Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

-ruddy_mysterious- t1_ix90bxs wrote

He was on a date at her house, then decided to get an Uber to DC. Wtf.

> Schaefer then reportedly saw the attack on the Capitol on television and called an Uber to take him there so he could participate.

152

menlindorn t1_ix8p51k wrote

"So, you want see a marvel movie and get a drink?"

"Nah, I got something way better. You love me, right?"

140

Orcus424 t1_ix8se26 wrote

> According to court filings, Schaefer was initially at the house of a woman he had met on Tinder on 6 January 2021 in Alexandria, Virginia, about 20 minutes outside of Washington DC.

> Schaefer then reportedly saw the attack on the Capitol on television and called an Uber to take him there so he could participate.

> When Schaefer arrived at the Capitol, prosecutors say that he climbed a short wall and gained access to the Capitol building through a broken window.

Sounds like he left the Tinder date to go to the US Capitol riots. Unless she went with him the date was over.

122

[deleted] t1_ix9coh2 wrote

[removed]

−22

DrakPhenious t1_ixa6ctl wrote

Sounds to me she dodged the bullet, unlike that one insurrectionist

33

LeviathanGank t1_ixdp73w wrote

Sounds to me she dodged a small penis, unlike that one insurrectionist whos small penis was travelling very fast.

2

wwarnout t1_ix8z38f wrote

It was NOT a riot. It was an insurrection. Huge difference, and the sentences should reflect this difference.

66

Youareobscure t1_ixatejl wrote

Attempted coupt would be more accurate. Insurrection isn't wrong, but coupt is not only accurate, but more specific

9

Catalyst375 t1_ix9wuep wrote

Calling a bunch of morons running around vandalizing shit an uprising gives them more credit than they deserve. Some of them of them went in there with a legitimate belief that they were going to depose the government, and those people are insurrectionists, but the vast majority of people participating in the riot were just stupid and followed the person in front of them. They deserve to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but let's not act like most of these people were revolutionaries.

−22

INFLATABLE_CUCUMBER t1_ixa6l7y wrote

Lots of civil wars/revolutions in the Middle East were started and kept alive by people who were dumb as shit. Just because they’re dumb doesn’t mean they aren’t a threat.

19

Catalyst375 t1_ixbpncv wrote

Dumb people who actually had an intent to destroy the government; most of the assholes rioting around the capitol did not. Stupid, reprehensible, and threatening, but not on par with a real insurrectionary force.

−5

BlooperHero t1_ixc62j9 wrote

They call it a "riot" when people protest because murder is bad.

They call it a "riot" when a different group of people launch a terrorist attack against their own nation in an attempt to destroy said nation so that they can install as dictator the con artist in clown makeup that their death cult worships as a plague avatar.

Maybe those two things shouldn't use the same word--especially since neither is actually a riot anyway.

4

Catalyst375 t1_ixc8ohk wrote

The former weren't even riots, as you said. Characterizing the latter as

>a terrorist attack against their own nation in an attempt to destroy said nation so that they can install as dictator

is pretty hard to justify unless you're referring specifically to groups like the Three Percenters, Oath Keepers, etc. They're absolutely interested in acting as you describe given the opportunity. The majority of the people there, though, were gullible idiots following along with the mob--malicious and deserving of punishment, but not on par with actual terrorists.

When the primary consequence of the event was significant vandalism, calling it an insurrection seems like a pretty big stretch. Aside from the obvious implications for the intelligence of the American electorate the fact that people believed something Donald Trump said has, I'm honestly more concerned that capitol security was pathetic enough that the building was breached in the first place. A single "insurrectionist" was killed by security; if that's how the government handles an insurrection, we might have problems beyond the insurrection itself.

−1

BlooperHero t1_ixc9bwq wrote

That was the plain, unembellished description. The biased one was "riot."

I don't have to justify a plain, factual description. It's literally just what happened. I would never say they are "on par" with terrorists--they are literally, objectively, actual terrorists. It's only wild because the truth is wild, and that is most certainly not my fault.

You are not entitled to your own facts. You may not disagree with the facts. There are no alternative facts. These facts do not care about your feelings. Etc.

2

Catalyst375 t1_ixcd02v wrote

>That was the plain, unembellished description. The biased one was "riot."

Ah yes, they were all there to literally "destroy the nation." My bad.

>I don't have to justify a plain, factual description. It's literally just what happened. I would never say they are "on par" with terrorists--they are literally, objectively, actual terrorists. It's only wild because the truth is wild, and that is most certainly not my fault.

You're right. You wouldn't have to justify an objective, factual description. I'd advise looking up the definition of terrorism: the guy they have planting homemade bombs by the convention buildings is a terrorist; the people who yelled really loud and then wandered around breaking things were not. If you think those two examples are the same, and that the latter belongs in the category that organizations and people like ISIS, LRA, The Order, Kaczynski, and McVeigh fall into, then I think you have fundamental misunderstandings about what terrorism is.

I don't know about you, but I think the security response to action taken by those groups would have been very different than what happened on the 6th. The government response was surprisingly gentle for being faced with hundreds of terrorists storming the Capitol, all of whom had the intent of annihilating the entire country. Miraculously, we survived in spite of it.

>You are not entitled to your own facts. You may not disagree with the facts. There are no alternative facts. These facts do not care about your feelings. Etc.

I agree wholeheartedly!

−1

BlooperHero t1_ixce63j wrote

Yes. They were. Literally.

That's what happened. Why are you so dedicated to lying about? I'm not going to suddenly forget what happened, sorry.

1

shatterhand19 t1_ixcn8p2 wrote

Why do all your comments sound like your hearing on the same subject is soon and you are getting your defence straight?

0

Catalyst375 t1_ixeykpn wrote

Trump is one of the worst politicians America has seen in a long time. Organizations like the Proud Boys are a real and growing threat and would surely be making legitimate moves to attack the government given the opportunity and needed support, and similar groups have done so before. The remaining bulk of the mob were malicious assholes with a handful of braincells between them, and the fact that that they vote is enough to make me gag. But when the overwhelming majority of them simply wandered around, mindlessly vandalizing the capitol building before leaving, I have an incredibly hard time seeing them as an inssurectionary force hell bent on the destruction of the United States of America.

I'm not saying January 6th wasn't a horrifying display of the effects of propaganda and the influence a populist strongman can generate. I'm not saying it was remotely acceptable, let alone positive. I'm not saying they shouldn't be punished as harshly as the law permits. And if I'm being entirely, brutally honest, I think the response from capitol security should have been much, much more forceful--if the capitol was under siege by a mob of a thousand or more terrorists, all committed to slaughtering congress and installing a dictator, then there should be far more than one person from that mob with "gunshot wound" written on their autopsy report. But that's not the case. The security response was milquetoast, the capitol was stormed, and the grand result was...significant property damage. If you can point me to another major insurrectionary force that accomplished its goals through terroristic acts of vandalism, then I'd be more inclined to see the label as fitting. Without that, though, calling these idiots inssurectionists gives them far more credit and legitimacy than they deserve.

1

CrawlerSiegfriend t1_ix8rmgf wrote

So many people would have gotten away with this if they didn't document their crime on social media.

49

SocraticVoyager t1_ix9884y wrote

Sorry babe looks like we're overthrowing the government tonight

32

shahooster t1_ix98sjt wrote

Netflix β€˜n kill

19

Unknownkowalski t1_ixbbb16 wrote

β€œI like long walks on the beach and treason.”

11

EmmaLouLove t1_ix8rsu4 wrote

Should have swiped to the left on that one.

8

Slave35 t1_ixab7si wrote

69 years to life.

7

Code_Race t1_ixbpyv3 wrote

So, the date was totally irrelevant. He just saw it on TV while at his dates house, and was like "that sounds like a good idea" and went to raid the capital.

5

BareNakedSole t1_ixay6gy wrote

So he did get fucked…..

3

allbright1111 t1_ixbskdy wrote

He fucked himself, which is what happens for most people after a first date.

4

TAG_8-5 t1_ixb537d wrote

Always trying to hold the man down

1

Financial-Amount-564 t1_ixbzak6 wrote

I know this header is four words too long, but well done my son, that's hilarious!

1

BlooperHero t1_ixc65fl wrote

It's unclear from the title which of those two things happened "while on Tinder date."

1

MetalBawx t1_ixc3vxi wrote

Must have been a boring date.

1

FrostyDog94 t1_ixbr5cg wrote

Its hard coming up with ideas for dates.

0