FBI Thwart a plan to kidnap Governor Whitmer and take over the Capitol

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: frogs453

Depends on the methods they were training for.

They were also training to kill cops protecting the Gov.

You'd have to in order to pull off something like this.

a reply to: ketsuko

It's supposed to be representation of the People's will, if your constituents don't want something you don't keep hammering it, pushing down the road, until they acquiesce. That's not America, we are a nation where the politicians, the government, and employees within it are beholden to the People. So if the People you represent want less strict lockdowns, then it is her duty to do so. Whitmer on the other hand has said to hell with what the People want, I'm going to do what I want. That's why we are here.

The People's interest should and shall reign over a politicians interest.

a reply to: av8r007

That's a given, but fomenting open Civil War? Not just removing her as an act of citizen's arrest or something, but openly stating their intent to start a Civil War across the entire country?

That sounds entirely more like the left at the moment. If a Civil War is to start, I'd rather it be something they fire the first shot in by coming for us and not the other way around. John Brown may have been fighting for a just cause, but I don't agree with his methods.

a reply to: aimlessly

More shocked they didn't let it happen to play the martyr card.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: av8r007

That's a given, but fomenting open Civil War? Not just removing her as an act of citizen's arrest or something, but openly stating their intent to start a Civil War across the entire country?

That sounds entirely more like the left at the moment. If a Civil War is to start, I'd rather it be something they fire the first shot in by coming for us and not the other way around. John Brown may have been fighting for a just cause, but I don't agree with his methods.

And kill law enforcment to carry out their plan. Is this what America has to look forward to after the elections?

originally posted by: projectvxn

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: frogs453

Depends on the methods they were training for.

They were also training to kill cops protecting the Gov.

You'd have to in order to pull off something like this.

BLM wants cops killed, maybe it was them.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: av8r007

That's a given, but fomenting open Civil War? Not just removing her as an act of citizen's arrest or something, but openly stating their intent to start a Civil War across the entire country?

That sounds entirely more like the left at the moment. If a Civil War is to start, I'd rather it be something they fire the first shot in by coming for us and not the other way around. John Brown may have been fighting for a just cause, but I don't agree with his methods.

And kill law enforcment to carry out their plan. Is this what America has to look forward to after the elections?

It's what we're seeing before the elections. How many attacks on police have ANTIFA/BLM chalked up on their count now? There was another attack on a cop in LA today. That's three there alone since the summer of love began.

My own personal opinion is if a militia group wanted to arrest (or kidnap if you prefer) someone they would have no trouble doing so.

This sounds much more like a leading/entrapment case some govt agency went out with a baited hook.

a reply to: projectvxn

So it begins.......I'm glad I have the mountains, and a plan...

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: av8r007

That's a given, but fomenting open Civil War? Not just removing her as an act of citizen's arrest or something, but openly stating their intent to start a Civil War across the entire country?

That sounds entirely more like the left at the moment. If a Civil War is to start, I'd rather it be something they fire the first shot in by coming for us and not the other way around. John Brown may have been fighting for a just cause, but I don't agree with his methods.

And kill law enforcment to carry out their plan. Is this what America has to look forward to after the elections?

It's what we're seeing before the elections. How many attacks on police have ANTIFA/BLM chalked up on their count now? There was another attack on a cop in LA today. That's three there alone since the summer of love began.

I guess I should have know that this thread would eventually drift off topic into "whataboutism" protecting rightwing terrorism; ATS being in it's current disposition. I'm out....

Good idea, poor execution?

Jeez get a load of that woman doing sign language behind Whitmer`s live statement.

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: olaru12

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: av8r007

That's a given, but fomenting open Civil War? Not just removing her as an act of citizen's arrest or something, but openly stating their intent to start a Civil War across the entire country?

That sounds entirely more like the left at the moment. If a Civil War is to start, I'd rather it be something they fire the first shot in by coming for us and not the other way around. John Brown may have been fighting for a just cause, but I don't agree with his methods.

And kill law enforcment to carry out their plan. Is this what America has to look forward to after the elections?

It's what we're seeing before the elections. How many attacks on police have ANTIFA/BLM chalked up on their count now? There was another attack on a cop in LA today. That's three there alone since the summer of love began.

I guess I should have know that this thread would eventually drift off topic into "whataboutism" protecting rightwing terrorism; ATS being in it's current disposition. I'm out....

You brought it up. I'm telling you how it is.

It's not like killing law enforcement is suddenly a unique thing because we've been watching it happen all summer, and it hasn't been the right that's been engaged in it.

I'm not sure why you think one way or the other, the cops will suddenly become all wonderful/popular with your set after the elections again no matter what the outcome. The beast y'all unleashed in the streets isn't all that tame.

originally posted by: StratosFear
Jeez get a load of that woman doing sign language behind Whitmer`s live statement.

I wonder how many times she had to test negative in order to go without a mask in the Great Whitless's presence like that.

a reply to: okrian

I expect that law enforcement will do their job. Come election day Americans need to do theirs. She needs to be recalled and sued for sure.

Trump isn't shutting down the economy. Disobeying the SCOTUS, or hypocritically taking liberties he took from his citizens.

Just because I don't approve of kidnapping a sitting governor doesn't mean I don't understand why someone might want to.

That's all there is.

a reply to: GoShredAK

Never start a sentence with "so it begins."

The timing is definitely highly suspect, for two reasons:

(1) This is the day after Harris' disastrous debate performance, The Dems really could use a good distraction.

(2) The Michigan Supreme Court just struck down the 1945 law that Witmer is using as the basis for her little tinpot dictatorship. Witmer claims she has "other sources of authority." But she doesn't: the state legislature allowed the state of emergency to lapse several months ago, and it's controlled by Republicans who have no interest to locking everybody down again. The State AG has announced they will stop enforcing mask mandates due to the supreme court ruling.

a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Whitmer is trying to end-around through regulatory authority is my understanding. If this whole exercise hasn't been a massive argument against the legislature ceding its authority to unelected bureaucracies that answer only to the executive, I don't know what else would be.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: AndyFromMichigan

Whitmer is trying to end-around through regulatory authority is my understanding. If this whole exercise hasn't been a massive argument against the legislature ceding its authority to unelected bureaucracies that answer only to the executive, I don't know what else would be.

There were two laws in Michigan that allowed for a state of emergency. The 1945 law essentially gave the governor unlimited authority, while a 1976 law requires the legislature to re-certify the state of emergency at regular intervals. The legislature refused to extend the state of emergency earlier this year, so the 1976 law is no longer relevant. And now the 1945 law has been struck down, for reasons anybody who passed high school social studies should be able to explain.

a reply to: projectvxn

Thank the gods for folks with tact.


Lacking that attribute myself, I found myself thinking of a Chris Rock comment.

"I ain't saying its right....but I understand."