Chronicles of a Stillborn Zombie Coup

[L'Emmerdeur]

Your fantasizing about my fapping habits is flattering, but I'll leave it mysterious. Out of courtesy to your enjoyment.

And your refusal to engage in a forthright discussion is unsurprising. It's obvious to me that you aren't here for discussion but I'm willing to give you a chance despite that. You continue to prove me foolish for even attempting it. I hope that pleases you.

[Cunt]

And your refusal to engage in a forthright discussion is unsurprising.

Is there something you wanted? A serious question I missed?

[pErvinalia]

Suspension coming again soon it seems.

[L'Emmerdeur]

And your refusal to engage in a forthright discussion is unsurprising.

Is there something you wanted? A serious question I missed?

You could do something like explain why you believe Johnson's story is so important. You've essentially said that those of us who don't listen to the right podcasts really have no clue. Here is your chance to enlighten the members of this site. Are you up to that?

[L'Emmerdeur]

Suspension coming again soon it seems.

He's been relatively good at keeping within the 'play nice' parameters, in my opinion. I don't think he can help his approach to topics--there will always be the elements of bad faith and evasion--but he hasn't engaged in gratuitous insinuations against fellow members that I've noted. (Aside from my supposed long-distance homoeroticism, which I took as a flaccid attempt at humor.)

[pErvinalia]

The refusal to enter into good faith discussion pins him as a troll. It's why he got suspended multiple times previously.

[Cunt]

Is there something you wanted? A serious question I missed?

You could do something like explain why you believe Johnson's story is so important.

Because I think dissident voices are worth listening to. Especially when the establishment voices are so uniform.

You've essentially said that those of us who don't listen to the right podcasts really have no clue. Here is your chance to enlighten the members of this site. Are you up to that?

I didn't say that. Sorry for what you heard.

If people are interested in a topic, dissident views aren't any kind of a problem for them. If they are, the mere fact that someone supports the wrong half of the political spectrum can be upsetting, even enraging. Mind, he didn't quite admit to being behind Trump, but even wearing a hat brings him under suspicion for some.

[L'Emmerdeur]

What makes Johnson a 'dissident voice'? His story doesn't actually change the known narrative of the day. It was already known that the Capitol police were unprepared for what happened, and his on-the-ground experience doesn't contradict those of other Capitol police who were there with him. He wasn't the only Trump supporter among them by a long way. Still, they all did what they could to maintain order, and then when they were overwhelmed they did the best they could to keep things from going too far.

The fact that he wore a MAGA hat made him stand out, and there was reasonable suspicion about what that meant. However, his explanation for why he did it is also reasonable. I don't see him as a 'dissident voice' and you haven't shown why you think he is presenting something significant.

[Cunt]

The fact that he wore a MAGA hat made him stand out, and there was reasonable suspicion about what that meant. However, his explanation for why he did it is also reasonable. I don't see him as a 'dissident voice' and you haven't shown why you think he is presenting something significant.

I don't have to lay out a spreadsheet for you. Just like you don't have to lay out why you trust the establishment narrative on this incident, when they are so VERY desperate to show how terrible the events of the day were, but are hiding most of the video from public scrutiny.

Except the pipe bomb. That didn't matter I guess. Probably as insignificant as the white house guest who dropped their cocaine.

[Brian Peacock]

Can you define 'dissident' and 'establishment'?

[Cunt]

Not all that well, but the establishment opinion is unopposed mainly by corporate media, universities and government officials.

Like the establishment is fine calling J6 an 'insurrection' (though it seems it wasn't a well-planned one) and calling it a protest by citizens is not so fine. Depending which side of the 'capitol' you were on, it could look like either.

[L'Emmerdeur]

The fact that he wore a MAGA hat made him stand out, and there was reasonable suspicion about what that meant. However, his explanation for why he did it is also reasonable. I don't see him as a 'dissident voice' and you haven't shown why you think he is presenting something significant.

I don't have to lay out a spreadsheet for you. Just like you don't have to lay out why you trust the establishment narrative on this incident, when they are so VERY desperate to show how terrible the events of the day were, but are hiding most of the video from public scrutiny.

Except the pipe bomb. That didn't matter I guess. Probably as insignificant as the white house guest who dropped their cocaine.

I probably was aware of Johnson's story before you were, and nothing you've presented here indicates that he's contradicted anything in the interview he gave in January. So there's something very important about his narrative, but as a dupe of corporate media I'm not worth explaining to why it's important.

All indications are that you have bupkis, but are afraid to admit it.

[Cunt]

I probably was aware of Johnson's story before you were, and nothing you've presented here indicates that he's contradicted anything in the interview he gave in January. So there's something very important about his narrative, but as a dupe of corporate media I'm not worth explaining to why it's important.

All indications are that you have bupkis, but are afraid to admit it.

I didn't claim I 'had' something. He did adjust my perspective on a thing or two, but not all that significantly.

The most interesting part, was that he was not included in the J6 clown-show.

I guess they had to protect their show, for reasons.

[L'Emmerdeur]

The Jan. 6 committee interviewed several Capitol police officers. Their narratives were in general consistent, and Johnson's appears to also be more or less consistent with theirs. He was under investigation by the Capitol police during the time the committee was meeting; as a policy those who are under investigation are subject to gag orders. It's possible the committee could have got the Capitol police to rescind the gag order but they already had testimony from a number of his fellow officers.

Since you are unable or unwilling to disclose why Johnson's narrative would have made any difference in the findings of the committee, your characterization of it as a 'clown show' in reference to its failure to interview him looks like an expression of partisan fealty and nothing more.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Lin Wood, mentioned upthread and known for his failed lawsuits in support of Trump, claims that he's still completely loyal to Trump and though he may be called as a witness, he has not agreed to testify against Trump.

'Lin Wood: Flip on Trump? That’s Crazy Talk!'