Claims about treatment of January 6th defendants

[Ken]

Names please? Who are you talking about? With that information I can look up court records, investigations of the claims, etc. Anything at all that can be used to figure out if this is true?

I'm sure we agree that I shouldn't just believe whatever these Republicans are saying without at least some level of verifiable information.

You can find any of this info out with a simple Google search.

Apparently YOU can't.

It is your claim after all.

[Josh]

Apparently YOU can't.

It is your claim after all.

No, I can. I'm simply refusing to play your games where you always ask for "fact checks", because it's a complete waste of my time to cite sources and give examples and then pollute MennoNet with page after page arguing about whether or not my sources are OK.

[Pelerin]

The thread is in Politics, not Anabap Theology/Practice, so you're huntering in the wrong department for an explanation. :geek:

Ah got it now. I’ve been hunkering not huntering on that part of the news.

[Bootstrap]

It sure is a weird coincidence how the evidence supporting your claims always seems to evaporate when anyone looks for it.

There's plenty of evidence, but as I said, I'm not going to spend hours building airtight cases (which I have done in the past) for folks like yourself that simply impeach any sources I have, or else end up handwaving away what I said when the sources are unimpeachable. It's a waste of my time, and I choose not to accept that level of disrespect.

So ... it's an airtight case, your sources are unimpeachable, but you can't cite them? And it's our fault for asking?

That's not very convincing to me. You could, for instance, point to your airtight case and your unimpeachable sources, and decide not to spend any more time on the issue. Sure, we might not agree, but that's not the point - people don't always agree, we can't force others to see it our way. But we can at least provide evidence for our views.

If I don't think your evidence is very compelling, I may say that, I may point out something I consider more reliable. But that's how discussions about facts happen.

[Bootstrap]

I can't force you to provide evidence for your claims, but you said this to me:

You should be taking these allegations seriously. Indefinite detention without trial is a very bad thing. You should not handwave it away with an excuse of, “Fox bad. Fox bad thing with Doninion. Thus, any concern about mistreatment of 1/6 prisoners is invalid.”

That's not what I'm saying.

I'm saying this: First step, find out if it's true. I try not to get riled up about things that may well be untrue. I try to wait for the facts to roll in. To me, the people who knowingly made all those false claims about Dominion are not an unimpeachable, airtight source. I need something more reliable than that.

I am concerned about actual, true, mistreatment of prisoners, from 1/6 or any other crime.

[temporal1]

In other news, if her Dad was "the big guy" she would probably have plea bargained out by now.

I’m not quite following what you mean by this. That she wasn’t offered plea bargain—but would have been if she was the bishop’s daughter? (And he would have gotten her a better lawyer?) Or an I just being dense and it’s a comment on church leaders’ tendency to pull special strings for their children?

Or is capitalized “Dad” is a reference to God (in conjunction with the headcovering authority in the previous post)?

It’s refreshing to know not everyone’s brain has been so trained by msm to not instantly snap-to their drama du jour.

[justme]

In other news, if her Dad was "the big guy" she would probably have plea bargained out by now.

I’m not quite following what you mean by this. That she wasn’t offered plea bargain—but would have been if she was the bishop’s daughter? (And he would have gotten her a better lawyer?) Or an I just being dense and it’s a comment on church leaders’ tendency to pull special strings for their children?

Or is capitalized “Dad” is a reference to God (in conjunction with the headcovering authority in the previous post)?

It’s refreshing to know not everyone’s brain has been so trained by msm to not instantly snap-to their drama du jour.

huh?
i don't follow the thot process?

[Pelerin]

i don't follow the thot process?

My thought process or temp’s or Josh’s?

Joshua was making a reference to Hunter Biden’s plea deal which was…something that day. I already figured out a long time ago what I think of the whole Hunter Biden thing (not much) and it just doesn’t interest me and if I saw the stories about it my eyes just glazed over them. So I didn’t follow his thought process thought he was making an arcane joke about intra-Mennonite politics or else an oblique reference to the headcovering. Temp is refreshed that I didn’t recognize the actual reference because it’s good to not be au current with the outrage du jour.

[justme]

thanks

[Grace]

Jan 6 defendant Ryan Samsel.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/0 ... -prisoner/

Barry Ramey

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/0 ... dangerous/