentanyl junkie that would have died anyways because they were too woke for their own good. Every republican is firm on condemning the capitol riots. Trump condemned it, Ted Cruz condemned it, and not a single elected US Republican (to my knowledge at least) has came out and endorsed those riots. Democrats, on the other hand, would rather play this "mostly" peaceful semantics game to white wash the months of riots, lootings, burning of apartment buildings, assaults of police officer, ect. Instead of recognizing that violence is bad regardless of what the ends are, they continue to normalize it while in the same breath accusing Trump of inciting the capitol riots. Meanwhile, you had Kamala Harris posting a link to the Minnesota freedom fund which was designed to bail out rioters that were charged on riot related offenses. Maybe I'm not getting this, but you explain to me how this is reasonable because I'm all ears.

My argument is basically -- be consistent, like normal people, and be outraged when you see violence regardless of what the cause is. The capitol riots were terrible and it's a bad look for conservatives when a bunch of hillbillies with diabetes storm the capitol. ALSO, it is terrible when BLM riots burn cities for months with democratic politicians turning the blind eye or actively encourage them. Fair enough?

Quick note on Trump and the riots - I think Trump is responsible for raising the temperature and so were Republicans who tried to contest the election results in the house/senate. Could you make the argument that had they not done this, the capitol riots wouldn't have happened? Absolutely -- I would probably agree. But, as soon as the violence struck, Republicans were all pretty much on board that this was terrible and that everyone involved should get the book thrown at them. So why do dems feel the need to be so trepidatious when it comes to BLM rioting? Well, probably has to do with the wokeness that's laced inside the modern democratic platform. Just a guess.  

[squatz1]

Just to clarify, what’s the normal circumstances a person will be deemed deny into airport?

As long as you have a ticket, valid ID, no bombs or drugs in your bags and you're not on the no fly list, you shouldn't have a problem.

And apparently if you have a long beard the TSA will move you into the special line and grab your nuts. 

Jokes aside the TSA is a flaming dumpster fire with nearly a 90% failure rate- https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/12/20/whistleblower-says-tsa-is-trading-speed-for-security/

I'm surprised they were so focused on the Trump supporters considering they have just a tad bit of work to do in regards to tightening up their security protocol.

Oh if we’re turning this into a discussion about the TSA, they’re an absolutely horribly inefficient organization that can’t even do their own job correctly.

I think that the TSA is a jobs program for the tons of people that live near the airports. It ensures that these people are put to work, and aren’t a strain on the welfare system.

But no one cares about fixing that stuff anymore. There’s no reason to even do that when nothing matters and tons of money is continuously injected by both Congress and the Fed.

[TwitchySeal]

You should take them seriously because they clearly are competent and did their research.  I'm not sure why you are saying otherwise.

They are competent, why exactly?

They said Ahmaud Arbery was out jogging, not that he was 'just out for a jog' (it's not the same thing) citing a NY Times article along with the police report and letter from the Georgia DA. They also said that the shooters suspected him of breaking into homes.

No, they are exactly the same thing. Out for a jog, out jogging, literally synonymous. He was a fleeing criminal, not out jogging. The initial reports were that he was lynched while out for a jog which obviously turned out not to be true so they're reporting the initial info that was wrong. It's like saying school shooter is just going to class, perhaps an evading felon in a police chase is just going for a drive. He wasn't out jogging, he was fleeing after he was caught trespassing and probably stealing.

They cited the Louisville Government press release saying that it wasn't the wrong home.

From your own report that you cited, this is the exact quote:

Louisville, Kentucky, police raided the wrong home while attempting to serve a warrant and exchanged gunfire with one of the occupants; his partner, Breonna Taylor, a 26-year-old paramedic who was sleeping at the time, was shot and killed by the officers

This is completely 100% false. She was not sleeping, and it was not the wrong home. Taylor's name was on the warrant. Can you please explain to me why you're not getting this? It's like you're refusing to acknowledge they got the facts wrong. It doesn't matter what they cite -- their assertion is wrong.

The semantics arguments are so tedious.  You didn't literally say that but you have been implying it over and over.

You don't want to answer because you don't have a good answer.

I've noticed that you keep ignoring AOC's tweet on "peaceful" protests or that Nancy Pelosi sided with antifa/BLM rioters by calling DHS officers "stormtroopers "for the crime of guarding a federal court house, perhaps no good answer on that?

But set that aside - my argument is this: Democratic politicians and disingenuous liberals completely ignored months of rioting by BLM over a fentanyl junkie that would have died anyways because they were too woke for their own good. Every republican is firm on condemning the capitol riots. Trump condemned it, Ted Cruz condemned it, and not a single elected US Republican (to my knowledge at least) has came out and endorsed those riots. Democrats, on the other hand, would rather play this "mostly" peaceful semantics game to white wash the months of riots, lootings, burning of apartment buildings, assaults of police officer, ect. Instead of recognizing that violence is bad regardless of what the ends are, they continue to normalize it while in the same breath accusing Trump of inciting the capitol riots. Meanwhile, you had Kamala Harris posting a link to the Minnesota freedom fund which was designed to bail out rioters that were charged on riot related offenses. Maybe I'm not getting this, but you explain to me how this is reasonable because I'm all ears.

My argument is basically -- be consistent, like normal people, and be outraged when you see violence regardless of what the cause is. The capitol riots were terrible and it's a bad look for conservatives when a bunch of hillbillies with diabetes storm the capitol. ALSO, it is terrible when BLM riots burn cities for months with democratic politicians turning the blind eye or actively encourage them. Fair enough?

Quick note on Trump and the riots - I think Trump is responsible for raising the temperature and so were Republicans who tried to contest the election results in the house/senate. Could you make the argument that had they not done this, the capitol riots wouldn't have happened? Absolutely -- I would probably agree. But, as soon as the violence struck, Republicans were all pretty much on board that this was terrible and that everyone involved should get the book thrown at them. So why do dems feel the need to be so trepidatious when it comes to BLM rioting? Well, probably has to do with the wokeness that's laced inside the modern democratic platform. Just a guess.  

We've already debated the details of the George Flloyd shooting, no need to go through this all over again.

All I'm trying to say is that it seems like your perception of BLM protests is way off from reality.  Nothing to do with whether or not you agree with the movement, or what politicians have  said about it, or even the specific police shootings.

As I've said before - I know many people who have participated, I've witnessed many of them myself, and what you describe only matches what I see on the media - but not in real life.  Peaceful protests don't make for good ratings or clicks.
Yes, there are crazy, radical, violent people - but there are tons more normal people that are protesting because they genuinely believe they are doing good.  The violence pisses them off a lot more than you think.

And to make sure I'm not falling victim to my own bias or luck, I put genuine effort into trying to change my own views.  My best sources are that study you read the beginning of the introduction to and my personal experiences.  You won't read the data because of the introduction and you there's no reason for you to take my word - that's fine, but I think if you were to decide and try and disprove yourself it won't be too difficult.