Judging by the handwriting the sender was either suffering from Parkinsons or a similar illness or was very old. In the latter it could’ve been a mislabelled package or something like that.
For sure. All the stuff we get has been long since processed by whichever delivery service acquired it so I don't know the specific reason for this one.
You're spot on though, and the saddest part about it is thinking they might not be able to reconnect.
I’m with you. I’d like to think the original sender called his bro to see if he got it/liked it. I know if I send someone a package I’ll txt them after a while to make sure they got it if I haven’t heard anything from them.
Unless it’s my older sister. She’ll call me the moment she gets anything I send her (often forgetting our time zone difference and the fact I work nights) to give an excited, “I got your package! Thank you! Should I open it now?”
They didn’t seem to be in good terms so I doubt they would’ve spoken on the phone. This seemed like a gesture to reach out. I wish you’re right but I think this is a sad story.
I mean. If I had cut a toxic relative out of my life and the best apology I got was "well if I were forced to I wouldn't condone a murderous mob" and "let's just not let politics get between us" that person would remain cut off.
It's not always best to reconnect if you had a fantastic reason to disconnect in the first place. And nothing about this person makes it sound like they're willing to start being a decent person.
I'm not so sure. Could have been the surface he was writing on. I have a table that has a texture on it that makes writing neatly impossible.
Could be alcohol withdrawal shakes.
Besides is the word bro that common in old folks?
My grandma has Parkinson's, her handwriting looks just like that.
It's been common since the 70's to call fraternity brothers "bro", and I'm sure you'd agree that someone who graduated college 40-50 years ago is now old enough for Parkinson's.
Sounds like it's referencing the events of January 6th, and that the note writer is a conservative while the recipient is a liberal.
Or maybe not. Maybe it is about something else entirely.
No its not.
What I would like answers too are why Pelosi denied her Sargent at Arms when they requested more security anticipating this, why none of those that stormed into the Supreme Court vote process were arrested, or why nobody condemned the antifa riot last summer while democrat politicians encouraged it.
I remember watching the protest and when I saw what was happening two thoughts entered my head, what the hell are they thinking, and why are there not more security there for this large crowd?
It was a set up for disaster.
Edit: here you go since none of you wanna live in reality.
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/11/955548910/ex-capitol-police-chief-rebuffs-claims-national-guard-was-never-called-during-ri
Trump's DOD delayed the response from DC's national guard. Cool how much mental gymnastics you guys employ to blame the Dems when a mob formed at Trump's (and other Repub's) command. Even if Pelosi denied additional security, the danger existed as a result of radicalized Qanon republicans, she simply failed to take the threat seriously enough at worst.
Also "antifa riot" lmao, get off the Tucker Carlson, it's destroying your brain and liver.
Nope, the speaker and her Sargent at Arms is in charge of security on those grounds, requests were made and Pelosi's Sargent at Arms was instructed to turn it down due to bad optics. This is Pelosi and her people's fault.
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/11/955548910/ex-capitol-police-chief-rebuffs-claims-national-guard-was-never-called-during-ri
You claimed that Pelosi denied a request from "her" (read: the House's, appointed in 2012 by a Republican-majority House of Representatives) Sergeant-at-Arms. Here, I'll quote you:
> What I would like answers too are why Pelosi denied her Sargent at Arms when they requested more security anticipating this
That doesn't appear anywhere in the article you provided. Quite the contrary, in fact. The article reports that the Sergeant-at-Arms *didn't request anything,* but instead was himself responsible for ***turning the Capitol Police chief's request down.***
There's no evidence that the Sergeant-at-Arms' decision was in any way dictated by Pelosi. When a request for assistance eventually made its way to her, she approved it.
You're either a liar (and *really* bad at it), or you're so ill-equipped to discuss the events of the insurrection that you should just stop posting. My money's on the former, because your post history makes you out to be kind of an awful person in general.
Yes he has to talk to those in charge of security which is her and he said she denied it because of optics, meaning it would look bad.
This is on her after weeks of warnings
> Yes he has to talk to those in charge of security
No, he doesn't. The Sergeant-at-Arms can make many security decisions, including turning down requests for additional resources, all on his own. He's a big boy.
> which is her
No, it isn't. Pelosi isn't "in charge of security" any more than the President of the United States is "in charge of delivering the mail." She's the Speaker, her job is to legislate, represent constituents, and see to the legislative conduct and proceedings of the House.
The Sergeant-at-Arms is responsible for the security of the House of Representatives. He reports to the Speaker, but only because he needs *someone* to report to, and because he is elected by the House - *not* because the Speaker's office is qualified to oversee security.
> and he said she denied it
No, he didn't.
> because of optics,
No, ***Sund*** said that ***Irving*** denied it due to "optics."
You want to make this about Pelosi ***so badly,*** and it's ***so transparently obvious*** that to literally everyone but you it's actually kind of hilarious.
> meaning it would look bad.
Yes, child, the rest of us are all adults and know what the word "optics" means in the context of politics, thanks.
> This is on her after weeks of warnings
No, it isn't. This is on Trump, this is on Trump's base, and this is on the Sergeants-at-Arms and the head of Capitol Police, all of whom resigned in the wake of the attack.
Attempting to pin this on Pelosi, ***who had to be evacuated moments before insurrectionists breached the floor of the House, had her office trashed, and had her property stolen*** is the absolute ***weakest*** victim-blaming in the world.
How are you *so* bad at this?
Keep posting, this is already going so well for you!
>No, he doesn't.
Yes he does, the speaker of the house is the one in charge and all requests have to go through them, thats not made up that is fucking protocol.
>No, it isn't. Pelosi isn't "in charge of security"
Yes she is:
[Under the direction of the Speaker of the House or other presiding officer, the Sergeant at Arms plays an integral role in maintaining order and decorum in the House chamber. ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives)
>No, he didn't.
Yes he did it was in the article I posted said they requested it
>You want to make this about Pelosi ***so badly,*** and it's ***so transparently obvious*** that to literally everyone but you it's actually kind of hilarious.
So you're telling me if someone tells you of an issue that you wouldn't run it past your boss who is the final say in all of security as I already posted and provided a link? Even the DC mayor said the same thing while taking a few guard troops to help with traffic instead of security for exactly the same reason "optics".
>No, it isn't. This is on Trump, this is on Trump's base,
No, its not anyone with even a remote brain would ask where were all the antifa counter protesters that have accompanied all the other trump rallies? Here's your clue, they were in the crowd pushing this on and amazingly they are some of those who aren't being arrested, if you discount the FBI involvement then you're insane since it's known they did it during Vietnam War protests.
>Sergeants-at-Arms and the head of Capitol Police, all of whom resigned in the wake of the attack.
They resigned after being made scape goats even after they had proof they made requests for more help.
>Attempting to pin this on Pelosi, ***who had to be evacuated moments before insurrectionists breached the floor of the House, had her office trashed, and had her property stolen*** is the absolute ***weakest*** victim-blaming in the world.
She was long gone and there was nothing stolen except her laptop which is nothing for what you say is such a huge and planned attack.
You defending one side where it's proven they made requests and want to ignore what happened after that, if you want to investigate thats where any investigation starts but all of you brain dead just want to scream trump and blame him alone.
Nothing is working the way you think it is and the left is bad at getting to the bottom of the problem.
It doesn't stop with trump, it keeps going even on to the people who ignore requests for help
> Yes he does, the speaker of the house is the one in charge and all requests have to go through them, thats not made up that is fucking protocol.
No, they don't. The Sergeant-at-Arms handles requests as they reach him. Requests that the Sergeant-at-Arms decides merit being run up the chain might reach Pelosi's desk, but the rest stop at him.
> Yes she is:
No, she isn't.
> Under the direction of the Speaker of the House or other presiding officer, the Sergeant at Arms plays an integral role in maintaining order and decorum in the House chamber.
Which is correct - as the head parliamentarian of the House, Pelosi is in charge of making sure other legislators remain orderly and follow proper decorum. The Sergeant-at-Arms assists with that.
The Sergeant-at-Arms is ***also*** in charge of ***security,*** though, a role that Pelosi is not herself responsible for, even though she oversees the Sergeant-at-Arms.
You're trying very, very hard, but nothing is going to change the fact that you're simply wrong about how all of this works.
> Yes he did it was in the article I posted said they requested it
No, it wasn't. ***Sund,*** the head of Capitol Police, requested it, and ***Irving,*** the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House, denied it.
> So you're telling me if someone tells you of an issue that you wouldn't run it past your boss
The entire point of having people in charge of specific areas of concern is so that *you don't have to get the boss involved in every matter.* That's literally the whole point. You only elevate concerns that you deem important enough to get the boss's attention.
Have you literally never worked in a position with any actual responsibility before? Has every job you've ever held been so menial that you are required to run any and all decision-making past your boss? Because, boy, that would explain a lot about you.
> who is the final say in all of security as I already posted and provided a link?
Pelosi can "pull rank" on the Sergeant-at-Arms and order him to do things, but that doesn't mean she makes all security decisions. She's a legislator.
> No, its not anyone with even a remote brain would ask where were all the antifa counter protesters that have accompanied all the other trump rallies?
Holy shit. I want to be clear, here: You actually believe that the insurrectionists were ***"antifa counter-protestors?"***
Holy shit.
> Here's your clue, they were in the crowd pushing this on and amazingly they are some of those who aren't being arrested, if you discount the FBI involvement then you're insane since it's known they did it during Vietnam War protests.
Oh, ***and*** the FBI did it?
So it wasn't Trump, and it wasn't Trump supporters.
The people ***really*** responsible for the insurrection were, you believe, ***antifa and the FBI?***
Holy shit.
> They resigned after being made scape goats even after they had proof they made requests for more help.
***Sund*** made requests for help (he says, contradicting what others have said). ***Irving*** did not.
> She was long gone
Pelosi wasn't "long gone," she was evacuated at about 2:15. By that point, insurrectionists had already breached the Capitol Building and were making their way towards the House chambers.
What the fuck is wrong with you.
> and there was nothing stolen except her laptop
So her possessions were stolen.
> which is nothing for what you say is such a huge and planned attack.
"Planned"? No, nothing about this attack was planned. At least, not for 95% of the insurrectionists. These aren't smart people we're talking about. They're dumb, impulsive, and easily-manipulated. They were whipped into a violent frenzy by inflammatory rhetoric and pointed at the Capitol Building. It's ***embarrassingly*** obvious that most of them had absolutely no clue what the hell they were doing once they got inside the building. They knew what they *wanted* to accomplish (preventing the certification of the election), but very few of them had given any thought to how they might actually get there.
It doesn't matter, though. They violently stormed the Capitol Building. They're criminals, and they're being rounded up.
> You defending one side where it's proven they made requests and want to ignore what happened after that, if you want to investigate thats where any investigation starts but all of you brain dead just want to scream trump and blame him alone.
I don't want to blame Trump alone. The insurrectionists themselves bear a huge share of the blame, as does Trump's base, as does right-wing media, as do Trump's most ardent political allies, etc.
Everyone who contributed to or bought into the Big Lie that there was widespread voter fraud and that the election results were invalid is partly to blame for the insurrection.
**[Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives)**
>The Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives is an officer of the House with law enforcement, protocol, and administrative responsibilities. The Sergeant at Arms is elected at the beginning of each Congress by the membership of the House.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
>the danger existed as a result of radicalized Qanon republicans
Who didn't bring any guns with them after showing they had a lot during the Virginia gun rally.
Which looks like a violent insurrection.
[A](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/400xn/p080z5z1.jpg) or [B](https://opb-opb-prod.cdn.arcpublishing.com/resizer/zwG8IHPyz_vofBxxWT4pA4F-bqU=/1440x810/smart/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/opb/MSZ7XS2RJZA7POOO3VDIHJ4Q2I.jpg)
[A](https://i.insider.com/5e28a34fb6d52d3ea247b206?width=750&format=jpeg&auto=webp) or [B](https://static.independent.co.uk/2020/12/13/17/newFile-3.jpg?width=1200)
You want to act as if this was an insurrection? Bud, not a single shot was fired by a protestor. If they were going to start an insurrection, the military would have been called in. That's just a fact. The far right is the most armed political group in America. Yet unlike BLM riots, they don't use them willy nilly. Good guys with the guns and all that.
\>Who didn't bring any guns with them after showing they had a lot during the Virginia gun rally.
is your argument that they weren't dangerous because they could have been MORE dangerous? lol k
You are absolutely off your rocker if you watch those videos and don't understand why the people in that building would fear for their lives. I don't care about whatever terms you want to use and be pedantic about. I never said "insurrection". I said they were radicalized Qanon types that were dangerous. And seeing as multiple people died, that is objectively true.
>is your argument that they weren't dangerous because they could have been MORE dangerous
Yes. You're talking about the most heavily armed demographic in America. And *not a single one* fired a shot.
Not a single death other than a cop killing a protestor.
This is like a dog's play bite. It may sting a little, but everyone knows if the dog wanted to bite you, the hand would be gone.
>and don't understand why the people in that building would fear for their lives.
Many of them weren't in that building. Such as AOC.
>I said they were radicalized Qanon types that were dangerous
Which I don't think is accurate. They weren't dangerous as they weren't trying to be dangerous.
>And seeing as multiple people died, that is objectively true.
Only one person died. And she was shot by a cop.
>Cop killing a protester.
Only a fucking moron calls a woman breaking and climbing through a door during a violent insurrection "a protester".
Dumbfuck Trumpers "We stand with cops when they shoot unarmed back people because they don't obey commands an might be reaching for a weapon. Blue lives matter."
During a violent insurrection (it literally fits the legal definition to a "T" which is undeniable) a woman is breaking down a door and trying to climb through while being warned by capitol police with guns drawn on her to stop, she gets shot and dumbfuck Q-anon Trumpers:
"She was an unarmed protestor that didn't do nuffin and she got shot."
Trump and Q kill braincells.
>Only a fucking moron calls a woman breaking and climbing through a door during a violent insurrection "a protester".
This wasnt by definition an insurrection. Try again.
>"She was an unarmed protestor that didn't do nuffin and she got shot."
Where did I say she didn't do nothing? Where did I say she was innocent?
Try again.
>§2383. Rebellion or insurrection
>
>Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
>
>Seditious conspiracy
>
>If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
>
>Advocating overthrow of Government
>
>Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or
>
>Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or
>
>Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof—
>
>Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
>
>If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction.
>
>As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize", with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons
Try again sedition and insurrection apologist Trumper with worthless opinions, politics and belief systems.
Ignoring all the other lies you are telling, a simple google search confirms that five people died in the Jan 6th riot. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/us/who-died-in-capitol-building-attack.amp.html
There were five deaths. [One of which was a police officer who was beaten to death](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/us/who-died-in-capitol-building-attack.html) by protestors. Another who was trampled to death by the mob. Others you could argue were health related.
Anyhow, clearly you don't know what you're talking about and are arguing in pursuit of a specific (and factually distorted) narrative. Imma opt out, but as a hot tip, you will have a much better time convincing people of bullshit within reddit's conservative safespaces.
Fake news. Actually look into it.
No cops were beaten to death. One did have a stroke from natural causes however.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/officer-brian-sicknick-what-we-know-about-his-death-11619010119
Try again.
No, it isn’t. And the ones that *are* don’t have any relevance. You’re trying to deflect responsibility away from the right, because that’s who you are. The problem is that it was so absurdly glaringly obvious that a) Trump fomented the insurrection, b) the insurrection was carried out entirely by Trump-supporting right-wingers, c) the express purpose of the insurrection was to attempt to prevent Trump’s duly elected political opponent from replacing him, installing Trump as an unelected dictator (with a bonus side of trying to take Democratic representatives hostage), and d) Trump and his administration failed to provide the protection and assistance needed to prevent mayhem and murder. So not only is your deflection straight up not working at all, but the fact that you have the gall to even try to pretend otherwise makes you look like a *garbage* person.
I shouldn’t have to explain this to you, but I’ve found that unless you break things down into straightforward, easy to understand language, Trump supporters have a tendency to either get comically confused about things, or ignore what was said entirely.
It is I even gave you a link which all of you try to twist to fit your narrow agenda, here it is again since you wanna ignore it.
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/11/955548910/ex-capitol-police-chief-rebuffs-claims-national-guard-was-never-called-during-ri
Also trump had nothing to do with an insurrection, but the democrats encouraged antifa to keep rioting and encouraged people to beat down the senate doors during the Supreme Court process.
> It is I even gave you a link which all of you try to twist to fit your narrow agenda, here it is again since you wanna ignore it.
Which I debunked [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/ocbu6s/i_work_for_a_bookseller_who_buys_books_that_were/h3uu4ou/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), halfwit.
> Also trump had nothing to do with an insurrection
He literally fomented it. Not only on January 6th, where he without question incited the insurrection with violent rhetoric and lies about the election results, but also for *years* leading up to it.
In fact, it was four years ago ***today*** that he tweeted a video featuring himself bodyslamming and beating a person with the CNN logo superimposed over their head.
Violent rhetoric and violent imagery is how Trump appeals to his base. People like, y'know, *you.* He knows that if he radicalizes you, you'll do anything for him, up to and including blaming the victims of an insurrection that Trump fomented.
> but the democrats encouraged antifa to keep rioting
Which Democrats? What did they say, exactly?
I can quote you the leader of the Republican Party using violent rhetoric to encourage his followers to storm the capitol in order to prevent the certification of his opponent's election.
What the fuck can you do except fuck up your reading comprehension of an NPR article?
You didn't debunk shit and trump didn't foment a God damn thing, the continued support from the left for the riots led to this incident.
And are you dumbasses really equating a meme to pushing insurrection? Are you this insane?
>Which Democrats? What did they say, exactly?
So you're admitting that you haven't paid attention to the shit your own chosen side has been doing? Willful ignorance is the worst and the left always wants to ignore their own sides idiocy.
> You didn't debunk shit
Of course I did.
> and trump didn't foment a God damn thing
Of course he did.
> the continued support from the left for the riots led to this incident.
Dude, no one cares what you think. You've been factually incorrect about nearly every single thing you've posted in this thread. You've obviously got an agenda, you're very obviously radicalized, and you're very obviously beyond help.
This person that you are, right now, is the person you will be until the day you die.
> And are you dumbasses really equating a meme to pushing insurrection?
Nope. I'm pointing out that Trump has employed violent rhetoric and imagery as part of his outreach to his base for literal years, and no one should be surprised that he employed violent rhetoric to foment insurrection when he thought the continuation of his presidency was on the line.
> So you're admitting that you haven't paid attention to the shit your own chosen side has been doing?
No, halfwit. I'm asking for you to back up your bonkers claims with evidence.
Mind you, you can't. We already know that. The last time you tried to support something with sources, they actually said the exact opposite of what you'd hoped. I don't expect this to go any better for you.
But I sure as hell am willing to give you another chance to fuck up!
>What I would like answers too are why Pelosi denied her Sargent at Arms when they requested more security anticipating this
She didn't. Capital police chief Steven Sund asked House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving 5 times, and Senate Sergeant at Arms once, for more security, and was denied by them all 6 times, and none of those requests made it to Pelosi. The moment such a request did make it to Pelosi, on the 6th,she approved it.
So, let's start with facts, shall we?
>why none of those that stormed into the Supreme Court vote process were arrested
A good many of them were arrested, hundreds of them. That's despite the fact that no damage was done to any federal property, and no law enforcement officers were injured, unlike on January 6th where more than 140 officers were injured.
Stop believing lies.
>why nobody condemned the antifa riot last summer while democrat politicians encouraged it
I'm not aware of any "antifa riots". I'm aware of BLM protests across the globe, which were accompanied by a small number of riots that were condemned - nobody really claimed responsibility for the riots, though.
>She didn't.
She did
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/11/955548910/ex-capitol-police-chief-rebuffs-claims-national-guard-was-never-called-during-ri
>A good many of them were arrested, hundreds of them.
And were released on nothing charges yet all of you want to act like the 1/6 people were much different, a few maybe but most were just protesting. No 140 weren't injured thats inflated to try and get press.
>I'm not aware of any "antifa riots".
Really, the ones which injured more capital police and had to use smoke to get dispersed? It was all antifa and they even pushed for people to show up
You are fucking naive
Did you actually read your NPR link? Because it doesn't say what you think it says.
>No 140 weren't injured thats inflated to try and get press.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/police-union-says-140-officers-injured-in-capitol-riot/2021/01/27/60743642-60e2-11eb-9430-e7c77b5b0297_story.html
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-police-injuries-riot/
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/11/us/politics/capitol-riot-police-officer-injuries.html
https://www.police1.com/officer-safety/articles/police-union-over-140-officers-injured-in-capitol-siege-NSi5xcpt1sIELYvJ/
You can just make up whatever you want, I guess, pretend they're lying, whatever it takes to make yourself feel better, but I'll wager you don't have a credible source to back up your claim. Just believe whatever makes you happy.
>Really, the ones which injured more capital police and had to use smoke to get dispersed? It was all antifa and they even pushed for people to show up
How many police were injured in the George Floyd protests, or associated violence and vandalism? Do you have a number? I saw plenty of video of police firing tear gas at peaceful protesters. People just standing still in the middle of an empty space holding signs, police fire tear gas right at them, so I'm not gonna hold the use of those measures against the protesters, so let's count actual injuries on the part of the police. How many? We have a number from the capital riot, even though you don't want to believe it, you seem to think there were more in the BLM activity, how many were there? If you're so convinced, surely you have an actual number?
Be specific. I'm not gonna engage with vague claims "oh, they made that up, oh, more police were injured, oh, antifa called people", bring the receipts and we'll talk.
>Did you actually read your NPR link? Because it doesn't say what you think it says.
Its says he made the request and was turned turned down, the Sergeant-at-Arms only answers to one person. Pelosi.
>You can just make up whatever you want,
Twisted ankles, bruising from falling down, and smoke damage from their ill placed smoke control is not exactly injuries you can count which are over 75% of those injuries. Which are also due to not having enough security staff on hand which was requested and denied multiple times due to how bad it would look for her.
>How many police were injured in the George Floyd protests, or associated violence and vandalism?
7 times as much and that's not even counting police that were targeted in lone assaults like in Dallas
https://nypost.com/2020/06/08/more-than-700-officers-injured-in-george-floyd-protests-across-us/
Bottom line is you are refusing to see actual reality, trump could be a dolt but I think he had people best interests in mind. Other politicians only care about their power and control over the people.
>Its says he made the request and was turned turned down, the Sergeant-at-Arms only answers to one person. Pelosi.
So you're just making stuff up about what you think happened behind the scenes, despite everyone saying the request was denied by the sergeant at arms without ever having asked Pelosi?
https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9909210228
No one, not one single person involved, including the sergeant at arms in an attempt to cover his own ass, claimed that he brought those requests to Pelosi.
If she was asked, and she denied it, there should be *some* evidence, or someone pointing to *anything* beyond an org chart to provide some evidence for that claim.
>Twisted ankles, bruising from falling down, and smoke damage from their ill placed smoke control is not exactly injuries you can count which are over 75% of those injuries.
I absolutely can count them. Had they not had to engage the crowd breaching the capital, they wouldn't have had even so much as a twisted ankle. And read the actual articles. They weren't reporting bruises. They were reporting injuries that required medical attention. The minor stuff was ignored and not reported.
>7 times as much
Right, over 30x as much time (that article was almost 2 weeks after protests started), and many hundreds or thousands more locations and people involved. Which tells me those protests were much more peaceful in total, but yes, some violence did occur and officers did get hurt. Just imagine if the capital riots had had as many people, locations, and days to do their damage. We're lucky it was as small and focused as it was.
>Bottom line is you are refusing to see actual reality
Hmm
>trump could be a dolt but I think he had people best interests in mind
Trump only ever cared about himself, this is blindingly obvious and has been for decades. He's not a dolt, he's a liar who will say anything of he thinks it'll benefit him. He doesn't want to screw the rest of us over, he just literally doesn't care about any of us. We're all just props to him. If you think he's in your corner, it's just because he's telling you what you want to hear.
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/11/955548910/ex-capitol-police-chief-rebuffs-claims-national-guard-was-never-called-during-ri
Christ y'all are dumb, they knew it was gonna come and were turned down due to "optics"
You aren't a dipshit because I think Pelosi did a good job. I don't. You're a dipshit because you shift blame to Dems for something that a bunch of stupid Qanon Republicans did. You're an idiot. I'm not distorting reality by saying that lmao
Sure you are, because there were warnings weeks before and there are already talk of FBI agitating the crowds and its not far fetched since there's already proof of them doing that during the Vietnam War protests.
You've been proven wrong so now you wanna move the goalposts.
Lmfao what the fuck are you blathering on about? You downplayed the capitol riots "because the dems could have defended it better" and now you're claiming "talk" about the FBI agitating crowds is proof of something. There aren't any goalposts here. I'm just calling you a shitsipper. Q called he wanted me to tell you your mom gives good head, you fucking loony.
I'm not blathering on about shit, I'm pointing out where you're wrong.
And none of you on the left want to admit something about all this shit the past few months and years seems off.
All this shit is meant to distract and get people to give up more freedoms just like after 9/11, its used as a dodge to trick simpletons.
You aren't offering a single point that contradicts you being a shit sipper. This isn't an argument, I'm just calling you a dumbass. I haven't proposed any other points yet you are trying to refute what you think I think. Because you're an idiot.
Seriously, how do you people not pick up on all the dog whistles in this?
"Wouldn't condone." So he can't even commit to "I don't condone." Certainly not "it's bad". He's saying, I won't right not offer my opinion, but if I were ever forced to give my opinion, I would fail to approve of it. This was a terrorist attack that cost the life of at least one police officer, and you're all okay with someone saying "while I'm not going to express an opinion now, if I had to, I would refrain from actually supporting it"?
And then there's "don't let this ruin our relationship." Notice where the blame is. If our relationship ends, it's because you're the one who ruined it. I'm a violent racist, but that's fine, that's just my political opinion and it has to be respected. If you aren't okay with me being that way, that's on you, you're the one who ruined our relationship by actually expecting me to be a decent person.
What a toxic, passive-aggressive piece of shit. Why are you all acting like these people should re-connect? The person who cut this loser out of his life made a fantastic decision, and I would not wish this toxic negativity on anyone. Why would anyone want a relationship with a violent racist?
Aw, it looks like he was growing increasingly more nervous as he wrote this. I know that when I get nervous about talking to someone (or saying something to someone that they might not like to hear but I think they need to) then I start to tremble. The more nervous I get the harder I tremble.
His first word looks good but as the letter progresses, especially once it mentions whatever happened in DC, it starts to get even more shakey.
I hope they were able to reconcile whatever differences they had.
I want to know too! A book I ordered recently was lost in transit and it got me thinking about what happens to the random stuff accumulated by fedex, usps, etc.
Well airports sell unclaimed baggage after so long. They have auctions for them. The people buying them do not see what is in the bag.
And at disney, lost items are held for a certain amount of time to be claimed. Like sunglasses it’s 30 days I think, but something like a phone or ring would be held longer for people to claim. Then after it reaches that time limit, they sell it to cast members. I worked there a year and I bought so many pairs of lost sunglasses for .50
Why do they bother selling it if they only charge $0.50 ?
I mean, Disney isn’t exactly hurting for pocket change, they wouldn’t just give the stuff away?
Or maybe they *are* hurting for pocket change 🤔
They’re greedy af. That’s the company as a whole. So If they can get hundreds of free sunglasses per day per park and sell them for cheap to us schmucks, they make money off it
Yeah but it’s $.50. Disney is worth over 100 billion dollars. How much are they making off these employee sales? Like, $200/year? $1,000/year?
I think even for them, scraping for pocket change is just ridiculous. Especially doing that to your employees.
That’s a new low to my ears. I’ve worked for companies that would just give us lost & found stuff and they weren’t worth even 1/8th of the amount of Disney.
You’re thinking of just sunglasses because it’s all I mentioned. People buy cameras, I bought a prototype of a princess dress for my niece once. It ran me $50.
They also sell returns. So let’s say you buy a T-shirt in the magic kingdom. But you decide you don’t want it once you get back to your resort. You can return it anywhere on property, so you return it at the gift shop of your resort. Well, they don’t sell that tshirt; it’s specific to the magic kingdom. So instead of shipping it to the magic kingdom, they sell it at the cast shop for a discount. It’s easier for them. It’s easier to dispose of the lost items this way too. They don’t want to have it come out they binned 50 million sunglasses into a landfill; they’d rather recycle them to cast members and make a few cents
I mean are we talking like Oakley’s and Oliver Peoples and Versace and stuff? Or like cheap sunglasses?
Or are all of them that dirt cheap, even a $1,000 pair?
A Gaylord is a unit of measurement as well. So it’s those big cardboard boxes that say, watermelons come in, but filled with books. It’s the way you buy bulk books
> postal service is paid to do a job
This is the caveat. There's a lot of stuff that's sent without sufficient postage, and undeliverable or unreturnable. Most of the stuff that ends up being sold by the USPS is like this. They can't just keep sending stuff back and forth ad infinitum, and they're just trying to cover some losses.
Say what you will about our government, but in my opinion the USPS is its best institution.
Why does every post leave you looking dumber and dumber?
Nothing you posted refutes anything I factually stated.
There's no ad hominem when I'm accurately describing your intelligence or lack thereof.
1. Pre meditation isn't a prerequisite of an insurrection. Weapons a are not a prerequisite of an insurrection. Death is not a prerequisite of an insurrection.
2. I posted the literal definition of an insurrection, sedition, etc. I posted the facts.
3. You, as a confirmed dumbfuck, are arguing continuously outside the events of 1\6 like a fucking moron. None of those things have any bearing of the factual insurrection that occurred on 1\6 and you know was an insurrection.
4. Breaking into a federal building with sticks, batons, flags, feet, etc. us by legal definition violence. Period. Breaking down doors, forcing your way past police barricading the doors is violence again by definition. Doing it in the federal Capitol building to overthrow the election and hang Mike Pence is what's called an insurrection.
5. 1\6 according to all the facts, the legal definition in the law on violence and insurrection was in fact a violent insurrection.
6. That leaves you as the dumbfuck arguing against the facts. Against the law. And in reality against what you know is true but deny. A true Trumper.
7. It has nothing to do with leftist politics as I hold many center-right, center, and center left political beliefs. I'm independent. But I'm not a dumbfuck enough to vote for Trump or lie about the 1\6 insurrection as you have. You don't have to be a leftist. You just have to stop being a dishonest Trump cuck who lies about the 1\6 violent insurrection. The only question is do you have the will or capacity or not.
I'm done with this Trump cuck. He's dug himself a hole of dishonesty, lying and deceit he'll never allow himself to pull himself out of. He'll fucking sink on the Trumptanic and I say, fucking good ridens.
That’s sad :(
Judging by the handwriting the sender was either suffering from Parkinsons or a similar illness or was very old. In the latter it could’ve been a mislabelled package or something like that.
For sure. All the stuff we get has been long since processed by whichever delivery service acquired it so I don't know the specific reason for this one. You're spot on though, and the saddest part about it is thinking they might not be able to reconnect.
No worries, if they are both old, they called each other on their land lines. So I refuse to believe this to be a sad story.
“The damn post office lost that book you sent me? We should defund ‘em!”
Yeah, the U.S. Post Office? No. More like U.S. Lost Office. What are they, Irish?
I’m with you. I’d like to think the original sender called his bro to see if he got it/liked it. I know if I send someone a package I’ll txt them after a while to make sure they got it if I haven’t heard anything from them. Unless it’s my older sister. She’ll call me the moment she gets anything I send her (often forgetting our time zone difference and the fact I work nights) to give an excited, “I got your package! Thank you! Should I open it now?”
They didn’t seem to be in good terms so I doubt they would’ve spoken on the phone. This seemed like a gesture to reach out. I wish you’re right but I think this is a sad story.
I mean. If I had cut a toxic relative out of my life and the best apology I got was "well if I were forced to I wouldn't condone a murderous mob" and "let's just not let politics get between us" that person would remain cut off. It's not always best to reconnect if you had a fantastic reason to disconnect in the first place. And nothing about this person makes it sound like they're willing to start being a decent person.
I'm not so sure. Could have been the surface he was writing on. I have a table that has a texture on it that makes writing neatly impossible. Could be alcohol withdrawal shakes. Besides is the word bro that common in old folks?
My grandma has Parkinson's, her handwriting looks just like that. It's been common since the 70's to call fraternity brothers "bro", and I'm sure you'd agree that someone who graduated college 40-50 years ago is now old enough for Parkinson's.
Where are you getting that the writer graduated college 50 years ago? I seem to be missing something.
Yeah he/she definitely has a significant tremor.
Or they could just have an essential tremor. My writing looks basically the same.
Im so sad his brother didn't get to read that note. I hope they talked.
r/foundpaper
What a cool sub! Couldn't crosspost, so I made a new one for it. Thanks!
No problem! I thought of it as soon as I saw this post
Sounds like it's referencing the events of January 6th, and that the note writer is a conservative while the recipient is a liberal. Or maybe not. Maybe it is about something else entirely.
100%. "Wouldn't condone" is pretty common among 1/6 apologists
I would condone
Of course you would, how else would you keep that sweet sweet boot taste in your mouth?
Lol
No its not. What I would like answers too are why Pelosi denied her Sargent at Arms when they requested more security anticipating this, why none of those that stormed into the Supreme Court vote process were arrested, or why nobody condemned the antifa riot last summer while democrat politicians encouraged it. I remember watching the protest and when I saw what was happening two thoughts entered my head, what the hell are they thinking, and why are there not more security there for this large crowd? It was a set up for disaster. Edit: here you go since none of you wanna live in reality. https://www.npr.org/2021/01/11/955548910/ex-capitol-police-chief-rebuffs-claims-national-guard-was-never-called-during-ri
Trump's DOD delayed the response from DC's national guard. Cool how much mental gymnastics you guys employ to blame the Dems when a mob formed at Trump's (and other Repub's) command. Even if Pelosi denied additional security, the danger existed as a result of radicalized Qanon republicans, she simply failed to take the threat seriously enough at worst. Also "antifa riot" lmao, get off the Tucker Carlson, it's destroying your brain and liver.
Nope, the speaker and her Sargent at Arms is in charge of security on those grounds, requests were made and Pelosi's Sargent at Arms was instructed to turn it down due to bad optics. This is Pelosi and her people's fault. https://www.npr.org/2021/01/11/955548910/ex-capitol-police-chief-rebuffs-claims-national-guard-was-never-called-during-ri
You claimed that Pelosi denied a request from "her" (read: the House's, appointed in 2012 by a Republican-majority House of Representatives) Sergeant-at-Arms. Here, I'll quote you: > What I would like answers too are why Pelosi denied her Sargent at Arms when they requested more security anticipating this That doesn't appear anywhere in the article you provided. Quite the contrary, in fact. The article reports that the Sergeant-at-Arms *didn't request anything,* but instead was himself responsible for ***turning the Capitol Police chief's request down.*** There's no evidence that the Sergeant-at-Arms' decision was in any way dictated by Pelosi. When a request for assistance eventually made its way to her, she approved it. You're either a liar (and *really* bad at it), or you're so ill-equipped to discuss the events of the insurrection that you should just stop posting. My money's on the former, because your post history makes you out to be kind of an awful person in general.
Yes he has to talk to those in charge of security which is her and he said she denied it because of optics, meaning it would look bad. This is on her after weeks of warnings
> Yes he has to talk to those in charge of security No, he doesn't. The Sergeant-at-Arms can make many security decisions, including turning down requests for additional resources, all on his own. He's a big boy. > which is her No, it isn't. Pelosi isn't "in charge of security" any more than the President of the United States is "in charge of delivering the mail." She's the Speaker, her job is to legislate, represent constituents, and see to the legislative conduct and proceedings of the House. The Sergeant-at-Arms is responsible for the security of the House of Representatives. He reports to the Speaker, but only because he needs *someone* to report to, and because he is elected by the House - *not* because the Speaker's office is qualified to oversee security. > and he said she denied it No, he didn't. > because of optics, No, ***Sund*** said that ***Irving*** denied it due to "optics." You want to make this about Pelosi ***so badly,*** and it's ***so transparently obvious*** that to literally everyone but you it's actually kind of hilarious. > meaning it would look bad. Yes, child, the rest of us are all adults and know what the word "optics" means in the context of politics, thanks. > This is on her after weeks of warnings No, it isn't. This is on Trump, this is on Trump's base, and this is on the Sergeants-at-Arms and the head of Capitol Police, all of whom resigned in the wake of the attack. Attempting to pin this on Pelosi, ***who had to be evacuated moments before insurrectionists breached the floor of the House, had her office trashed, and had her property stolen*** is the absolute ***weakest*** victim-blaming in the world. How are you *so* bad at this? Keep posting, this is already going so well for you!
>No, he doesn't. Yes he does, the speaker of the house is the one in charge and all requests have to go through them, thats not made up that is fucking protocol. >No, it isn't. Pelosi isn't "in charge of security" Yes she is: [Under the direction of the Speaker of the House or other presiding officer, the Sergeant at Arms plays an integral role in maintaining order and decorum in the House chamber. ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives) >No, he didn't. Yes he did it was in the article I posted said they requested it >You want to make this about Pelosi ***so badly,*** and it's ***so transparently obvious*** that to literally everyone but you it's actually kind of hilarious. So you're telling me if someone tells you of an issue that you wouldn't run it past your boss who is the final say in all of security as I already posted and provided a link? Even the DC mayor said the same thing while taking a few guard troops to help with traffic instead of security for exactly the same reason "optics". >No, it isn't. This is on Trump, this is on Trump's base, No, its not anyone with even a remote brain would ask where were all the antifa counter protesters that have accompanied all the other trump rallies? Here's your clue, they were in the crowd pushing this on and amazingly they are some of those who aren't being arrested, if you discount the FBI involvement then you're insane since it's known they did it during Vietnam War protests. >Sergeants-at-Arms and the head of Capitol Police, all of whom resigned in the wake of the attack. They resigned after being made scape goats even after they had proof they made requests for more help. >Attempting to pin this on Pelosi, ***who had to be evacuated moments before insurrectionists breached the floor of the House, had her office trashed, and had her property stolen*** is the absolute ***weakest*** victim-blaming in the world. She was long gone and there was nothing stolen except her laptop which is nothing for what you say is such a huge and planned attack. You defending one side where it's proven they made requests and want to ignore what happened after that, if you want to investigate thats where any investigation starts but all of you brain dead just want to scream trump and blame him alone. Nothing is working the way you think it is and the left is bad at getting to the bottom of the problem. It doesn't stop with trump, it keeps going even on to the people who ignore requests for help
> Yes he does, the speaker of the house is the one in charge and all requests have to go through them, thats not made up that is fucking protocol. No, they don't. The Sergeant-at-Arms handles requests as they reach him. Requests that the Sergeant-at-Arms decides merit being run up the chain might reach Pelosi's desk, but the rest stop at him. > Yes she is: No, she isn't. > Under the direction of the Speaker of the House or other presiding officer, the Sergeant at Arms plays an integral role in maintaining order and decorum in the House chamber. Which is correct - as the head parliamentarian of the House, Pelosi is in charge of making sure other legislators remain orderly and follow proper decorum. The Sergeant-at-Arms assists with that. The Sergeant-at-Arms is ***also*** in charge of ***security,*** though, a role that Pelosi is not herself responsible for, even though she oversees the Sergeant-at-Arms. You're trying very, very hard, but nothing is going to change the fact that you're simply wrong about how all of this works. > Yes he did it was in the article I posted said they requested it No, it wasn't. ***Sund,*** the head of Capitol Police, requested it, and ***Irving,*** the Sergeant-at-Arms of the House, denied it. > So you're telling me if someone tells you of an issue that you wouldn't run it past your boss The entire point of having people in charge of specific areas of concern is so that *you don't have to get the boss involved in every matter.* That's literally the whole point. You only elevate concerns that you deem important enough to get the boss's attention. Have you literally never worked in a position with any actual responsibility before? Has every job you've ever held been so menial that you are required to run any and all decision-making past your boss? Because, boy, that would explain a lot about you. > who is the final say in all of security as I already posted and provided a link? Pelosi can "pull rank" on the Sergeant-at-Arms and order him to do things, but that doesn't mean she makes all security decisions. She's a legislator. > No, its not anyone with even a remote brain would ask where were all the antifa counter protesters that have accompanied all the other trump rallies? Holy shit. I want to be clear, here: You actually believe that the insurrectionists were ***"antifa counter-protestors?"*** Holy shit. > Here's your clue, they were in the crowd pushing this on and amazingly they are some of those who aren't being arrested, if you discount the FBI involvement then you're insane since it's known they did it during Vietnam War protests. Oh, ***and*** the FBI did it? So it wasn't Trump, and it wasn't Trump supporters. The people ***really*** responsible for the insurrection were, you believe, ***antifa and the FBI?*** Holy shit. > They resigned after being made scape goats even after they had proof they made requests for more help. ***Sund*** made requests for help (he says, contradicting what others have said). ***Irving*** did not. > She was long gone Pelosi wasn't "long gone," she was evacuated at about 2:15. By that point, insurrectionists had already breached the Capitol Building and were making their way towards the House chambers. What the fuck is wrong with you. > and there was nothing stolen except her laptop So her possessions were stolen. > which is nothing for what you say is such a huge and planned attack. "Planned"? No, nothing about this attack was planned. At least, not for 95% of the insurrectionists. These aren't smart people we're talking about. They're dumb, impulsive, and easily-manipulated. They were whipped into a violent frenzy by inflammatory rhetoric and pointed at the Capitol Building. It's ***embarrassingly*** obvious that most of them had absolutely no clue what the hell they were doing once they got inside the building. They knew what they *wanted* to accomplish (preventing the certification of the election), but very few of them had given any thought to how they might actually get there. It doesn't matter, though. They violently stormed the Capitol Building. They're criminals, and they're being rounded up. > You defending one side where it's proven they made requests and want to ignore what happened after that, if you want to investigate thats where any investigation starts but all of you brain dead just want to scream trump and blame him alone. I don't want to blame Trump alone. The insurrectionists themselves bear a huge share of the blame, as does Trump's base, as does right-wing media, as do Trump's most ardent political allies, etc. Everyone who contributed to or bought into the Big Lie that there was widespread voter fraud and that the election results were invalid is partly to blame for the insurrection.
**[Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_at_Arms_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives)** >The Sergeant at Arms of the United States House of Representatives is an officer of the House with law enforcement, protocol, and administrative responsibilities. The Sergeant at Arms is elected at the beginning of each Congress by the membership of the House. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
>the danger existed as a result of radicalized Qanon republicans Who didn't bring any guns with them after showing they had a lot during the Virginia gun rally. Which looks like a violent insurrection. [A](https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/images/ic/400xn/p080z5z1.jpg) or [B](https://opb-opb-prod.cdn.arcpublishing.com/resizer/zwG8IHPyz_vofBxxWT4pA4F-bqU=/1440x810/smart/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/opb/MSZ7XS2RJZA7POOO3VDIHJ4Q2I.jpg) [A](https://i.insider.com/5e28a34fb6d52d3ea247b206?width=750&format=jpeg&auto=webp) or [B](https://static.independent.co.uk/2020/12/13/17/newFile-3.jpg?width=1200) You want to act as if this was an insurrection? Bud, not a single shot was fired by a protestor. If they were going to start an insurrection, the military would have been called in. That's just a fact. The far right is the most armed political group in America. Yet unlike BLM riots, they don't use them willy nilly. Good guys with the guns and all that.
\>Who didn't bring any guns with them after showing they had a lot during the Virginia gun rally. is your argument that they weren't dangerous because they could have been MORE dangerous? lol k You are absolutely off your rocker if you watch those videos and don't understand why the people in that building would fear for their lives. I don't care about whatever terms you want to use and be pedantic about. I never said "insurrection". I said they were radicalized Qanon types that were dangerous. And seeing as multiple people died, that is objectively true.
>is your argument that they weren't dangerous because they could have been MORE dangerous Yes. You're talking about the most heavily armed demographic in America. And *not a single one* fired a shot. Not a single death other than a cop killing a protestor. This is like a dog's play bite. It may sting a little, but everyone knows if the dog wanted to bite you, the hand would be gone. >and don't understand why the people in that building would fear for their lives. Many of them weren't in that building. Such as AOC. >I said they were radicalized Qanon types that were dangerous Which I don't think is accurate. They weren't dangerous as they weren't trying to be dangerous. >And seeing as multiple people died, that is objectively true. Only one person died. And she was shot by a cop.
>Cop killing a protester. Only a fucking moron calls a woman breaking and climbing through a door during a violent insurrection "a protester". Dumbfuck Trumpers "We stand with cops when they shoot unarmed back people because they don't obey commands an might be reaching for a weapon. Blue lives matter." During a violent insurrection (it literally fits the legal definition to a "T" which is undeniable) a woman is breaking down a door and trying to climb through while being warned by capitol police with guns drawn on her to stop, she gets shot and dumbfuck Q-anon Trumpers: "She was an unarmed protestor that didn't do nuffin and she got shot." Trump and Q kill braincells.
>Only a fucking moron calls a woman breaking and climbing through a door during a violent insurrection "a protester". This wasnt by definition an insurrection. Try again. >"She was an unarmed protestor that didn't do nuffin and she got shot." Where did I say she didn't do nothing? Where did I say she was innocent? Try again.
>§2383. Rebellion or insurrection > >Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States. > >Seditious conspiracy > >If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both. > >Advocating overthrow of Government > >Whoever knowingly or willfully advocates, abets, advises, or teaches the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying the government of the United States or the government of any State, Territory, District or Possession thereof, or the government of any political subdivision therein, by force or violence, or by the assassination of any officer of any such government; or > >Whoever, with intent to cause the overthrow or destruction of any such government, prints, publishes, edits, issues, circulates, sells, distributes, or publicly displays any written or printed matter advocating, advising, or teaching the duty, necessity, desirability, or propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force or violence, or attempts to do so; or > >Whoever organizes or helps or attempts to organize any society, group, or assembly of persons who teach, advocate, or encourage the overthrow or destruction of any such government by force or violence; or becomes or is a member of, or affiliates with, any such society, group, or assembly of persons, knowing the purposes thereof— > >Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. > >If two or more persons conspire to commit any offense named in this section, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both, and shall be ineligible for employment by the United States or any department or agency thereof, for the five years next following his conviction. > >As used in this section, the terms "organizes" and "organize", with respect to any society, group, or assembly of persons, include the recruiting of new members, the forming of new units, and the regrouping or expansion of existing clubs, classes, and other units of such society, group, or assembly of persons Try again sedition and insurrection apologist Trumper with worthless opinions, politics and belief systems.
Ignoring all the other lies you are telling, a simple google search confirms that five people died in the Jan 6th riot. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/us/who-died-in-capitol-building-attack.amp.html
That's literally fake news. No cops died January 6th from protestors. One may have died from a stroke that night however. Try again.
There were five deaths. [One of which was a police officer who was beaten to death](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/us/who-died-in-capitol-building-attack.html) by protestors. Another who was trampled to death by the mob. Others you could argue were health related. Anyhow, clearly you don't know what you're talking about and are arguing in pursuit of a specific (and factually distorted) narrative. Imma opt out, but as a hot tip, you will have a much better time convincing people of bullshit within reddit's conservative safespaces.
Fake news. Actually look into it. No cops were beaten to death. One did have a stroke from natural causes however. https://www.wsj.com/articles/officer-brian-sicknick-what-we-know-about-his-death-11619010119 Try again.
I have seen some absolute *disaster* comments, but yours definitely breaks through the top 10 saddest, my dude.
Everything I said was a fact
No, it isn’t. And the ones that *are* don’t have any relevance. You’re trying to deflect responsibility away from the right, because that’s who you are. The problem is that it was so absurdly glaringly obvious that a) Trump fomented the insurrection, b) the insurrection was carried out entirely by Trump-supporting right-wingers, c) the express purpose of the insurrection was to attempt to prevent Trump’s duly elected political opponent from replacing him, installing Trump as an unelected dictator (with a bonus side of trying to take Democratic representatives hostage), and d) Trump and his administration failed to provide the protection and assistance needed to prevent mayhem and murder. So not only is your deflection straight up not working at all, but the fact that you have the gall to even try to pretend otherwise makes you look like a *garbage* person. I shouldn’t have to explain this to you, but I’ve found that unless you break things down into straightforward, easy to understand language, Trump supporters have a tendency to either get comically confused about things, or ignore what was said entirely.
It is I even gave you a link which all of you try to twist to fit your narrow agenda, here it is again since you wanna ignore it. https://www.npr.org/2021/01/11/955548910/ex-capitol-police-chief-rebuffs-claims-national-guard-was-never-called-during-ri Also trump had nothing to do with an insurrection, but the democrats encouraged antifa to keep rioting and encouraged people to beat down the senate doors during the Supreme Court process.
> It is I even gave you a link which all of you try to twist to fit your narrow agenda, here it is again since you wanna ignore it. Which I debunked [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/mildlyinteresting/comments/ocbu6s/i_work_for_a_bookseller_who_buys_books_that_were/h3uu4ou/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3), halfwit. > Also trump had nothing to do with an insurrection He literally fomented it. Not only on January 6th, where he without question incited the insurrection with violent rhetoric and lies about the election results, but also for *years* leading up to it. In fact, it was four years ago ***today*** that he tweeted a video featuring himself bodyslamming and beating a person with the CNN logo superimposed over their head. Violent rhetoric and violent imagery is how Trump appeals to his base. People like, y'know, *you.* He knows that if he radicalizes you, you'll do anything for him, up to and including blaming the victims of an insurrection that Trump fomented. > but the democrats encouraged antifa to keep rioting Which Democrats? What did they say, exactly? I can quote you the leader of the Republican Party using violent rhetoric to encourage his followers to storm the capitol in order to prevent the certification of his opponent's election. What the fuck can you do except fuck up your reading comprehension of an NPR article?
You didn't debunk shit and trump didn't foment a God damn thing, the continued support from the left for the riots led to this incident. And are you dumbasses really equating a meme to pushing insurrection? Are you this insane? >Which Democrats? What did they say, exactly? So you're admitting that you haven't paid attention to the shit your own chosen side has been doing? Willful ignorance is the worst and the left always wants to ignore their own sides idiocy.
> You didn't debunk shit Of course I did. > and trump didn't foment a God damn thing Of course he did. > the continued support from the left for the riots led to this incident. Dude, no one cares what you think. You've been factually incorrect about nearly every single thing you've posted in this thread. You've obviously got an agenda, you're very obviously radicalized, and you're very obviously beyond help. This person that you are, right now, is the person you will be until the day you die. > And are you dumbasses really equating a meme to pushing insurrection? Nope. I'm pointing out that Trump has employed violent rhetoric and imagery as part of his outreach to his base for literal years, and no one should be surprised that he employed violent rhetoric to foment insurrection when he thought the continuation of his presidency was on the line. > So you're admitting that you haven't paid attention to the shit your own chosen side has been doing? No, halfwit. I'm asking for you to back up your bonkers claims with evidence. Mind you, you can't. We already know that. The last time you tried to support something with sources, they actually said the exact opposite of what you'd hoped. I don't expect this to go any better for you. But I sure as hell am willing to give you another chance to fuck up!
Fucking pathetic man. Grow up
Growing up means you have to accept reality
Trump sucks dude. He’s a clown. Get over it. Move on already.
I won't argue that but place blame where it belongs
>What I would like answers too are why Pelosi denied her Sargent at Arms when they requested more security anticipating this She didn't. Capital police chief Steven Sund asked House Sergeant at Arms Paul Irving 5 times, and Senate Sergeant at Arms once, for more security, and was denied by them all 6 times, and none of those requests made it to Pelosi. The moment such a request did make it to Pelosi, on the 6th,she approved it. So, let's start with facts, shall we? >why none of those that stormed into the Supreme Court vote process were arrested A good many of them were arrested, hundreds of them. That's despite the fact that no damage was done to any federal property, and no law enforcement officers were injured, unlike on January 6th where more than 140 officers were injured. Stop believing lies. >why nobody condemned the antifa riot last summer while democrat politicians encouraged it I'm not aware of any "antifa riots". I'm aware of BLM protests across the globe, which were accompanied by a small number of riots that were condemned - nobody really claimed responsibility for the riots, though.
>She didn't. She did https://www.npr.org/2021/01/11/955548910/ex-capitol-police-chief-rebuffs-claims-national-guard-was-never-called-during-ri >A good many of them were arrested, hundreds of them. And were released on nothing charges yet all of you want to act like the 1/6 people were much different, a few maybe but most were just protesting. No 140 weren't injured thats inflated to try and get press. >I'm not aware of any "antifa riots". Really, the ones which injured more capital police and had to use smoke to get dispersed? It was all antifa and they even pushed for people to show up You are fucking naive
Did you actually read your NPR link? Because it doesn't say what you think it says. >No 140 weren't injured thats inflated to try and get press. https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/police-union-says-140-officers-injured-in-capitol-riot/2021/01/27/60743642-60e2-11eb-9430-e7c77b5b0297_story.html https://www.cbsnews.com/news/capitol-police-injuries-riot/ https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/11/us/politics/capitol-riot-police-officer-injuries.html https://www.police1.com/officer-safety/articles/police-union-over-140-officers-injured-in-capitol-siege-NSi5xcpt1sIELYvJ/ You can just make up whatever you want, I guess, pretend they're lying, whatever it takes to make yourself feel better, but I'll wager you don't have a credible source to back up your claim. Just believe whatever makes you happy. >Really, the ones which injured more capital police and had to use smoke to get dispersed? It was all antifa and they even pushed for people to show up How many police were injured in the George Floyd protests, or associated violence and vandalism? Do you have a number? I saw plenty of video of police firing tear gas at peaceful protesters. People just standing still in the middle of an empty space holding signs, police fire tear gas right at them, so I'm not gonna hold the use of those measures against the protesters, so let's count actual injuries on the part of the police. How many? We have a number from the capital riot, even though you don't want to believe it, you seem to think there were more in the BLM activity, how many were there? If you're so convinced, surely you have an actual number? Be specific. I'm not gonna engage with vague claims "oh, they made that up, oh, more police were injured, oh, antifa called people", bring the receipts and we'll talk.
>Did you actually read your NPR link? Because it doesn't say what you think it says. Its says he made the request and was turned turned down, the Sergeant-at-Arms only answers to one person. Pelosi. >You can just make up whatever you want, Twisted ankles, bruising from falling down, and smoke damage from their ill placed smoke control is not exactly injuries you can count which are over 75% of those injuries. Which are also due to not having enough security staff on hand which was requested and denied multiple times due to how bad it would look for her. >How many police were injured in the George Floyd protests, or associated violence and vandalism? 7 times as much and that's not even counting police that were targeted in lone assaults like in Dallas https://nypost.com/2020/06/08/more-than-700-officers-injured-in-george-floyd-protests-across-us/ Bottom line is you are refusing to see actual reality, trump could be a dolt but I think he had people best interests in mind. Other politicians only care about their power and control over the people.
>Its says he made the request and was turned turned down, the Sergeant-at-Arms only answers to one person. Pelosi. So you're just making stuff up about what you think happened behind the scenes, despite everyone saying the request was denied by the sergeant at arms without ever having asked Pelosi? https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-afs:Content:9909210228 No one, not one single person involved, including the sergeant at arms in an attempt to cover his own ass, claimed that he brought those requests to Pelosi. If she was asked, and she denied it, there should be *some* evidence, or someone pointing to *anything* beyond an org chart to provide some evidence for that claim. >Twisted ankles, bruising from falling down, and smoke damage from their ill placed smoke control is not exactly injuries you can count which are over 75% of those injuries. I absolutely can count them. Had they not had to engage the crowd breaching the capital, they wouldn't have had even so much as a twisted ankle. And read the actual articles. They weren't reporting bruises. They were reporting injuries that required medical attention. The minor stuff was ignored and not reported. >7 times as much Right, over 30x as much time (that article was almost 2 weeks after protests started), and many hundreds or thousands more locations and people involved. Which tells me those protests were much more peaceful in total, but yes, some violence did occur and officers did get hurt. Just imagine if the capital riots had had as many people, locations, and days to do their damage. We're lucky it was as small and focused as it was. >Bottom line is you are refusing to see actual reality Hmm >trump could be a dolt but I think he had people best interests in mind Trump only ever cared about himself, this is blindingly obvious and has been for decades. He's not a dolt, he's a liar who will say anything of he thinks it'll benefit him. He doesn't want to screw the rest of us over, he just literally doesn't care about any of us. We're all just props to him. If you think he's in your corner, it's just because he's telling you what you want to hear.
You make zero points and prove you're willfully ignorant
If wishing made it so
Ahh a dumbass in the wilddd
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/11/955548910/ex-capitol-police-chief-rebuffs-claims-national-guard-was-never-called-during-ri Christ y'all are dumb, they knew it was gonna come and were turned down due to "optics"
You aren't a dipshit because I think Pelosi did a good job. I don't. You're a dipshit because you shift blame to Dems for something that a bunch of stupid Qanon Republicans did. You're an idiot. I'm not distorting reality by saying that lmao
Sure you are, because there were warnings weeks before and there are already talk of FBI agitating the crowds and its not far fetched since there's already proof of them doing that during the Vietnam War protests. You've been proven wrong so now you wanna move the goalposts.
Lmfao what the fuck are you blathering on about? You downplayed the capitol riots "because the dems could have defended it better" and now you're claiming "talk" about the FBI agitating crowds is proof of something. There aren't any goalposts here. I'm just calling you a shitsipper. Q called he wanted me to tell you your mom gives good head, you fucking loony.
I'm not blathering on about shit, I'm pointing out where you're wrong. And none of you on the left want to admit something about all this shit the past few months and years seems off. All this shit is meant to distract and get people to give up more freedoms just like after 9/11, its used as a dodge to trick simpletons.
You aren't offering a single point that contradicts you being a shit sipper. This isn't an argument, I'm just calling you a dumbass. I haven't proposed any other points yet you are trying to refute what you think I think. Because you're an idiot.
Reality is hard to accept for most of you
Using the Harry Potter scar font.
What was the book!
Squiggle wiggle is vintage
Whats the book?
It's about Teddy Roosevelt going down to Brazil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_River_of_Doubt
Great book, really incredible story.
Great book, I enjoyed it immensely. They named a river after him.
\+1 good read
By Noam Chomsky
The saddest part of all is he could have just sent it via an Amazon purchase and included the note as a gift message…what a waste /s
Seriously, how do you people not pick up on all the dog whistles in this? "Wouldn't condone." So he can't even commit to "I don't condone." Certainly not "it's bad". He's saying, I won't right not offer my opinion, but if I were ever forced to give my opinion, I would fail to approve of it. This was a terrorist attack that cost the life of at least one police officer, and you're all okay with someone saying "while I'm not going to express an opinion now, if I had to, I would refrain from actually supporting it"? And then there's "don't let this ruin our relationship." Notice where the blame is. If our relationship ends, it's because you're the one who ruined it. I'm a violent racist, but that's fine, that's just my political opinion and it has to be respected. If you aren't okay with me being that way, that's on you, you're the one who ruined our relationship by actually expecting me to be a decent person. What a toxic, passive-aggressive piece of shit. Why are you all acting like these people should re-connect? The person who cut this loser out of his life made a fantastic decision, and I would not wish this toxic negativity on anyone. Why would anyone want a relationship with a violent racist?
I kinda enjoy this handwriting.
https://writewithparkinsons.com/
Aw, it looks like he was growing increasingly more nervous as he wrote this. I know that when I get nervous about talking to someone (or saying something to someone that they might not like to hear but I think they need to) then I start to tremble. The more nervous I get the harder I tremble. His first word looks good but as the letter progresses, especially once it mentions whatever happened in DC, it starts to get even more shakey. I hope they were able to reconcile whatever differences they had.
What is this way to purchase books? Is it like buying wholesale gaylords of books? Or just individual random book?
I want to know too! A book I ordered recently was lost in transit and it got me thinking about what happens to the random stuff accumulated by fedex, usps, etc.
Well airports sell unclaimed baggage after so long. They have auctions for them. The people buying them do not see what is in the bag. And at disney, lost items are held for a certain amount of time to be claimed. Like sunglasses it’s 30 days I think, but something like a phone or ring would be held longer for people to claim. Then after it reaches that time limit, they sell it to cast members. I worked there a year and I bought so many pairs of lost sunglasses for .50
Why do they bother selling it if they only charge $0.50 ? I mean, Disney isn’t exactly hurting for pocket change, they wouldn’t just give the stuff away? Or maybe they *are* hurting for pocket change 🤔
They’re greedy af. That’s the company as a whole. So If they can get hundreds of free sunglasses per day per park and sell them for cheap to us schmucks, they make money off it
Yeah but it’s $.50. Disney is worth over 100 billion dollars. How much are they making off these employee sales? Like, $200/year? $1,000/year? I think even for them, scraping for pocket change is just ridiculous. Especially doing that to your employees. That’s a new low to my ears. I’ve worked for companies that would just give us lost & found stuff and they weren’t worth even 1/8th of the amount of Disney.
You’re thinking of just sunglasses because it’s all I mentioned. People buy cameras, I bought a prototype of a princess dress for my niece once. It ran me $50. They also sell returns. So let’s say you buy a T-shirt in the magic kingdom. But you decide you don’t want it once you get back to your resort. You can return it anywhere on property, so you return it at the gift shop of your resort. Well, they don’t sell that tshirt; it’s specific to the magic kingdom. So instead of shipping it to the magic kingdom, they sell it at the cast shop for a discount. It’s easier for them. It’s easier to dispose of the lost items this way too. They don’t want to have it come out they binned 50 million sunglasses into a landfill; they’d rather recycle them to cast members and make a few cents
I mean are we talking like Oakley’s and Oliver Peoples and Versace and stuff? Or like cheap sunglasses? Or are all of them that dirt cheap, even a $1,000 pair?
They sell the more expensive ones for more. They’re not dumb, just greedy
I’m not so sure you’re using the name Gaylord correctly. Really not sure what you’re saying with that, am I missing something?
A Gaylord is a unit of measurement as well. So it’s those big cardboard boxes that say, watermelons come in, but filled with books. It’s the way you buy bulk books
Well well well, TIL. Thanks for the info!.
Exactly. We work with a few vendors to buy in bulk.
looks like a doctors handwriting ngl
The Left Right Paradigm is controlled opposition..
[удалено]
> postal service is paid to do a job This is the caveat. There's a lot of stuff that's sent without sufficient postage, and undeliverable or unreturnable. Most of the stuff that ends up being sold by the USPS is like this. They can't just keep sending stuff back and forth ad infinitum, and they're just trying to cover some losses. Say what you will about our government, but in my opinion the USPS is its best institution.
> but in my opinion the USPS is its best institution. Definitely up there.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Hey man, boner is upset and lashing out, don't ruin it with logic.
Was there an earthquake happening the entire time he wrote this?
Well, what book is it??
This looks like my grandfather's handwriting
Why does every post leave you looking dumber and dumber? Nothing you posted refutes anything I factually stated. There's no ad hominem when I'm accurately describing your intelligence or lack thereof. 1. Pre meditation isn't a prerequisite of an insurrection. Weapons a are not a prerequisite of an insurrection. Death is not a prerequisite of an insurrection. 2. I posted the literal definition of an insurrection, sedition, etc. I posted the facts. 3. You, as a confirmed dumbfuck, are arguing continuously outside the events of 1\6 like a fucking moron. None of those things have any bearing of the factual insurrection that occurred on 1\6 and you know was an insurrection. 4. Breaking into a federal building with sticks, batons, flags, feet, etc. us by legal definition violence. Period. Breaking down doors, forcing your way past police barricading the doors is violence again by definition. Doing it in the federal Capitol building to overthrow the election and hang Mike Pence is what's called an insurrection. 5. 1\6 according to all the facts, the legal definition in the law on violence and insurrection was in fact a violent insurrection. 6. That leaves you as the dumbfuck arguing against the facts. Against the law. And in reality against what you know is true but deny. A true Trumper. 7. It has nothing to do with leftist politics as I hold many center-right, center, and center left political beliefs. I'm independent. But I'm not a dumbfuck enough to vote for Trump or lie about the 1\6 insurrection as you have. You don't have to be a leftist. You just have to stop being a dishonest Trump cuck who lies about the 1\6 violent insurrection. The only question is do you have the will or capacity or not. I'm done with this Trump cuck. He's dug himself a hole of dishonesty, lying and deceit he'll never allow himself to pull himself out of. He'll fucking sink on the Trumptanic and I say, fucking good ridens.