# What are people thinking as they hear the Senate arguments?



## Tom Paine 1949

I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...

The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.

This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.

I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.

Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.

This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.

It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.


----------



## Doc7505

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.



I agree and Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Leftists are doing their best to destroy the REPUBLIC....


----------



## Dogmaphobe

it says in the constitution that impeachment is to be considered as an action to remove a sitting president AND prevent them from further office. The second clause is dependant on the first.

It doesn't say OR prevent a person from further office.

This is all a fraudulent dog and pony show, as impeachment was never meant to be an action taken against a private citizen


----------



## jbrownson0831

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.


Dims are idiots


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Doc7505 said:


> I agree and Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Leftists are doing their best to destroy the REPUBLIC....




And, of course, Chinese Communist party operatives as well.

Don't forget them.


----------



## blackhawk

This is partisan political theater the Democrats will break out and play their greatest hits talking points so will the Republicans and then the Senate will vote to acquit. This was and is about politics nothing more the honest people on both sides know this. The trial is simply entertainment for the partisans.


----------



## Oddball




----------



## BlueGin

That politicians are bilking tax payers for doing nothing of importance and need to be fired.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.


What time will Republicans in the Senate vote to acquit...

I am thinking about 5 minutes after closing arguments are made


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

BlueGin said:


> That politicians are bilking tax payers for doing nothing of importance and need to be fired.


You are thinking about those 33 different Benghazi investigations that you didn't complain about....

So you should just have several seats now


----------



## Missourian

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.


Personally I'll be thinking "These are without a doubt the dumbest asses in captivity"...

...but in all honesty,  that's pretty much  what I think anytime I hear a liberal speak...


----------



## BlueGin

Biff_Poindexter said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> That politicians are bilking tax payers for doing nothing of importance and need to be fired.
> 
> 
> 
> You are thinking about those 33 different Benghazi investigations that you didn't complain about....
> 
> So you should just have several seats now
Click to expand...

You assigning thoughts now? Fuck off idiot.


----------



## Synthaholic




----------



## Synthaholic

This Schoen lawyer is an actual mafia lawyer. Because that's Trump's circle.


----------



## Synthaholic

Schoen's argument boils down to "You should be indicting and convicting him in criminal court". He's not making any arguments about innocence.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

blackhawk said:


> This is partisan political theater the Democrats will break out and play their greatest hits talking points so will the Republicans and then the Senate will vote to acquit. This was and is about politics nothing more the honest people on both sides know this. The trial is simply entertainment for the partisans.



Is it any wonder that dems would have lost a fair 2020 election by well over 10,000,000 votes?


----------



## Synthaholic

The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Synthaholic said:


> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.



We're not watching! LOL


----------



## Doc7505

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.






Which was the insurrgency?​


----------



## Rye Catcher

Dogmaphobe said:


> it says in the constitution that impeachment is to be considered as an action to remove a sitting president AND prevent them from further office. The second clause is dependant on the first.
> 
> It doesn't say OR prevent a person from further office.
> 
> This is all a fraudulent dog and pony show, as impeachment was never meant to be an action taken against a private citizen



It seems a crime which has occurred during the time The President was in office, and s/he takes property from the White House, including documents marked "secret"; and keeps said documents when s/he leaves the office, shall that former President not be prosecuted for a high crimes and misdemeanors when that document has been sold to a foreign nation's agent.

BTW, as to what I am taking away from today's Senate Hearing, the Defense was a little more than two logical fallacies:  Appeals to Emotion and Appeals to a Slippery Slope.


----------



## Mac1958

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.


Unfortunately, the die is cast on the vote to convict.

The GQP'ers are putting their political ambitions over the Constitution.  Not exactly a shock.


----------



## lantern2814

Synthaholic said:


> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.


No, we have better things to do than listen to what is a foregone conclusion. Meaning that you lose again.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Rye Catcher said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> it says in the constitution that impeachment is to be considered as an action to remove a sitting president AND prevent them from further office. The second clause is dependant on the first.
> 
> It doesn't say OR prevent a person from further office.
> 
> This is all a fraudulent dog and pony show, as impeachment was never meant to be an action taken against a private citizen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems a crime which has occurred during the time The President was in office, and s/he takes property from the White House, including documents marked "secret"; and keeps said documents when s/he leaves the office, shall that former President not be prosecuted for a high crimes and misdemeanors when that document has been sold to a foreign nation's agent.
> 
> BTW, as to what I am taking away from today's Senate Hearing, the Defense was a little more than two logical fallacies:  Appeals to Emotion and Appeals to a Slippery Slope.
Click to expand...

What SEEMS to you as filtered through your hatred of the man is inconsequential What IS as determined in our constitution is what matters.

Our contitution is written to try to PREVENT authoritarian extremists from just making it up as they go.


----------



## Whodatsaywhodat.

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.


Wow, look who showed up on the site ,A.O.C. .WELCOME aboard. You'll fit right in with the rest of the lefty drama queens !


----------



## Turtlesoup

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.


So far crocodile tears about how scared they were and they just knew that they were going to be killed by the protestors-------------

Corrupt politicians giving fake tears and offering no actual evidence against trump in this farce of a trial...but yet watch the dems trolls try to continue the spin.  

Where's the beef?   Already tired of the empty manipulation.


----------



## jbrownson0831

Rye Catcher said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> it says in the constitution that impeachment is to be considered as an action to remove a sitting president AND prevent them from further office. The second clause is dependant on the first.
> 
> It doesn't say OR prevent a person from further office.
> 
> This is all a fraudulent dog and pony show, as impeachment was never meant to be an action taken against a private citizen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems a crime which has occurred during the time The President was in office, and s/he takes property from the White House, including documents marked "secret"; and keeps said documents when s/he leaves the office, shall that former President not be prosecuted for a high crimes and misdemeanors when that document has been sold to a foreign nation's agent.
> 
> BTW, as to what I am taking away from today's Senate Hearing, the Defense was a little more than two logical fallacies:  Appeals to Emotion and Appeals to a Slippery Slope.
Click to expand...

Suckin on that hemp rope again???


----------



## Fueri

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> What time will Republicans in the Senate vote to acquit...
> 
> I am thinking about 5 minutes after closing arguments are made
Click to expand...



Depends on what time donors have buffets and open bars going......


----------



## DrLove

Has anyone seen such a rambling mess of a defense attorney as Bruce Castor?
Even Dirty Dersh is confused!  








						Even right-wing pundits had no clue what Bruce Castor was doing during his impeachment trial speech
					

"I have no idea what he is doing," Alan Dershowitz said.




					www.vox.com


----------



## BlueGin

Democrats do absolutely nothing for the American people. They spend all of their time selling influence,funding family members through government contacts and whining on CNN and MSNBC for PR.


----------



## Concerned American

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.


If you consider what Trump said as calling for an insurrection, maybe you'll be the first lib to call for the removal of these insurrectionists.


----------



## Concerned American

Synthaholic said:


> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.


Move on moron.  The quiet is because we know that the dems have no case--just like last time.  We know this is an exercise in futility.  It will end with a 56-44 vote to convict, at worst, which does not meet the threshold to convict.  Get over it.


----------



## Concerned American

blackhawk said:


> This is partisan political theater the Democrats will break out and play their greatest hits talking points so will the Republicans and then the Senate will vote to acquit. This was and is about politics nothing more the honest people on both sides know this. The trial is simply entertainment for the partisans.


ANOTHER tremendous waste of time and money.  Democrat MO.  Look over here while we fuck you over there.


----------



## Correll

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex,




Bill Clinton was impeached for the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice.  That you pretend that is ridiculous, is you revealing you are not a serious or honest person.


----------



## Synthaholic

Correll said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton was impeached for the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice.  That you pretend that is ridiculous, is you revealing you are not a serious or honest person.
Click to expand...

Why was he testifying under oath?


----------



## Coyote

I found Jamie Raskin compelling, and the video horrifying...and I can't get it out of my mind.


----------



## Correll

Synthaholic said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton was impeached for the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice.  That you pretend that is ridiculous, is you revealing you are not a serious or honest person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why was he testifying under oath?
Click to expand...



Because of an accusation of sexual harassment.


----------



## Synthaholic

Correll said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton was impeached for the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice.  That you pretend that is ridiculous, is you revealing you are not a serious or honest person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why was he testifying under oath?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because of an accusation of sexual harassment.
Click to expand...

Monica Lewinsky didn't accuse him of sexual harassment.


----------



## Correll

Synthaholic said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton was impeached for the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice.  That you pretend that is ridiculous, is you revealing you are not a serious or honest person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why was he testifying under oath?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because of an accusation of sexual harassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Monica Lewinsky didn't accuse him of sexual harassment.
Click to expand...



Correct. She did not.


----------



## Synthaholic

CrusaderFrank said:


> blackhawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is partisan political theater the Democrats will break out and play their greatest hits talking points so will the Republicans and then the Senate will vote to acquit. This was and is about politics nothing more the honest people on both sides know this. The trial is simply entertainment for the partisans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is it any wonder that dems would have lost a fair 2020 election by well over 10,000,000 votes?
Click to expand...

Instead, they won a fair election by 8 million votes in a huge landslide.


----------



## Synthaholic

Correll said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton was impeached for the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice.  That you pretend that is ridiculous, is you revealing you are not a serious or honest person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why was he testifying under oath?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because of an accusation of sexual harassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Monica Lewinsky didn't accuse him of sexual harassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. She did not.
Click to expand...

They were the only 2 principles. No one else was in the Oval with them.


----------



## Correll

Synthaholic said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton was impeached for the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice.  That you pretend that is ridiculous, is you revealing you are not a serious or honest person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why was he testifying under oath?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because of an accusation of sexual harassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Monica Lewinsky didn't accuse him of sexual harassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. She did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were the only 2 principles. No one else was in the Oval with them.
Click to expand...



Ummm, are you seriously this ignorant?

Then go read a book, don't post about shit you don't  know shit about.


----------



## toobfreak

Doc7505 said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree and Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Leftists are doing their best to destroy the REPUBLIC....
Click to expand...




The first House manager made a persuasive argument.  His best argument was that Trump was in office when the alleged incitement happened and was in office when he was impeached.  From that it follows that naturally the Senate must try the impeachment!
The third House manager presented much evidence totally hearsay and irrelevant, having nothing to do with Trump himself!
Trump's first lawyer better get a lot better.  He was so dull and boring I finally had to FF skipping through most of his presentation looking for the meat!  He kept making a case, if any, that sounded more like he was improving the House's argument rather than refuting it! * He failed on the worst front:* While talking about the horrible travesty of 1-6, he failed to point out that the people there and the riot that ensued had pre-planned the whole event and were not there because Trump "sent them," but that they were there because tens of millions of Americans object not only to how the election was run, but how all of the evidence of fraud has been denied and swept under the rug without any look at it much less vetting while claiming it was baseless. He failed to make the case that the real reason for the riot was the Democrats shoving an illegal and improper election down America's throats leaving tons of HUGE and serious questions and doubts remaining about it unanswered. Trump was fully in his rights to question it. Being at that rally that day merely set the stage for what had started out a rather peaceful ordinary protest that quickly, unfortunately grew out of control and the Dems want to hang it all on Trump to cover for their involvement. The only thing the guy said any good at all is that this is all really about trying to deprive America of the chance that Trump might run again because there is every credible chance HE WOULD WIN.
The 2nd Trump lawyer Schron was great and made fully the case that the trial is illegal, conclusively showed that the Constitution does NOT support it, and it will only rip the nation farther apart.  He also conclusively showed how the House hastily threw the impeachment together without any fact finding or due process, and had sought for four years to demonize and impeach Trump for anything at all long before he had even done anything, indeed, nothing that Biden hasn't already done.
The six GOP voting to move ahead with the trial are the usual worthless RINO scum vermin traitors that make me hate the GOP and want to puke.
Trump's lawyers lost on the procedural basis to dismiss the trial as illegal.  They will win on showing that Trump cannot be made wholly accountable for the riot, that he had not intended it and had every right to think, feel and say the things he did, but to do that, they better build the case for the real CAUSE of the riot:  the highly specious election and its many unanswered questions which left 100 million people doubting an honest, fair and open election has been held.

*IN THE END:*  Trump is really being put on trial for being a President of the People first, and putting them and their interests above and before his role in government.  What is really being tried today and trying to be stopped is the populist movement of the millions totally dissatisfied with the government and their representatives rising up to take power from government and put is squarely back in the hands of its citizenry where it belongs.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time


Naw, it won't. The violence of the preceeding 11 months and that of the unhinged left that is sure to follow is the real issue. 
While the dumb shit the tards did on the 6th was out of bounds it is done and over. Meanwhile the sickness that is the progressive mentality is still crippling our nation and there are no signs of it letting up.

Your kind is blind to your political cult. Trump was but a blip on the radar while the shit you guys are infecting our nation with has been ongoing for near a decade and shows no signs of receding. 

See my sig for further details


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Grampa Murked U said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, it won't. The violence of the preceeding 11 months and that of the unhinged left that is sure to follow is the real issue.
> While the dumb shit the tards did on the 6th was out of bounds it is done and over. Meanwhile the sickness that is the progressive mentality is still crippling our nation and there are no signs of it letting up.
> 
> Your kind is blind to your political cult. Trump was but a blip on the radar while the shit you guys are infecting our nation with has been ongoing for near a decade and shows no signs of receding.
Click to expand...


“Your kind” ? —  *My* kind ?
“You guys” ? — *My* guys ?
“Your political cult” ? — *My* political cult ?

I’m glad and recognize you at least characterized the violence in D.C. as ... “the dumb shit the tards did on the 6th was out of bounds.”

I don’t lump you in with those lunatics and thugs by saying they are ... “your kind.”

Please extend me a similar courtesy in regard to whatever violence or looting or “unhinged shit” you are objecting to.

But the funny thing is Trump *does* proudly talk about “his people,” and plays on the grievances of “ignorant people” whom he “loves.” He flatters them and feeds them “big lies” about the “big steal” of an election he won “in a landslide” ... and then purposely unleashed them on the Capitol Building.

The months of “unhinged” “dumb shit” Trump personally encouraged and articulated ineluctably led to Jan. 6th, when _*his people*_ carrying *his banners *and shouting _*his slogans*_ tried to keep _*him*_ in power illegally.

That is the “dark shadow” of political mob rule that will remain hovering over U.S. politics as long as ex-President Trump goes unpunished.


----------



## Correll

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, it won't. The violence of the preceeding 11 months and that of the unhinged left that is sure to follow is the real issue.
> While the dumb shit the tards did on the 6th was out of bounds it is done and over. Meanwhile the sickness that is the progressive mentality is still crippling our nation and there are no signs of it letting up.
> 
> Your kind is blind to your political cult. Trump was but a blip on the radar while the shit you guys are infecting our nation with has been ongoing for near a decade and shows no signs of receding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Your kind” ?
> “You guys” ?
> 
> I’m glad you said “the dumb shit the tards did on the 6th was out of bounds.”
> 
> I don’t lump you in with them ... by saying ... they are  “your kind.”
> 
> Please extend me a similar courtesy in regard to whatever violence or looting or “unhinged shit” you are objecting to.
> 
> But the funny thing is Trump does talk about “his people,” and plays on the grievances of “ignorant people” whom he “loves.” He feeds them “big lies” about the “big steal” of an election he won “In a landslide” and unleashes them on the Capitol.
> 
> And of course the “unhinged” “dumb shit” Trump personally encouraged ineluctably led to Jan. 6th when _*his people*_ carrying *his banners *and shouting _*his slogans*_ tried to keep _*him*_ in power illegally.
> 
> That is the “dark shadow” of political mob rule that will remain hovering over U.S. politics as long as ex-President Trump goes unpunished.
Click to expand...



Trump's rise to political power and his administration was characterized by completely normal, mainstream policies supported by good, working class and middle class Americans.


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, it won't. The violence of the preceeding 11 months and that of the unhinged left that is sure to follow is the real issue.
> While the dumb shit the tards did on the 6th was out of bounds it is done and over. Meanwhile the sickness that is the progressive mentality is still crippling our nation and there are no signs of it letting up.
> 
> Your kind is blind to your political cult. Trump was but a blip on the radar while the shit you guys are infecting our nation with has been ongoing for near a decade and shows no signs of receding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Your kind” ? —  *My* kind ?
> “You guys” ? — *My* guys ?
> “Your political cult” ? — *My* political cult ?
> 
> I’m glad and recognize you at least characterized the violence in D.C. as ... “the dumb shit the tards did on the 6th was out of bounds.”
> 
> I don’t lump you in with those lunatics and thugs by saying they are ... “your kind.”
> 
> Please extend me a similar courtesy in regard to whatever violence or looting or “unhinged shit” you are objecting to.
> 
> But the funny thing is Trump *does* proudly talk about “his people,” and plays on the grievances of “ignorant people” whom he “loves.” He flatters them and feeds them “big lies” about the “big steal” of an election he won “In a landslide” ... and then purposely unleashed them on the Capitol Building.
> 
> The months of “unhinged” “dumb shit” Trump personally encouraged and articulated ineluctably led to Jan. 6th, when _*his people*_ carrying *his banners *and shouting _*his slogans*_ tried to keep _*him*_ in power illegally.
> 
> That is the “dark shadow” of political mob rule that will remain hovering over U.S. politics as long as ex-President Trump goes unpunished.
Click to expand...

You're one of those idiots that thinks murder because of "hate" is different than murder because of say robbery huh?

Dead is dead. A mourning family is a mourning family. Other than self gratification of the knowledge for the motivation it is irrelevant. 
No added on descriptor of the violence is going to bring anyone back. It isn't going to unburn a torched property. It isn't going to unrape a vulnerable female. 

You people live in platitudes and semantics. The damage done won't suddenly dissappear because you were able to apply an ideology to it. 
Only recognizing the symptoms for the cause and an HONEST attempt to address those issues will ever make any difference.

Orange man bad is not a cause, it is a symptom of your lack of understanding of the deeper problems we face.


----------



## OldLady

Synthaholic said:


> This Schoen lawyer is an actual mafia lawyer. Because that's Trump's circle.


Is he really?


----------



## OldLady

CrusaderFrank said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not watching! LOL
Click to expand...

Of course you aren't.


----------



## Synthaholic

OldLady said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This Schoen lawyer is an actual mafia lawyer. Because that's Trump's circle.
> 
> 
> 
> Is he really?
Click to expand...

Yup.


----------



## Synthaholic

OldLady said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not watching! LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you aren't.
Click to expand...

Neither were the Republican Senators during the video of the Trump thugs attacking the Capitol, according to multiple reports. They purposely looked away, or pretended to shuffle through papers.

Cowards and traitors.


----------



## Synthaholic

Correll said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, it won't. The violence of the preceeding 11 months and that of the unhinged left that is sure to follow is the real issue.
> While the dumb shit the tards did on the 6th was out of bounds it is done and over. Meanwhile the sickness that is the progressive mentality is still crippling our nation and there are no signs of it letting up.
> 
> Your kind is blind to your political cult. Trump was but a blip on the radar while the shit you guys are infecting our nation with has been ongoing for near a decade and shows no signs of receding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Your kind” ?
> “You guys” ?
> 
> I’m glad you said “the dumb shit the tards did on the 6th was out of bounds.”
> 
> I don’t lump you in with them ... by saying ... they are  “your kind.”
> 
> Please extend me a similar courtesy in regard to whatever violence or looting or “unhinged shit” you are objecting to.
> 
> But the funny thing is Trump does talk about “his people,” and plays on the grievances of “ignorant people” whom he “loves.” He feeds them “big lies” about the “big steal” of an election he won “In a landslide” and unleashes them on the Capitol.
> 
> And of course the “unhinged” “dumb shit” Trump personally encouraged ineluctably led to Jan. 6th when _*his people*_ carrying *his banners *and shouting _*his slogans*_ tried to keep _*him*_ in power illegally.
> 
> That is the “dark shadow” of political mob rule that will remain hovering over U.S. politics as long as ex-President Trump goes unpunished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's rise to political power and his administration was characterized by completely normal, mainstream policies supported by good, working class and middle class Americans.
Click to expand...

You’re just a troll.


----------



## Correll

Synthaholic said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, it won't. The violence of the preceeding 11 months and that of the unhinged left that is sure to follow is the real issue.
> While the dumb shit the tards did on the 6th was out of bounds it is done and over. Meanwhile the sickness that is the progressive mentality is still crippling our nation and there are no signs of it letting up.
> 
> Your kind is blind to your political cult. Trump was but a blip on the radar while the shit you guys are infecting our nation with has been ongoing for near a decade and shows no signs of receding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Your kind” ?
> “You guys” ?
> 
> I’m glad you said “the dumb shit the tards did on the 6th was out of bounds.”
> 
> I don’t lump you in with them ... by saying ... they are  “your kind.”
> 
> Please extend me a similar courtesy in regard to whatever violence or looting or “unhinged shit” you are objecting to.
> 
> But the funny thing is Trump does talk about “his people,” and plays on the grievances of “ignorant people” whom he “loves.” He feeds them “big lies” about the “big steal” of an election he won “In a landslide” and unleashes them on the Capitol.
> 
> And of course the “unhinged” “dumb shit” Trump personally encouraged ineluctably led to Jan. 6th when _*his people*_ carrying *his banners *and shouting _*his slogans*_ tried to keep _*him*_ in power illegally.
> 
> That is the “dark shadow” of political mob rule that will remain hovering over U.S. politics as long as ex-President Trump goes unpunished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's rise to political power and his administration was characterized by completely normal, mainstream policies supported by good, working class and middle class Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You’re just a troll.
Click to expand...



Jobs, deporting illegals and less interventionism.


ANd you call me a Troll?


LOL!!!


----------



## OldLady

Synthaholic said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not watching! LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you aren't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither were the Republican Senators during the video of the Trump thugs attacking the Capitol, according to multiple reports. They purposely looked away, or pretended to shuffle through papers.
> 
> Cowards and traitors.
Click to expand...

Well, at least they have the decency to be embarrassed.


----------



## Synthaholic

Synthaholic said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> This Schoen lawyer is an actual mafia lawyer. Because that's Trump's circle.
> 
> 
> 
> Is he really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup.
Click to expand...

In an interview with the _Atlanta Jewish Times_ last year, the Atlanta-based attorney said: *“I represented all sorts of reputed mobster figures: alleged head of Russian mafia in this country, Israeli mafia and two Italian bosses, as well a guy the government claimed was the biggest mafioso in the world.”*









						Trump’s new impeachment lawyers defended ‘reputed mobsters’ and sued a Bill Cosby accuser
					

Former president introduces new lawyers after previous set of attorneys flee his side just one week before trial




					www.independent.co.uk


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Trump's rise to political power and his administration was characterized by completely normal, mainstream policies supported by good, working class and middle class Americans.



After TrumpQ Incited the riot, called Pence a coward to fire up the worked up mob already inside the Capitol and said he loved the rioters who killed a cop,  there is no “good” or “normal” or “mainstream” in any working class and middle class American who still has praise for TrumpQ and still believes his lies about the election he lost by seven million real mainstream good American voters who voted for Joe.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Well, we have — to the surprise of very few — only *six* Republican Senators who voted to reject Trump’s preposterous argument that the U.S. Constitution does not allow a trial on the impeachment charges already brought against him in the House of Representatives.

This should have been an easy vote, since even Republicans who might ultimately vote Trump “not guilty” knew full well the great majority of Constitutional scholars, even including the Federalist Society’s co-founder and most Republican court appointees, saw this trial as perfectly legal and Constitutional.

I suppose many needed to “triangulate” their vote against the impeachment charges, which they can now say they will do on purely technical grounds. Real rightwing populists don’t care about anything besides keeping their Trump voters riled up and on board. They surely don’t care about precedent or Constitutional theory. Others in deep Red states fear primary challenges. Perhaps a few genuine anti-Trump Republicans figured this way they can still denounce Trump’s actions leading up to Jan. 6th, but opine they couldn’t actually vote against Trump since the trial in itself was “unconstitutional.”

In short, 44 Republican Senators acted like typical professional politicians more interested in keeping their well paid jobs and sideline graft opportunities than take a principled stand, or show any “profile in courage.”

For the record, the six Republican Senators who did _not_ disgrace themselves in this vote were ...

Ben Sasse
Bill Cassidy
Lisa Murkowski
Mitt Romney
Pat Toomey
Susan Collins


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Well, we have — to the surprise of very few — only *six* Republican Senators who voted to reject Trump’s preposterous argument that the U.S. Constitution does not allow a trial on the impeachment charges already brought against him in the House of Representatives.
> 
> This should have been an easy vote, since even Republicans who might ultimately vote Trump “not guilty” knew full well the great majority of Constitutional scholars, even including the Federalist Society’s co-founder and most Republican court appointees, saw this trial as perfectly legal and Constitutional.
> 
> I suppose many needed to “triangulate” their vote against the impeachment charges, which they can now say they will do on purely technical grounds. Real rightwing populists don’t care about anything besides keeping their Trump voters riled up and on board. They surely don’t care about precedent or Constitutional theory. Others in deep Red states fear primary challenges. Perhaps a few genuine anti-Trump Republicans figured this way they can still denounce Trump’s actions leading up to Jan. 6th, but opine they couldn’t actually vote against Trump since the trial in itself was “unconstitutional.”
> 
> In short, 44 Republican Senators acted like typical professional politicians more interested in keeping their well paid jobs and sideline graft opportunities than take a principled stand, or show any “profile in courage.”
> 
> For the record, the six Republican Senators who did _not_ disgrace themselves in this vote were ...
> 
> Ben Sasse
> Bill Cassidy
> Lisa Murkowski
> Mitt Romney
> Pat Toomey
> Susan Collins




Let's face it -- those of you who are working for Chinese Communist world domination welcome anything that you see as weakening us, now, don't you?


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

*As usual, Dogmaphobe  ....*
*
You’re completely wrong
*
*and ...*

*You’re Just an Asshole*


----------



## Crepitus

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.


My first thought watching some of the highlights was "tRump really shouldn't have stiffed all the good lawyers".

The second thought is it's not gonna make any difference, the republicans are still.terrified of him so they won't vote to convict.  That kinda boggles me.  They have the opportunity to purge him from the party but won't take it.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Synthaholic said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton was impeached for the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice.  That you pretend that is ridiculous, is you revealing you are not a serious or honest person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why was he testifying under oath?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because of an accusation of sexual harassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Monica Lewinsky didn't accuse him of sexual harassment.
Click to expand...

He bonked an underling on the oval office desk--------------in any corporation in america, Clinton would have been fired with charges likely filed against him while monica the willing ho---would be suing his company for a nice pay package.

My husband has a friend of his (I can't stand the guy) who bonked his young underling when he was a ceo of a major company-----which cost him both his marriage, the love his 3 daughters who till this day hate him, and his job---he is now just a station manager with another company and married to the one that he  bonked.   Willing or not---they are both gone from their jobs.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> *As usual, Dogmaphobe  ....*
> 
> *You’re completely wrong*
> 
> *and ...*
> 
> *You’re Just an Asshole*


You see -- you can certianly learn the language and develop an ability to write it with quite reasonable aplomb, but it's your lack of knowledge of these little aspects of American culture that betrays you.


----------



## Polishprince

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.




Is there any EVIDENCE or TESTIMONY being given in the trial, or only "arguments"?

Arguments are fine in their place, I guess.

But unless the Persecution actually presents evidence , how can even a lib assert that guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt?


----------



## Polishprince

Synthaholic said:


> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.




Its not up to Trump to prove innocence, its up to the House Managers to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

I’m sure, Dogmaphobe  ...

“what _*you*_ were thinking about while you (didn’t) watch the Senate  arguments” ... was how to *slander* fellow Americans.

How very “American” of you !


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I’m sure, Dogmaphobe  ...
> 
> “what _*you*_ were thinking about while you (didn’t) watch the Senate  arguments” was how ... to slander fellow Americans.
> 
> How very “American” of you !


You could always try acting like a stand-up American, instead, by replying to me directy. 

I have certainly slandered no Americans here.


----------



## Lastamender

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.


*



			we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
		
Click to expand...

*Those institutions are treating us like crap.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

The sham trial just shows how rabid the communists are and why they should never be forgiven nor what they do forgotten.  They need to be punished.  Severely and unendingly.


----------



## Turtlesoup

Polishprince said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any EVIDENCE or TESTIMONY being given in the trial, or only "arguments"?
> 
> Arguments are fine in their place, I guess.
> 
> But unless the Persecution actually presents evidence , how can even a lib assert that guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
Click to expand...

There is only melodrama from emotionally manipulative dems using fake tears to talk about how scared they were when the seige happened---------

All evidence is oddly missing--just emotional spinning.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Polishprince said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its not up to Trump to prove innocence, its up to the House Managers to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Click to expand...

This is not a criminal trial.  This is a political trial.  Guilt or innocence is not at issue.  Political will is the only determining factor.


----------



## Synthaholic

Turtlesoup said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton was impeached for the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice.  That you pretend that is ridiculous, is you revealing you are not a serious or honest person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why was he testifying under oath?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because of an accusation of sexual harassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Monica Lewinsky didn't accuse him of sexual harassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He bonked an underling on the oval office desk--------------in any corporation in america, Clinton would have been fired with charges likely filed against him while monica the willing ho---would be suing his company for a nice pay package.
> 
> My husband has a friend of his (I can't stand the guy) who bonked his young underling when he was a ceo of a major company-----which cost him both his marriage, the love his 3 daughters who till this day hate him, and his job---he is now just a station manager with another company and married to the one that he  bonked.   Willing or not---they are both gone from their jobs.
Click to expand...

You didn't address my point. Why not?


----------



## basquebromance

So, basically, it took 4 hours to say "Trump's a dick".


----------



## Batcat

I find myself thinking how Nancy Pelosi is a vindictive old wet hen who is willing to waste the nation’s time and slow down much needed legislation in order to make Trump look Wors3 than he already does. 

She is a prime example of what is wrong with Congress and when she finally leaves office this country may be a better place for all. 

For some reason it seems most people in Congress are terrified of Nancy except AOC and her “Squad.”


----------



## Doc7505

Rye Catcher said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> it says in the constitution that impeachment is to be considered as an action to remove a sitting president AND prevent them from further office. The second clause is dependant on the first.
> 
> It doesn't say OR prevent a person from further office.
> 
> This is all a fraudulent dog and pony show, as impeachment was never meant to be an action taken against a private citizen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems a crime which has occurred during the time The President was in office, and s/he takes property from the White House, including documents marked "secret"; and keeps said documents when s/he leaves the office, shall that former President not be prosecuted for a high crimes and misdemeanors when that document has been sold to a foreign nation's agent.
> 
> BTW, as to what I am taking away from today's Senate Hearing, the Defense was a little more than two logical fallacies:  Appeals to Emotion and Appeals to a Slippery Slope.
Click to expand...

Boing - YouTube​


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Real rightwing populists don’t care about anything besides keeping their Trump voters riled up and on board.



What is clear now:

Our Founding Fathers did not create a system of representative democracy that can protect itself from what ever Trump is.

Trump has convinced a third of the voting public that he won an election that he beyond a shadow of a doubt lost; both in the popular vote and by the legal  electoral vote.

Impeachment was intended to be a safeguard against a first term president who successfully convinces enough citizens,  albeit a minority, to have more support and allegiance to his persona than the fundamental necessity as the consent to be governed in accordance with the rule of law.

We have dodged for now the death of our sacred Democratic Institution (Biden is President) but it was severely wounded on January 6.

TrumpQ could have pulled a violent rejection and reversal  of a legitimate election that he lost if his compliant Party controlled the House and had sixty seats in the Senate.

Those alternate electors chosen by Trump supporters in states he lost could be seated and Trump wins a second term.

That is exactly what the January 6 riot and insurrection was all about.

That was too close for comfort and the Senators who know better are submitting to the will of the seventy million strong Trump mob of voters and his rioters.

They all are violating their oath of office to defend the Constitution against all enemies, specifically those from within.

That failure to honor their oath of office is a severe weakness in the system. The oath means nothing and from this point forward never will if what Trump did was not an impeachable offense.

We should not depend on luck if another Trump gets elected somehow and refuses to abide by our Democratic institutions unless he wins ... that’s not how it is supposed to work.

The first remedy I think is to protect the  State certification of an election from the incumbent Party in the White House and Senate.  Never allow an incumbent Party the opportunity to reject state certified results in order to reverse the will of the people in each state.

We dodged another bullet this time because Biden had a three state cushion and Georgia thankfully rejected Trump’s election meddling attempt. 

Just think if Trump only need to flip a thousand votes in Georgia and the GOP officials their were willing to play ball.

The impeachment of Trump for his crime is absolutely necessary whether convicted or not. But it is not all that is needed.

This is serious enough that I hope the assembled coalition of decent white and non-white Americans plus the political and financial and moral support of the NEVERTRUMP Republicans stays together for a few more elections until Florida, Texas and Ohio go the way of Virginia and the way Georgia is going.

Then and only then can America’s be fully cleansed of the stench of the Trump MAGA mob and democracy can be secure in America for another 240 years at least.

never Trump never forget January 6 2021.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Polishprince said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any EVIDENCE or TESTIMONY being given in the trial, or only "arguments"?
> 
> Arguments are fine in their place, I guess.
> 
> But unless the Persecution actually presents evidence , how can even a lib assert that guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
Click to expand...


They offered a doctored video:

*Democrats Present 'Doctored' Video of Capitol Riot During Trump Impeachment Trial*

=====

Democrats getting dumber every year.

Meanwhile they continue to ignore the clear statement in the Constitution that Impeachment/Trial was for REMOVING someone from office, Trump has been out of office for 3 weeks now.

Then we have this to consider:

*Constitutional Scholar Questions Constitutionality of Second Trump Impeachment*

Excerpt:

 “There are a whole lot of flaws or problems in that process that I think ultimately will derail it,” Natelson told me. “One of the hurdles they’ve got, it’s by no means clear you can impeach and convict somebody who’s no longer in office. If you turn to the founding era record, you find that all the times in which the Framers of the Constitution or the ratifiers of the Constitution talked about impeachment, it was always in terms of removing somebody from office. So you can’t point to anything that says they understood that we can use it after the president has left office. Then you go to the wording of the Constitution itself, and the wording of the Constitution seems to assume that the person being impeached is in office.”

======

Democrats are truly blowing this big time.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's rise to political power and his administration was characterized by completely normal, mainstream policies supported by good, working class and middle class Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After TrumpQ Incited the riot, called Pence a coward to fire up the worked up mob already inside the Capitol and said he loved the rioters who killed a cop,  there is no “good” or “normal” or “mainstream” in any working class and middle class American who still has praise for TrumpQ and still believes his lies about the election he lost by seven million real mainstream good American voters who voted for Joe.
Click to expand...



You connected a lot of dots there, without any support.

FOr example, Trump called Pence a coward. Ok fine. But then you assume that he was directing it to specific people, with a specific intent, without any support.


That is bullshit. And such bullshit included in  your list of justifications as valid, reveals that you are just a partisan hack and none of your list has any credibility.



My point about Trump's policies and support being mainstream and normal stands.

You are ginning up hysteria and panic in order do justify dismissing and marginalizing people that you don't like.


----------



## Claudette

Dogmaphobe said:


> it says in the constitution that impeachment is to be considered as an action to remove a sitting president AND prevent them from further office. The second clause is dependant on the first.
> 
> It doesn't say OR prevent a person from further office.
> 
> This is all a fraudulent dog and pony show, as impeachment was never meant to be an action taken against a private citizen



Yup. A big waste of time and tax dollars.


----------



## Polishprince

Claudette said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> it says in the constitution that impeachment is to be considered as an action to remove a sitting president AND prevent them from further office. The second clause is dependant on the first.
> 
> It doesn't say OR prevent a person from further office.
> 
> This is all a fraudulent dog and pony show, as impeachment was never meant to be an action taken against a private citizen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. A big waste of time and tax dollars.
Click to expand...



Sure, but the time wasted on this rubbish is time that the liberal Senate won't have to tear down this country.   And the result in the end will most likely be the Exoneration of President Donald J. Trump of all charges.

I'd love to see Trump arrive to hear the verdict read.


----------



## TNHarley

Dogmaphobe said:


> it says in the constitution that impeachment is to be considered as an action to remove a sitting president AND prevent them from further office. The second clause is dependant on the first.
> 
> It doesn't say OR prevent a person from further office.
> 
> This is all a fraudulent dog and pony show, as impeachment was never meant to be an action taken against a private citizen


Did you notice the "precedent" they used in the senate?
William Belknap. Thats who. The guy that got impeached and the Senate voted they didnt have the jurisdiction to convict a removed public servant.
You cant make this shit up
William W. Belknap - Wikipedia


----------



## jknowgood

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.


I'll just put it the way Pelosi did when you loons took the capitol during the Kavanaugh hearings. Pelosi took up for them saying "it's the peoples house".


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

TNHarley said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> it says in the constitution that impeachment is to be considered as an action to remove a sitting president AND prevent them from further office. The second clause is dependant on the first.
> 
> It doesn't say OR prevent a person from further office.
> 
> This is all a fraudulent dog and pony show, as impeachment was never meant to be an action taken against a private citizen
> 
> 
> 
> Did you notice the "precedent" they used in the senate?
> William Belknap. Thats who. The guy that got impeached and the Senate voted they didnt have the jurisdiction to convict a removed public servant.
> You cant make this shit up
> William W. Belknap - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

From the very first paragraph of _you own_ link:

“Belknap's defense managers argued that the Senate had no jurisdiction; the Senate ruled by a vote of 37–29 that it did.”

You just “made your own shit up.” If you listened to the discussion you would perhaps have _learned_ something.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> FOr example, Trump called Pence a coward. Ok fine. But then you assume that he was directing it to specific people, with a specific intent, without any support.



TrumpQ directed the most urgent intent to  the “specific people who attended his rally” that morning and listened to it on the Mall.  He said he was going to be with *them

He told them ‘ literally ‘ fucking told them  *that he would be there with them, he was going to walk there with them, to fight, to stop the steal, make Pence do the right thing and stop the steal to save their country.

They were chanting. “ fight for Trump”  TrumpQ told them fight fight fight.,  if they didn’t fight strong enough they would lose their country.

You want more than that to prove intent? The good citizens of this country really don’t give a damn anymore about what a Trump supporter wants. You are dead to America.


----------



## TNHarley

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> it says in the constitution that impeachment is to be considered as an action to remove a sitting president AND prevent them from further office. The second clause is dependant on the first.
> 
> It doesn't say OR prevent a person from further office.
> 
> This is all a fraudulent dog and pony show, as impeachment was never meant to be an action taken against a private citizen
> 
> 
> 
> Did you notice the "precedent" they used in the senate?
> William Belknap. Thats who. The guy that got impeached and the Senate voted they didnt have the jurisdiction to convict a removed public servant.
> You cant make this shit up
> William W. Belknap - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the very first paragraph of _you own_ link:
> 
> “Belknap's defense managers argued that the Senate had no jurisdiction; the Senate ruled by a vote of 37–29 that it did.”
> 
> You just “made your own shit up.” If you listened to the discussion you would perhaps have _learned_ something.
Click to expand...

*All Senators agreed that Belknap took the money* but not enough believed they had jurisdiction.
But yes, I should have worded that different.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> You are ginning up hysteria and panic in order do justify dismissing and marginalizing people that you don't like



I am ginning  up hysteria and TrumpQ was  not?

You are dead to America.

Has trump filed any lawsuits as a private citizen against any of the states that presumably stole the election from him?

If not why not. And will he?


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Tipsycatlover said:


> The sham trial just shows how rabid the communists are and why they should never be forgiven nor what they do forgotten.  They need to be punished.  Severely and unendingly.


Speaking of communists, a VERY important event occurred in China in 1949.

Just saying.....


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Well, the challenge to the legality of the trial has been heard and has now been dismissed by Senate vote. The arguments and evidence for conviction are now being presented and it should all be over by next week. Reuters briefly reported the opening argument for conviction this way ...

“Trump’s behavior ‘could have easily disrupted the transfer of power in the United States’ for the first time in its history, U.S. Representative Jamie Raskin said as he opened the proceedings on Wednesday, calling the trial ‘a moment of truth for America.’”









						In chilling video, Democrats focus Trump trial on mob's threat to his fellow Republicans
					

House Democrats prosecuting Donald Trump's impeachment trial for inciting the deadly siege of the Capitol played chilling security video on Wednesday showing members of the pro-Trump mob searching the building for his vice president, chanting: "Hang Mike Pence!"




					www.reuters.com


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Well, the challenge to the legality of the trial has been heard and has now been dismissed by Senate vote. The arguments and evidence for conviction are now being presented and it should all be over by next week. Reuters briefly reported the opening argument for conviction this way ...
> 
> “Trump’s behavior ‘could have easily disrupted the transfer of power in the United States’ for the first time in its history, U.S. Representative Jamie Raskin said as he opened the proceedings on Wednesday, calling the trial ‘a moment of truth for America.’”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In chilling video, Democrats focus Trump trial on mob's threat to his fellow Republicans
> 
> 
> House Democrats prosecuting Donald Trump's impeachment trial for inciting the deadly siege of the Capitol played chilling security video on Wednesday showing members of the pro-Trump mob searching the building for his vice president, chanting: "Hang Mike Pence!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com


It is the Supreme Court responsible for determining legality, not partisan members of the senate.

I don't know how it works  in China, but that is the system set up here.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Dogmaphobe said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the challenge to the legality of the trial has been heard and has now been dismissed by Senate vote. The arguments and evidence for conviction are now being presented and it should all be over by next week. Reuters briefly reported the opening argument for conviction this way ...
> 
> “Trump’s behavior ‘could have easily disrupted the transfer of power in the United States’ for the first time in its history, U.S. Representative Jamie Raskin said as he opened the proceedings on Wednesday, calling the trial ‘a moment of truth for America.’”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In chilling video, Democrats focus Trump trial on mob's threat to his fellow Republicans
> 
> 
> House Democrats prosecuting Donald Trump's impeachment trial for inciting the deadly siege of the Capitol played chilling security video on Wednesday showing members of the pro-Trump mob searching the building for his vice president, chanting: "Hang Mike Pence!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Supreme Court responsible for determining legality, not partisan members of the senate.
> 
> I don't know how it works  in China, but that is the system set up here.
Click to expand...


The Congress decides Impeachment and Conviction. The same Congress that was attacked. Don’t like it? By all means ... take it up with the Supreme Court!

You know, that’s the Court Trump appointed three justices to!


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the challenge to the legality of the trial has been heard and has now been dismissed by Senate vote. The arguments and evidence for conviction are now being presented and it should all be over by next week. Reuters briefly reported the opening argument for conviction this way ...
> 
> “Trump’s behavior ‘could have easily disrupted the transfer of power in the United States’ for the first time in its history, U.S. Representative Jamie Raskin said as he opened the proceedings on Wednesday, calling the trial ‘a moment of truth for America.’”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In chilling video, Democrats focus Trump trial on mob's threat to his fellow Republicans
> 
> 
> House Democrats prosecuting Donald Trump's impeachment trial for inciting the deadly siege of the Capitol played chilling security video on Wednesday showing members of the pro-Trump mob searching the building for his vice president, chanting: "Hang Mike Pence!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Supreme Court responsible for determining legality, not partisan members of the senate.
> 
> I don't know how it works  in China, but that is the system set up here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Congress decides Impeachment and Conviction. The same Congress that was attacked. Don’t like it? By all means ... take it up with the Supreme Court!
> 
> You know, that’s the Court Trump appointed three justices to!
Click to expand...


Our constitution says the chief Justice is to preside and issues of legality are determined accordingly.

I realize the Chinese don't like that, but we are a nation of law.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Dogmaphobe said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the challenge to the legality of the trial has been heard and has now been dismissed by Senate vote. The arguments and evidence for conviction are now being presented and it should all be over by next week. Reuters briefly reported the opening argument for conviction this way ...
> 
> “Trump’s behavior ‘could have easily disrupted the transfer of power in the United States’ for the first time in its history, U.S. Representative Jamie Raskin said as he opened the proceedings on Wednesday, calling the trial ‘a moment of truth for America.’”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In chilling video, Democrats focus Trump trial on mob's threat to his fellow Republicans
> 
> 
> House Democrats prosecuting Donald Trump's impeachment trial for inciting the deadly siege of the Capitol played chilling security video on Wednesday showing members of the pro-Trump mob searching the building for his vice president, chanting: "Hang Mike Pence!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Supreme Court responsible for determining legality, not partisan members of the senate.
> 
> I don't know how it works  in China, but that is the system set up here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Congress decides Impeachment and Conviction. The same Congress that was attacked. Don’t like it? By all means ... take it up with the Supreme Court!
> 
> You know, that’s the Court Trump appointed three justices to!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our constitution says the chief Justice is to preside and issues of legality are determined accordingly.
> 
> I realize the Chinese don't like that, but we are a nation of law.
Click to expand...


Trump (and you) couldn’t give a shit about the Constitution, or legality, or the truth. All of which is now being discussed and proven to anyone not a Trump cultist or cowardly Republican politician afraid of losing the votes of Trump cultists.

If you don’t like it, maybe it’s YOU who should try moving to Russia or China, or Brazil, or Saudi Arabia or Israel.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the challenge to the legality of the trial has been heard and has now been dismissed by Senate vote. The arguments and evidence for conviction are now being presented and it should all be over by next week. Reuters briefly reported the opening argument for conviction this way ...
> 
> “Trump’s behavior ‘could have easily disrupted the transfer of power in the United States’ for the first time in its history, U.S. Representative Jamie Raskin said as he opened the proceedings on Wednesday, calling the trial ‘a moment of truth for America.’”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In chilling video, Democrats focus Trump trial on mob's threat to his fellow Republicans
> 
> 
> House Democrats prosecuting Donald Trump's impeachment trial for inciting the deadly siege of the Capitol played chilling security video on Wednesday showing members of the pro-Trump mob searching the building for his vice president, chanting: "Hang Mike Pence!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Supreme Court responsible for determining legality, not partisan members of the senate.
> 
> I don't know how it works  in China, but that is the system set up here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Congress decides Impeachment and Conviction. The same Congress that was attacked. Don’t like it? By all means ... take it up with the Supreme Court!
> 
> You know, that’s the Court Trump appointed three justices to!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our constitution says the chief Justice is to preside and issues of legality are determined accordingly.
> 
> I realize the Chinese don't like that, but we are a nation of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump (and you) couldn’t give a shit about the Constitution, or legality, or the truth. All of which is now being discussed and proven to anyone not a Trump cultist or cowardly Republican politician afraid of losing the votes of Trump cultists.
> 
> If you don’t like it, maybe it’s YOU who should try moving to Russia or China, or Brazil, or Saudi Arabia or Israel.
Click to expand...

I don't do things just because Chinese communist agents demand I do.

Thanks for trying, though.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Dogmaphobe said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the challenge to the legality of the trial has been heard and has now been dismissed by Senate vote. The arguments and evidence for conviction are now being presented and it should all be over by next week. Reuters briefly reported the opening argument for conviction this way ...
> 
> “Trump’s behavior ‘could have easily disrupted the transfer of power in the United States’ for the first time in its history, U.S. Representative Jamie Raskin said as he opened the proceedings on Wednesday, calling the trial ‘a moment of truth for America.’”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In chilling video, Democrats focus Trump trial on mob's threat to his fellow Republicans
> 
> 
> House Democrats prosecuting Donald Trump's impeachment trial for inciting the deadly siege of the Capitol played chilling security video on Wednesday showing members of the pro-Trump mob searching the building for his vice president, chanting: "Hang Mike Pence!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Supreme Court responsible for determining legality, not partisan members of the senate.
> 
> I don't know how it works  in China, but that is the system set up here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Congress decides Impeachment and Conviction. The same Congress that was attacked. Don’t like it? By all means ... take it up with the Supreme Court!
> 
> You know, that’s the Court Trump appointed three justices to!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our constitution says the chief Justice is to preside and issues of legality are determined accordingly.
> 
> I realize the Chinese don't like that, but we are a nation of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump (and you) couldn’t give a shit about the Constitution, or legality, or the truth. All of which is now being discussed and proven to anyone not a Trump cultist or cowardly Republican politician afraid of losing the votes of Trump cultists.
> 
> If you don’t like it, maybe it’s YOU who should try moving to Russia or China, or Brazil, or Saudi Arabia or Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't do things just because Chinese communist agents demand I do.
> 
> Thanks for trying, though.
Click to expand...


Not sure what you’re referring to. Trying to slander me again?
You’re as usual both wrong ... and acting as an asshole.

You’re like a useless old dog gnawing on a dry bone you dug up from some disgusting garbage dump.

Perhaps now, without Trump, you’re becoming even more rabid.
You really should be kept away from civil people.
Guess I’m just the “dog-catcher” in this animal house.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the challenge to the legality of the trial has been heard and has now been dismissed by Senate vote. The arguments and evidence for conviction are now being presented and it should all be over by next week. Reuters briefly reported the opening argument for conviction this way ...
> 
> “Trump’s behavior ‘could have easily disrupted the transfer of power in the United States’ for the first time in its history, U.S. Representative Jamie Raskin said as he opened the proceedings on Wednesday, calling the trial ‘a moment of truth for America.’”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In chilling video, Democrats focus Trump trial on mob's threat to his fellow Republicans
> 
> 
> House Democrats prosecuting Donald Trump's impeachment trial for inciting the deadly siege of the Capitol played chilling security video on Wednesday showing members of the pro-Trump mob searching the building for his vice president, chanting: "Hang Mike Pence!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Supreme Court responsible for determining legality, not partisan members of the senate.
> 
> I don't know how it works  in China, but that is the system set up here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Congress decides Impeachment and Conviction. The same Congress that was attacked. Don’t like it? By all means ... take it up with the Supreme Court!
> 
> You know, that’s the Court Trump appointed three justices to!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our constitution says the chief Justice is to preside and issues of legality are determined accordingly.
> 
> I realize the Chinese don't like that, but we are a nation of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump (and you) couldn’t give a shit about the Constitution, or legality, or the truth. All of which is now being discussed and proven to anyone not a Trump cultist or cowardly Republican politician afraid of losing the votes of Trump cultists.
> 
> If you don’t like it, maybe it’s YOU who should try moving to Russia or China, or Brazil, or Saudi Arabia or Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't do things just because Chinese communist agents demand I do.
> 
> Thanks for trying, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what you’re referring to. Trying to slander me again?
> You’re as usual both wrong ... and acting as an asshole.
> 
> You’re like a useless old dog gnawing on a dry bone you dug up from some disgusting garbage dump.
> 
> Perhaps now, without Trump, you’re becoming even more rabid.
> You really should be kept away from civil people.
> Guess I’m just the “dog-catcher” in this animal house.
Click to expand...

Slander is a term that addresses something spoken rather that printed.  Again, learned the language quite well for a second language but miss some of the finer points.

Beyond that, the term only covers cases where a person's identity is known. It was never meant to apply to anonymous foreign agents.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Dogmaphobe said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the challenge to the legality of the trial has been heard and has now been dismissed by Senate vote. The arguments and evidence for conviction are now being presented and it should all be over by next week. Reuters briefly reported the opening argument for conviction this way ...
> 
> “Trump’s behavior ‘could have easily disrupted the transfer of power in the United States’ for the first time in its history, U.S. Representative Jamie Raskin said as he opened the proceedings on Wednesday, calling the trial ‘a moment of truth for America.’”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In chilling video, Democrats focus Trump trial on mob's threat to his fellow Republicans
> 
> 
> House Democrats prosecuting Donald Trump's impeachment trial for inciting the deadly siege of the Capitol played chilling security video on Wednesday showing members of the pro-Trump mob searching the building for his vice president, chanting: "Hang Mike Pence!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Supreme Court responsible for determining legality, not partisan members of the senate.
> 
> I don't know how it works  in China, but that is the system set up here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Congress decides Impeachment and Conviction. The same Congress that was attacked. Don’t like it? By all means ... take it up with the Supreme Court!
> 
> You know, that’s the Court Trump appointed three justices to!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our constitution says the chief Justice is to preside and issues of legality are determined accordingly.
> 
> I realize the Chinese don't like that, but we are a nation of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump (and you) couldn’t give a shit about the Constitution, or legality, or the truth. All of which is now being discussed and proven to anyone not a Trump cultist or cowardly Republican politician afraid of losing the votes of Trump cultists.
> 
> If you don’t like it, maybe it’s YOU who should try moving to Russia or China, or Brazil, or Saudi Arabia or Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't do things just because Chinese communist agents demand I do.
> 
> Thanks for trying, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what you’re referring to. Trying to slander me again?
> You’re as usual both wrong ... and acting as an asshole.
> 
> You’re like a useless old dog gnawing on a dry bone you dug up from some disgusting garbage dump.
> 
> Perhaps now, without Trump, you’re becoming even more rabid.
> You really should be kept away from civil people.
> Guess I’m just the “dog-catcher” in this animal house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slander is a term that addresses something spoken rather that printed.  Again, learned the language quite well for a second language but miss some of the finer points.
> 
> Beyond that, the term only covers cases where a person's identity is known. It was never meant to apply to anonymous foreign agents.
Click to expand...


You’re in a doghouse you built all by yourself.
In a madhouse you share with other rabid Trumpsters.
You’re not in a courthouse or a schoolhouse.
“Slander” me as much as you like, big mouth.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the challenge to the legality of the trial has been heard and has now been dismissed by Senate vote. The arguments and evidence for conviction are now being presented and it should all be over by next week. Reuters briefly reported the opening argument for conviction this way ...
> 
> “Trump’s behavior ‘could have easily disrupted the transfer of power in the United States’ for the first time in its history, U.S. Representative Jamie Raskin said as he opened the proceedings on Wednesday, calling the trial ‘a moment of truth for America.’”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In chilling video, Democrats focus Trump trial on mob's threat to his fellow Republicans
> 
> 
> House Democrats prosecuting Donald Trump's impeachment trial for inciting the deadly siege of the Capitol played chilling security video on Wednesday showing members of the pro-Trump mob searching the building for his vice president, chanting: "Hang Mike Pence!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.reuters.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the Supreme Court responsible for determining legality, not partisan members of the senate.
> 
> I don't know how it works  in China, but that is the system set up here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Congress decides Impeachment and Conviction. The same Congress that was attacked. Don’t like it? By all means ... take it up with the Supreme Court!
> 
> You know, that’s the Court Trump appointed three justices to!
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our constitution says the chief Justice is to preside and issues of legality are determined accordingly.
> 
> I realize the Chinese don't like that, but we are a nation of law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump (and you) couldn’t give a shit about the Constitution, or legality, or the truth. All of which is now being discussed and proven to anyone not a Trump cultist or cowardly Republican politician afraid of losing the votes of Trump cultists.
> 
> If you don’t like it, maybe it’s YOU who should try moving to Russia or China, or Brazil, or Saudi Arabia or Israel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't do things just because Chinese communist agents demand I do.
> 
> Thanks for trying, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure what you’re referring to. Trying to slander me again?
> You’re as usual both wrong ... and acting as an asshole.
> 
> You’re like a useless old dog gnawing on a dry bone you dug up from some disgusting garbage dump.
> 
> Perhaps now, without Trump, you’re becoming even more rabid.
> You really should be kept away from civil people.
> Guess I’m just the “dog-catcher” in this animal house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slander is a term that addresses something spoken rather that printed.  Again, learned the language quite well for a second language but miss some of the finer points.
> 
> Beyond that, the term only covers cases where a person's identity is known. It was never meant to apply to anonymous foreign agents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re in a doghouse you built all by yourself.
> In a madhouse you share with other rabid Trumpsters.
> You’re not in a courthouse or a schoolhouse.
> “Slander” me as much as you like, big mouth.
Click to expand...

It is impossible for me to slander you here.

Supporting the U.S. constution in opposition to the designs of a representative  of Chinese communist interests does not make me a Trumpster.

It just makes me an American.


----------



## georgephillip

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.


Imho, Trump made his fatal mistake by embracing foreign dictators. This was something elite members of the US Military could not tolerate. I suspect the next right-wing wanna-be dictator will be much too smart to make the same mistake




Mike Pompeo


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> FOr example, Trump called Pence a coward. Ok fine. But then you assume that he was directing it to specific people, with a specific intent, without any support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TrumpQ directed the most urgent intent to  the “specific people who attended his rally” that morning and listened to it on the Mall.  He said he was going to be with *them
> 
> He told them ‘ literally ‘ fucking told them  *that he would be there with them, he was going to walk there with them, to fight, to stop the steal, make Pence do the right thing and stop the steal to save their country.
> 
> They were chanting. “ fight for Trump”  TrumpQ told them fight fight fight.,  if they didn’t fight strong enough they would lose their country.
> 
> You want more than that to prove intent? The good citizens of this country really don’t give a damn anymore about what a Trump supporter wants. You are dead to America.
Click to expand...



You are listing things Trump said, as though he said them, together, in order to give the illusion of a connection. 


But, you don't explicitly make the connection. You imply it, and then judge Trump as though your implication was fact. 


BUT, by doing it that way, if I call you out on any specific point, you can accuse me of putting words in your mouth.


Standard lefty dishonest shit.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

georgephillip said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> Imho, Trump made his fatal mistake by embracing foreign dictators. This was something elite members of the US Military could not tolerate. I suspect the next right-wing wanna-be dictator will be much too smart to make the same mistake
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike Pompeo
Click to expand...

I think yours is a very perceptive comment, and a warning to us all. The fact that sufficient numbers of Republican Senators apparently aren’t willing even now to convict ... is also a very ominous development. Not surprising, but ominous.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ginning up hysteria and panic in order do justify dismissing and marginalizing people that you don't like
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am ginning  up hysteria and TrumpQ was  not?
> ....
Click to expand...


Trump was upset about losing and riled up a crowd for a day.


You people have been tearing this nation apart for years.


----------



## Correll

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> Imho, Trump made his fatal mistake by embracing foreign dictators. This was something elite members of the US Military could not tolerate. I suspect the next right-wing wanna-be dictator will be much too smart to make the same mistake
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mike Pompeo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think yours is a very perceptive comment, and a warning to us all. The fact that sufficient numbers of Republican Senators apparently aren’t willing even now to convict ... is also a very ominous development. Not surprising, but ominous.
Click to expand...



We have a media that managed to convince half the country that the President of the United States said that nazis were "very fine people", 


when he explicitly said the exact opposite. 


That right there, was the election being stolen by fraud. 


We have had years of riots, with dem mayors siding with the mobs, to the point of firing cops for arresting criminals or ordering federal agents to not protect themselves. 


And you want to have to ignore all of that, to join in the dog pile.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

At this moment one of the House Impeachment Managers just read the letter of Vice President Pence refusing Trump’s demand to arbitrarily and unconstitutionally reject the already confirmed electoral votes.  Pence ended saying he must “do his duty.” It made a big impression on me, especially after watching the mobs screaming to hang him. To me, it was a remarkable reminder of what keeps our country a democracy and a Republic.

Now they are showing never-before-seen videos of overwhelmed Capitol police trying to stop violent political thugs armed with baseball bats and pipes breaking in — screaming for Trump and shouting “Kill ‘em!” & “Hang Pence’! This is the threat to our Republic that our impeached President unleashed. It is why he should be convicted, disgraced, and further prosecuted as appropriate.


----------



## Correll

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> At this moment one of the House Impeachment Managers just read the letter of Vice President Pence refusing Trump’s demand to arbitrarily and unconstitutionally reject the already confirmed electoral votes.  Pence ended saying he must “do his duty.” It made a big impression on me, especially after watching the mobs screaming to hang him. To me, it was a remarkable reminder of what keeps our country a democracy and a Republic.
> 
> Now they are showing never-before-seen videos of overwhelmed Capitol police trying to stop violent political thugs armed with baseball bats and pipes breaking in — screaming for Trump and shouting “kill ‘em!” This is the threat to our Republic that our impeached President unleashed. It is why he should be convicted, disgraced, and further prosecuted as appropriate.




Perhaps all that messing with the voting rules, creating the appearance of impropriety was a bad idea. 


I have no faith in an "election day" that is really several weeks. 

There are good reasons that we never did it that way before.


----------



## marvin martian

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.



I'm thinking thousands of us are dying from Covid every day, while the DemoKKKrats are doing this.


----------



## JLW

Rep. Plaskett is making a good argument.  Just watch these Trumpist marauders, rabble and seditionists.  Talking about hanging Pence and committing violence against the nation on the orders of the pussy grabber. Extremely disturbing.


----------



## georgephillip

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I think yours is a very perceptive comment, and a warning to us all. The fact that sufficient numbers of Republican Senators apparently aren’t willing even now to convict ... is also a very ominous development. Not surprising, but ominous.


I'm wondering how many of the 74 million voters who supported Trump are still with him? Fifty million is a number I've heard mentioned a few times. Perhaps Trump will divide the Republican Party into a pair of warring faction by November 2022?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Trump was upset about losing



You are a liar. TrumpQ has not accepted the reality that he lost the election. He is a liar and you have to  be a liar to defend him.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was upset about losing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar. TrumpQ has not accepted the reality that he lost the election. He is a liar and you have to  be a liar to defend him.
Click to expand...


I did not say he accepted it. I said he was upset about it.


Shove your pretend outrage up your ass.


----------



## JusticeHammer

Synthaholic said:


> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.


There is no case, just demscum throwing a two year old tantrum. Libscum are idiots. Idiot.


----------



## JusticeHammer

Mac1958 said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the die is cast on the vote to convict.
> 
> The GQP'ers are putting their political ambitions over the Constitution.  Not exactly a shock.
Click to expand...

Demscum have been doing that for years, all they know to do.


----------



## JusticeHammer

Synthaholic said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton was impeached for the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice.  That you pretend that is ridiculous, is you revealing you are not a serious or honest person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why was he testifying under oath?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because of an accusation of sexual harassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Monica Lewinsky didn't accuse him of sexual harassment.
Click to expand...

So?


----------



## Mac1958

JusticeHammer said:


> Mac1958 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the die is cast on the vote to convict.
> 
> The GQP'ers are putting their political ambitions over the Constitution.  Not exactly a shock.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Demscum have been doing that for years, all they know to do.
Click to expand...

So Trump is the same as "Demscum".

Okay.


----------



## TheParser

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.




Most people (including me) do NOT think anything, for they are NOT  looking at that clown show.


----------



## Correll

JusticeHammer said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton was impeached for the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice.  That you pretend that is ridiculous, is you revealing you are not a serious or honest person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why was he testifying under oath?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because of an accusation of sexual harassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Monica Lewinsky didn't accuse him of sexual harassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?
Click to expand...



She is completely ignorant of what actually happened, what the scandal and impeachment was all about. 

COMPLETELY.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

georgephillip said:


> I'm wondering how many of the 74 million voters who supported Trump are still with him? Fifty million is a number I've heard mentioned a few times.



If he has lost 20 million that’s a reasonable number. 

interesting PEW analysis:

Among the 4,075 panelists who responded to both surveys, 25% of those who approved of Trump’s job performance in August changed their answer to disapproval in January. The drop was concentrated among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, since hardly any Democrats (and relatively few independents who do not lean to a party) approved of Trump’s job performance in August.



			Redirect Notice
		


Let’s hope a lot of them who dumped TrumpQ vote in Texas Florida Ohio.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm wondering how many of the 74 million voters who supported Trump are still with him? Fifty million is a number I've heard mentioned a few times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he has lost 20 million that’s a reasonable number.
> 
> interesting PEW analysis:
> 
> Among the 4,075 panelists who responded to both surveys, 25% of those who approved of Trump’s job performance in August changed their answer to disapproval in January. The drop was concentrated among Republicans and Republican-leaning independents, since hardly any Democrats (and relatively few independents who do not lean to a party) approved of Trump’s job performance in August.
> 
> 
> 
> Redirect Notice
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s hope a lot of them who dumped TrumpQ vote in Texas Florida Ohio.
Click to expand...



How many of those that disapprove would change their opinion, if they were told teh truth about how President TRump repeatedly condemned ws and nazis, instead of saying they were "very fine people", 


as the media falsely told them?


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

I really try to be a reasonable guy. I have friends who voted for Trump. Never before have I felt this visceral hatred for Trump personally, or for tolerating his violent ignorant followers.

I don’t think I will ever be able to see somebody with a red Trump cap or a blue Trump flag again ... in the same way. Of course most of the Trump rally-goers did _*not*_ invade the Capitol.   I used to feel a bit sorry for such confused types. I don’t think there is any room after Jan. 6th for such empathy. Today _*everybody*_ should be able to draw correct lessons about what “Trumpism” leads to.


----------



## Correll

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I really try to be a reasonable guy. I have friends who voted for Trump. Never before have I felt this visceral hatred for Trump personally, or for tolerating his violent ignorant followers.
> 
> I don’t think I will ever be able to see somebody with a red Trump cap or a blue Trump flag again ... in the same way. Of course most of the Trump rally-goers did _*not*_ invade the Capitol.   I used to feel a bit sorry for such confused types. I don’t think there is any room after Jan. 6th for such empathy. Today _*everybody*_ should be able to draw correct lessons about what “Trumpism” leads to.




How many friends are you telling that you are no longer their friend, because of political differences, you reasonable guy, you?


----------



## georgephillip

Correll said:


> That right there, was the election being stolen by fraud.


Trump and his Turds filed 62 lawsuits alleging voter fraud. 61 were denied. Donald Trump is the biggest fraud in US history and all your revisionism will never change that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I did not say he accepted it. I said he was upset about it.



You are a liar. TrumpQ could not have mobilized the insurrectionists mob if he was upset about losing. He was upset, according to what he told the mob, because the election was stolen. He won in a landslide. Why would he be upset about losing? He’s a madman. he’s fucking insane. he thinks he won in a landslide.

And you still have your nose up his ass. How do you live with yourself?


----------



## Correll

georgephillip said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That right there, was the election being stolen by fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump and his Turds filed 62 lawsuits alleging voter fraud. 61 were denied. Donald Trump is the biggest fraud in US history and all your revisionism will never change that.
Click to expand...



Note that you felt you had to cut my complaint, before you denied it. 


Not very convincing.


----------



## georgephillip

Correll said:


> have no faith in an "election day" that is really several weeks.
> 
> There are good reasons that we never did it that way before.


Do you doubt Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 and 2020? The most recent election was the first time in living memory a POTUS has been selected while a global pandemic was raging. January 6 will be Trump's legacy long after he dies in prison regardless of how cowardly Senate Republicans vote on conviction


----------



## Correll

georgephillip said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> have no faith in an "election day" that is really several weeks.
> 
> There are good reasons that we never did it that way before.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you doubt Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 and 2020? The most recent election was the first time in living memory a POTUS has been selected while a global pandemic was raging. January 6 will be Trump's legacy long after he dies in prison regardless of how cowardly Senate Republicans vote on conviction
Click to expand...



It was also the first election where the American people had been falsely convinced that the US President thought nazis were "very fine people".


It was also the first election where city mayors ordered the police to stand down so violent mobs could loot and kill.


----------



## georgephillip

NotfooledbyW said:


> Let’s hope a lot of them who dumped TrumpQ vote in Texas Florida Ohio.


Perhaps doing away with the electoral college would be an even better solution?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> But, you don't explicitly make the connection. You imply it, and then judge Trump as though your implication was fact.
> 
> BUT, by doing it that way, if I call you out on any specific point, you can accuse me of putting words in your mouth.




I have never known you to make a counter argument directly based on facts, substance context and applied reasoning. You can’t counter argue on a specific point because you have no points but your typical verbal squirming

The January 6, 2021 assault on the US Capitol to stop the certification of an election that I voted in, that would reject my choice in favor of yours,  never happens if Trump didn’t push the mob to “stop the steal”

Do you want proof of TrumpQ’s intent. January 6 was the the last day that Trump had to ‘stop the steal’

So when he told the mob at the rally that morning and for the past two months that they had to fight to save their country and they had to stop the steal and that is what the mob went to do.

And you think Trump wanted them to go do that peacefully. You’re stupid. There was no way that 20,000 people standing outside the capital peacefully demonstrating we’re going to “stop the steal”

You lied earlier when you said that Trump was upset that he lost the election. You know you’re wrong because this Insurrectionist mob would never have gotten so worked up if hehe conceded the election when everybody else in America except Trump voters knew for a fact that he had lost.

You see it is the lie. It’s the lie that we had to “stop the steal” to save American. And you know damn well that exact ‘inciting a riot lie’  comes from the mouth and the foul rotten fascist mind of your Donald J Trump.

If Trump didn’t spread that lie for over two months there was no riot at the capital. That’s why we know Trump is responsible and should be impeached and convicted.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> nd you think Trump wanted them to go do that peacefully. You’re stupid. There was no way that 20,000 people standing outside the capital peacefully demonstrating we’re going to “stop the steal”




Sure it could. If enough attention was brought to bear, if the nation as a whole put tons of pressure on Congress, they might have stopped teh count to address some of the concerns of the President and his supporters. 


It was a possibility. 


Thus, your assumption that his words are "proof" of inciting violence are thus shown to be just that. An assumption.


AND you are judging him as though your assumptions are fact.


----------



## georgephillip

Correll said:


> t was also the first election where the American people had been falsely convinced that the US President thought nazis were "very fine people".


Why would that surprise you when Trump proudly proclaims his admiration for autocrats in Russia, India, Brazil, and the Philippines? The very first time Trumps name appeared in the NYT it was as a defendant in a racial discrimination law suit. He incited a mob on January 6 and then proclaimed his love for the "patriots" who composed the mob.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

georgephillip said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s hope a lot of them who dumped TrumpQ vote in Texas Florida Ohio.
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps doing away with the electoral college would be an even better solution?
Click to expand...


That would solve the tyranny of the minority problem we suffered during the previous perfidious Administration.


----------



## Correll

georgephillip said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> t was also the first election where the American people had been falsely convinced that the US President thought nazis were "very fine people".
> 
> 
> 
> Why would that surprise you when Trump proudly proclaims his admiration for autocrats in Russia, India, Brazil, and the Philippines? The very first time Trumps name appeared in the NYT it was as a defendant in a racial discrimination law suit. He incited a mob on January 6 and then proclaimed his love for the "patriots" who composed the mob.
Click to expand...



Because EVERYTHING about Trump argues against him being sympathetic to ws AND he clearly stated that he was NOT say that ws were very fine people.


You people lied to the American people, to steal the election though fraud.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Sure it could.



No it could not. More of your stupid logic and pathetic reasoning.

You were responding to this;


NotfooledbyW said:


> So when he told the mob at the rally that morning and for the past two months that they had to fight to save their country and they had to stop the steal and that is what the mob went to do.
> 
> And you think Trump wanted them to go do that peacefully. You’re stupid. There was no way that 20,000 people standing outside the capital peacefully demonstrating we’re going to “stop the steal”






Correll said:


> If enough attention was brought to bear, if the nation as a whole put tons of pressure on Congress, they might have stopped teh count to address some of the concerns of the President and his supporters.



Trump told the mob to go to the capitol around  noon to one on that day. Certification which is a ceremonial duty.
.  It was scheduled just a few hours later.

The election of Joe is already set on stone. There is no time for Congress to review TrumpQ’s  election concerns. That was over. It’s done. There is no way that they could stop this ceremonial activity by standing outside holding up signs.

The mob had to get in to stop the steal.

This just proves you are the idiot that I have always suspected you are.


----------



## Borillar

Synthaholic said:


> Schoen's argument boils down to "You should be indicting and convicting him in criminal court". He's not making any arguments about innocence.


I agree. This impeachment trial is a waste of time. The DOJ should be charging Trump with inciting an insurrection, sedition, and treason. Let him face a jury not comprised of gutless Trumpublican fucktards.


----------



## 22lcidw

georgephillip said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> have no faith in an "election day" that is really several weeks.
> 
> There are good reasons that we never did it that way before.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you doubt Trump lost the popular vote in 2016 and 2020? The most recent election was the first time in living memory a POTUS has been selected while a global pandemic was raging. January 6 will be Trump's legacy long after he dies in prison regardless of how cowardly Senate Republicans vote on conviction
Click to expand...

As long as you keep killing yourselves.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> You people lied to the American people, to steal the election though fraud.



We people elected Joe Biden to be president. That’s it, you whining wimp crybaby loser. That’s all you need to know.

Trump lost the election, lost 60 court challenges, lost the Supreme Court, Lost Bill BARR,  lost an insurrection against the Legislative Branch, and lost 20 million who had just voted for  him.

And you got your nose up his ass for what?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it could.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it could not. More of your stupid logic and pathetic reasoning.
> 
> You were responding to this;
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> So when he told the mob at the rally that morning and for the past two months that they had to fight to save their country and they had to stop the steal and that is what the mob went to do.
> 
> And you think Trump wanted them to go do that peacefully. You’re stupid. There was no way that 20,000 people standing outside the capital peacefully demonstrating we’re going to “stop the steal”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If enough attention was brought to bear, if the nation as a whole put tons of pressure on Congress, they might have stopped teh count to address some of the concerns of the President and his supporters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump told the mob to go to the capitol around  noon to one on that day. Certification which is a ceremonial duty.
> .  It was scheduled just a few hours later.
> 
> The election of Joe is already set on stone. There is no time for Congress to review TrumpQ’s  election concerns. That was over. It’s done. There is no way that they could stop this ceremonial activity by standing outside holding up signs.
> 
> The mob had to get in to stop the steal.
> 
> This just proves you are the idiot that I have always suspected you are.
Click to expand...




Nope. YOu are just an asshole who can't admit he was wrong. 


My point stands. There was a way it could have worked, non-violently. 


So, go fuck yourself.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people lied to the American people, to steal the election though fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We people elected Joe Biden to be president. That’s it, you whining wimp crybaby loser. That’s all you need to know.
> 
> Trump lost the election, lost 60 court challenges, lost the Supreme Court, Lost Bill BARR,  lost an insurrection against the Legislative Branch, and lost 20 million who had just voted for  him.
> 
> And you got your nose up his ass for what?
Click to expand...




The American People were lied to, by people like you, for 5 years. 


You want to say something like that to my face, or the face of any Republicans, faggot?


----------



## HaShev




----------



## otto105

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.


It’s our Democracy...if we don’t allow conservatives to steal it.


----------



## Correll

otto105 said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s our Democracy...if we don’t allow conservatives to steal it.
Click to expand...



Kind of defeats the purpose of democracy there, stupid.


----------



## otto105

Correll said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s our Democracy...if we don’t allow conservatives to steal it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of defeats the purpose of democracy there, stupid.
Click to expand...

Hardly, conservatives don’t like Democracy over being a republic where the minority can rule.


----------



## Correll

otto105 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s our Democracy...if we don’t allow conservatives to steal it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of defeats the purpose of democracy there, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hardly, conservatives don’t like Democracy over being a republic where the minority can rule.
Click to expand...



You are the one talking like the "minority" will have no voice at all. Dumbass.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I did not say he accepted it. I said he was upset about it.



How is TrumpQ upset about losing the election if he has not accepted the fact that he lost?

Have you accepted the fact that TrumpQ lost?


----------



## otto105

Correll said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people lied to the American people, to steal the election though fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We people elected Joe Biden to be president. That’s it, you whining wimp crybaby loser. That’s all you need to know.
> 
> Trump lost the election, lost 60 court challenges, lost the Supreme Court, Lost Bill BARR,  lost an insurrection against the Legislative Branch, and lost 20 million who had just voted for  him.
> 
> And you got your nose up his ass for what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American People were lied to, by people like you, for 5 years.
> 
> 
> You want to say something like that to my face, or the face of any Republicans, faggot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit asshole
> 
> Take your internet bullshit and shove it little boi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one starting fighting words, from the safety of my mom's basement.
> 
> So fuck you.
Click to expand...

LMAO


are you also an internet billionaire...


Ripe


----------



## otto105

Correll said:


> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s our Democracy...if we don’t allow conservatives to steal it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of defeats the purpose of democracy there, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hardly, conservatives don’t like Democracy over being a republic where the minority can rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one talking like the "minority" will have no voice at all. Dumbass.
Click to expand...

81.2 million votes say different


----------



## Godboy

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.


What specific calls for violence did Trump make? He never said "go out there and break into the capital building and take selfies with the cops". Sure he used the word "fight" somewhere in his speech, but that is a word has been used in politics, sports and many other areas, long before Trump ever said it. Name something he said that specifically called for violence. If you cant do that, what the fuck are you democrats doing this for? 

This goes beyond dirty politics. What you guys are doing is wrong and its dangerous.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> My point stands. There was a way it could have worked, non-violently.



You point is utter nonsense.

This is all that could happen nonviolently on January 6.

it had to happen on that day.

“The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.”



			https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/12/29/sorry-president-trump-january-6-is-not-an-election-do-over/%3foutputType=amp
		


You are a dumb ass who does not get to declare that your dumb ass point is standing
​The Constitution and the Electoral Count Act of 1887 intended the Jan. 6 session to address a narrow question: Are the electoral votes received by Congress ones cast by electors the states appointed?​​Further, the 1887 act obligates Congress to consider “conclusive” a state’s own “final determination” of litigation over a state’s appointment of electors when two conditions are met. The “final determination” must occur by a certain date, Dec. 8 this year, and must be based on state laws existing before Election Day, Nov. 3. Congress instructs governors to provide verification of these two conditions in their certifications.​

So Correll tell us how 20,000 MAGA hats standing in a peaceful protest can stop the ritual taking place on January 6 inside the Capitol to verify the electoral votes received by Congress are the ones cast by electors that the states appointed and the Governor of each state has its seal duly affixed.

You are so smart, How is that ritual stopped without entering the Senate Chamber to stop it.

You say it’s possible let’s see your explanation.


----------



## Coyote

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> nd you think Trump wanted them to go do that peacefully. You’re stupid. There was no way that 20,000 people standing outside the capital peacefully demonstrating we’re going to “stop the steal”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sure it could. If enough attention was brought to bear, if the nation as a whole put tons of pressure on Congress, they might have stopped teh count to address some of the concerns of the President and his supporters*.
> 
> 
> It was a possibility.
> 
> 
> Thus, your assumption that his words are "proof" of inciting violence are thus shown to be just that. An assumption.
> 
> 
> AND you are judging him as though your assumptions are fact.
Click to expand...


You realize, don't you - that by justifying that, you are putting an end to 250 years of a peaceful transfer of power?


----------



## jasonnfree

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ginning up hysteria and panic in order do justify dismissing and marginalizing people that you don't like
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am ginning  up hysteria and TrumpQ was  not?
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump was upset about losing and riled up a crowd for a day.
> 
> 
> You people have been tearing this nation apart for years.
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're saying Democrats are tearing up this nation.  Can you explain what you mean by that?


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Godboy said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> What specific calls for violence did Trump make? He never said "go out there and break into the capital building and take selfies with the cops". Sure he used the word "fight" somewhere in his speech, but that is a word has been used in politics, sports and many other areas, long before Trump ever said it. Name something he said that specifically called for violence. If you cant do that, what the fuck are you democrats doing this for?
> 
> This goes beyond dirty politics. What you guys are doing is wrong and its dangerous.
Click to expand...


“_This goes beyond dirty politics. What you guys are doing is wrong and its dangerous._”

No, what *Trump* did “goes *way beyond* dirty politics.”

What “_*you*_ guys” are doing is defending the single man who consciously motivated, brought together and launched this despicable violent attack on our Capitol and Republic. This was _*treason and a betrayal*_ of our democracy and our Republican institutions.

This is a thread on “What are people thinking as they hear the Senate arguments?” You obviously aren’t following the Senate arguments closely, or you wouldn’t have to ask your dumb questions.

But many Americans *are* paying attention, and the truth about this sick “cult hero” is getting through. This is not a petty criminal trial but a political trial of “high crimes and misdemeanors” committed by a madman lame-duck President who almost caused a Civil War.


----------



## jasonnfree

Coyote said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> nd you think Trump wanted them to go do that peacefully. You’re stupid. There was no way that 20,000 people standing outside the capital peacefully demonstrating we’re going to “stop the steal”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sure it could. If enough attention was brought to bear, if the nation as a whole put tons of pressure on Congress, they might have stopped teh count to address some of the concerns of the President and his supporters*.
> 
> 
> It was a possibility.
> 
> 
> Thus, your assumption that his words are "proof" of inciting violence are thus shown to be just that. An assumption.
> 
> 
> AND you are judging him as though your assumptions are fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize, don't you - that by justifying that, you are putting an end to 250 years of a peaceful transfer of power?
Click to expand...

What I don't understand is that  even had Trump won Georgia, he still would have had insufficient votes to win,  since Biden  would have still had too many electoral votes.


----------



## Coyote

jasonnfree said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> nd you think Trump wanted them to go do that peacefully. You’re stupid. There was no way that 20,000 people standing outside the capital peacefully demonstrating we’re going to “stop the steal”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sure it could. If enough attention was brought to bear, if the nation as a whole put tons of pressure on Congress, they might have stopped teh count to address some of the concerns of the President and his supporters*.
> 
> 
> It was a possibility.
> 
> 
> Thus, your assumption that his words are "proof" of inciting violence are thus shown to be just that. An assumption.
> 
> 
> AND you are judging him as though your assumptions are fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize, don't you - that by justifying that, you are putting an end to 250 years of a peaceful transfer of power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I don't understand is that  even had Trump won Georgia, he still would have had insufficient votes to win,  since Biden  would have still had too many electoral votes.
Click to expand...


He's been going after more states than just Georgia.


----------



## jasonnfree

Coyote said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> nd you think Trump wanted them to go do that peacefully. You’re stupid. There was no way that 20,000 people standing outside the capital peacefully demonstrating we’re going to “stop the steal”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sure it could. If enough attention was brought to bear, if the nation as a whole put tons of pressure on Congress, they might have stopped teh count to address some of the concerns of the President and his supporters*.
> 
> 
> It was a possibility.
> 
> 
> Thus, your assumption that his words are "proof" of inciting violence are thus shown to be just that. An assumption.
> 
> 
> AND you are judging him as though your assumptions are fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize, don't you - that by justifying that, you are putting an end to 250 years of a peaceful transfer of power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I don't understand is that  even had Trump won Georgia, he still would have had insufficient votes to win,  since Biden  would have still had too many electoral votes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's been going after more states than just Georgia.
Click to expand...

So you think he would keep on going for the presidency even after Biden took office?  Sounds nutty but Trump's not realistic and neither are many of his followers.


----------



## Synthaholic

Correll said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton was impeached for the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice.  That you pretend that is ridiculous, is you revealing you are not a serious or honest person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why was he testifying under oath?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because of an accusation of sexual harassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Monica Lewinsky didn't accuse him of sexual harassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. She did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were the only 2 principles. No one else was in the Oval with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, are you seriously this ignorant?
> 
> Then go read a book, don't post about shit you don't  know shit about.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming there were more than two people in the Oval?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Godboy said:


> Name something he said that specifically called for violence. If you cant do that, what the fuck are you democrats doing this for?



It has been named. TrumpQ told the assembled mob to “stop the steal” on January 6th.  Peaceful protests outside the Capitol could not stop the verification and counting of the states’ electors taking place in the Senate Chamber that day. The steal would not be stopped standing outside of the Capitol / the mob had to get to the floor of the Senate to obey TrumpQ’s orders to save the country.

Since the Capitol police were not apprised of Trump’s ordered they knocked some heads but the Trump mob overwhelmed them.


----------



## Superbadbrutha

Just listened to Lindsey Graham on Sean Hannity, Lindsey Graham has NO credibility.  This dude has got to be the biggest Trump Humpin flip flopper in Washington DC.  No wonder his state wants to censure him and weak ass Tim Scott.


----------



## Superbadbrutha

Concerned American said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> Move on moron.  The quiet is because we know that the dems have no case--just like last time.  We know this is an exercise in futility.  It will end with a 56-44 vote to convict, at worst, which does not meet the threshold to convict.  Get over it.
Click to expand...


They definitely have a case, nothing comes of it because the spineless Trumplicans put party and fear ahead of the Constitution and the country.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> FOr example, Trump called Pence a coward. Ok fine. But then you assume that he was directing it to specific people, with a specific intent, without any support.



The TrumpQ mob has breached the Capitol for over an hour when TrumpQ updates the mob that Pence is a coward.






Immediately the tweet was read by a rioter with a bullhorn to the rest of the mob. So they decided they needed to find the white evangelical Christian ‘coward’ and hang him.


Now the mob had to stop the steal for sure because Pence abandoned his post and ran to the enemy.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say he accepted it. I said he was upset about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is TrumpQ upset about losing the election if he has not accepted the fact that he lost?
> 
> Have you accepted the fact that TrumpQ lost?
Click to expand...



I certainly understand that Biden has taken power. I don't think that the election was fair, nor do I know what the level of cheating was. 


I have no faith in an election "day" that is actually like a month or more.


----------



## Correll

otto105 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You people lied to the American people, to steal the election though fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We people elected Joe Biden to be president. That’s it, you whining wimp crybaby loser. That’s all you need to know.
> 
> Trump lost the election, lost 60 court challenges, lost the Supreme Court, Lost Bill BARR,  lost an insurrection against the Legislative Branch, and lost 20 million who had just voted for  him.
> 
> And you got your nose up his ass for what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The American People were lied to, by people like you, for 5 years.
> 
> 
> You want to say something like that to my face, or the face of any Republicans, faggot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit asshole
> 
> Take your internet bullshit and shove it little boi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one starting fighting words, from the safety of my mom's basement.
> 
> So fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LMAO
> 
> 
> are you also an internet billionaire...
> 
> 
> Ripe
Click to expand...



Seriously wtf are you talking about?

My point was not something about my real life situation, but that NFooled was using fighting words online, which is, imo, the act of a coward.


Your point, did not address that.


My point stands. Nfooled is talking real tough, thus he is a coward.


----------



## Correll

otto105 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> otto105 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s our Democracy...if we don’t allow conservatives to steal it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of defeats the purpose of democracy there, stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hardly, conservatives don’t like Democracy over being a republic where the minority can rule.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one talking like the "minority" will have no voice at all. Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 81.2 million votes say different
Click to expand...



My point was that you want a tyranny of the majority and your "rebuttal" is too claim that you are the majority?

Umm, are  you high right now?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are so smart, How is that ritual stopped without entering the Senate Chamber to stop it.
> 
> You say it’s possible let’s see your explanation.




I already did. I admit that it was very unlikely, but hope springs eternal. 


Thus, your assumption that his words HAD to be a call for violence, are debunked.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I already did.



You are a liar. You have not explained how a peaceful Trump mob on January 6  (a date which is stipulated in the Constitution to happen on that very day) could have stopped the certification and the counting of electors by Congress members and Vice President Pence who were assembled for that purpose alone. 

The only way the Trump mob could stop the Constitutional Ceremony that was going on inside the CAPITOL would have been to break into the Capitol,  fight with police, get on the Senate floor, threaten Senators and Congressmen and VP Pence and force them to stop what they were doing.

And once they stopped it they would have to stay there for the rest of time to do what  TrumpQ told them to do - stop the steal. 


You could surely pray for some universal calamity like an astroid landing on the Capitol that day but this is for sure there is no way the Trump mob could’ve stopped it standing outside, being all upset like a bunch of dumb sore loser morons? whining because their idiot fascist president couldn’t get reelected. 

Like Trump told them. They needed to fight.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> . I don't think that the election was fair,



You whiny little fascist sore loser.  Talk about frickin unfair? Do you want to give up your electoral college system? Do you want to be fair to all those Black people that live in big cities who don’t get the vote representation that some farmer in Wyoming gets. Wyoming has two senators. California and New York have two senators. That’s the system - live with a crybaby.


Try to turn yourself into an an American Citizen again. Citizenship in Trumpworld aint worth a damn anymore since you guys tried to overthrow the real American Government.

Do you want to make the popular vote count for something?


----------



## Superbadbrutha

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say he accepted it. I said he was upset about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is TrumpQ upset about losing the election if he has not accepted the fact that he lost?
> 
> Have you accepted the fact that TrumpQ lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly understand that Biden has taken power. I don't think that the election was fair, nor do I know what the level of cheating was.
> 
> 
> I have no faith in an election "day" that is actually like a month or more.
Click to expand...


So you don't like the average citizen to vote in the same manner that Trump voted.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Someone just made a good point we are not afraid that Trump will run again. We were afraid that he will run again and lose. We all know he’s not a very good loser.He is an un-American loser


----------



## B. Kidd

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.



We lost the Republic on 7/5/16 when Hillary walked and the 'Rule of Law' officially died!


----------



## PoliticalChic

B. Kidd said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We lost the Republic on 7/5/16 when Hillary walked and the 'Rule of Law' officially died!
Click to expand...




Only Republicans......Scooter Libby, Dinesh D'souza....go to prison.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

PoliticalChic said:


> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We lost the Republic on 7/5/16 when Hillary walked and the 'Rule of Law' officially died!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only Republicans......Scooter Libby, Dinesh D'souza....go to prison.
Click to expand...

All these ridiculous partisan explanations of how we supposedly “lost the Republic” on a — name your choice — _specific date, _just like the “personality politics” of Trumpsters in general, can not disguise the fact that something historically unprecedented, violent and anti-Constitutional happened on Jan. 6th.

I have long argued that _*several*_ of our past Presidents (of both parties) should have been impeached and prosecuted for crimes committed in office. They and their henchman have generally escaped and usually remain feted “senior statesmen” of our Republic.

That was because the legal and institutional processes of Congress, the Court system, the two-party system, the corruption of both parties by big money and corporations — these have frustrated action that I and many others would like to see.

But none of this means we no longer _even have_ a Republic, a representative democracy, or the basic freedoms that they allow. What Trump wanted to do by disregarding the confirmed results of the election he lost would have caused a civil war, a military coup, or led directly to imposed martial law. Our Republican system and representative democracy, not to mention our court system and “rule of law,” might never have recovered.

In a perfect world, Trump especially, but also many other corporate and political figures (of both parties) would join the Scooter Libby’s & Dinesh D'souzas, and at least get a passing acquaintance with prison.

But all this must be done *legally, *and not as the result of mob action. One day there may well be a genuine coup, a bonapartist or authoritarian dictatorship like Trump seemed determined to impose. If such succeeds it will be too late for effective normal parliamentary and political action. _*Only*_ _*then *_the kind of violent extra-parliamentary action that occurred in D.C. on Jan. 6th may be justifiable.


----------



## Tommy Tainant

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> B. Kidd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We lost the Republic on 7/5/16 when Hillary walked and the 'Rule of Law' officially died!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only Republicans......Scooter Libby, Dinesh D'souza....go to prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All these ridiculous partisan explanations of how we supposedly “lost the Republic” on a — name your choice — _specific date, _just like the “personality politics” of Trumpsters in general, can not disguise the fact that something historically unprecedented, violent and anti-Constitutional happened on Jan. 6th.
> 
> I have long argued that _*several*_ of our past Presidents (of both parties) should have been impeached and prosecuted for crimes committed in office. They and their henchman have generally escaped and usually remain feted “senior statesmen” of our Republic.
> 
> That was because the legal and institutional processes of Congress, the Court system, the two-party system, the corruption of both parties by big money and corporations — these have frustrated action that I and many others would like to see.
> 
> But none of this means we no longer _even have_ a Republic, a representative democracy, or the basic freedoms that they allow. What Trump wanted to do by disregarding the confirmed results of the election he lost would have caused a civil war, a military coup, or led directly to imposed martial law. Our Republican system and representative democracy, not to mention our court system and “rule of law,” might never have recovered.
> 
> In a perfect world, Trump especially, but also many other corporate and political figures (of both parties) would join the Scooter Libby’s & Dinesh D'souzas, and at least get a passing acquaintance with prison.
> 
> But all this must be done *legally, *and not as the result of mob action. One day there may well be a genuine coup, a bonapartist or authoritarian dictatorship like Trump seemed determined to impose. If such succeeds it will be too late for effective normal parliamentary and political action. _*Only*_ _*then *_the kind of violent extra-parliamentary action that occurred in D.C. on Jan. 6th may be justifiable.
Click to expand...

My observation is that politicians will continue to break the law as long as politicians set the framework by which they are held to account. That isnt an American thing, its pretty standard.


----------



## jackflash

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.


Who wants to watch a melodrama when they already know what the end of the show will be???


----------



## B. Kidd

jackflash said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> Who wants to watch a melodrama when they already know what the end of the show will be???
Click to expand...


Whatta tear jerker. Has Ruskin or any other Dimm managers cried yet today?


----------



## Doc7505

Biff_Poindexter said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> That politicians are bilking tax payers for doing nothing of importance and need to be fired.
> 
> 
> 
> You are thinking about those 33 different Benghazi investigations that you didn't complain about....
> 
> So you should just have several seats now
Click to expand...



~~~~~~








						Congressman: Benghazi survivors forced to sign non-disclosures
					

Ever wonder why information on the deadly attack on our foreign mission in Benghazi, Libya seems to come in drips? It turns out that the survivors of […]




					www.bizpacreview.com
				



********​








						Congressman: State, Defense forced Benghazi survivors to sign non-disclosure agreements
					

Maybe this is why Republicans have been quiet about the scandal.




					hotair.com
				



********​




__





						Stunner! Benghazi Was a Base for Illegal Arms Shipments to Syria
					

Sen. Rand Paul, was he prescient? Illegal arms were shipped to Syrian rebels from Libya and this could be the reason Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton lied and claimed the attack on the consulate was the result of a video. Seymour Hirsch published an investigative report stating that there is an...




					www.independentsentinel.com
				



********​








						US Was Smuggling Guns to Syria Through Benghazi Consulate
					

New Memos Reveal Bombshell About Obama's Lies on Benghazi




					thefederalistpapers.org


----------



## B. Kidd

Doc7505 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> That politicians are bilking tax payers for doing nothing of importance and need to be fired.
> 
> 
> 
> You are thinking about those 33 different Benghazi investigations that you didn't complain about....
> 
> So you should just have several seats now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ~~~~~~
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congressman: Benghazi survivors forced to sign non-disclosures
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why information on the deadly attack on our foreign mission in Benghazi, Libya seems to come in drips? It turns out that the survivors of […]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.bizpacreview.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ********​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congressman: State, Defense forced Benghazi survivors to sign non-disclosure agreements
> 
> 
> Maybe this is why Republicans have been quiet about the scandal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hotair.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ********​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stunner! Benghazi Was a Base for Illegal Arms Shipments to Syria
> 
> 
> Sen. Rand Paul, was he prescient? Illegal arms were shipped to Syrian rebels from Libya and this could be the reason Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton lied and claimed the attack on the consulate was the result of a video. Seymour Hirsch published an investigative report stating that there is an...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.independentsentinel.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ********​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> US Was Smuggling Guns to Syria Through Benghazi Consulate
> 
> 
> New Memos Reveal Bombshell About Obama's Lies on Benghazi
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thefederalistpapers.org
Click to expand...


We didn't need confirmation of this. It was obvious as 2+2 equalling 4 to anyone who had even a semblance of analysis at the time.


----------



## Circe

I would be ashamed to watch a minute of this Soviet Show Trial, and I haven't and won't. 

How low our nation has fallen, and so suddenly. I know I am the one who says things happen very fast or not at all because people stop it, but ---- it's just very sad to see America so destroyed in so many ways.


----------



## Circe

georgephillip said:


> I'm wondering how many of the 74 million voters who supported Trump are still with him? Fifty million is a number I've heard mentioned a few times. Perhaps Trump will divide the Republican Party into a pair of warring faction by November 2022?


Well, I'm still with him. Very possibly we'll divide into two parties by 2022, but you'd think they'd know better than to suicide politically like that.


----------



## Circe

Superbadbrutha said:


> Just listened to Lindsey Graham on Sean Hannity, Lindsey Graham has NO credibility.  This dude has got to be the biggest Trump Humpin flip flopper in Washington DC.  No wonder his state wants to censure him and weak ass Tim Scott.


Naaaaaaaaaah, never happen. I love Lindsey ---- Lindsey Graham for president!


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.



It looks like a show trial because it is a show trial.  The Congress has no authority to bar a private citizen from running for office.  This is most unconstitutional.  What's worse, is Plan B is to use the 14th Amendment, which would be even more unconstitutional.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

Synthaholic said:


>



He's the 45th president, no matter what.  Just like Obama is the 44th president.


----------



## georgephillip

Circe said:


> Well, I'm still with him. Very possibly we'll divide into two parties by 2022, but you'd think they'd know better than to suicide politically like that.


I wonder if the split will happen automatically during 2022 primaries? Republicans have an uphill fight in the Senate that year, so I don't think they can afford a major division within their ranks without Democrats taking advantage.




Senate 2022: An Early Look – Sabato's Crystal Ball


----------



## Correll

Coyote said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> nd you think Trump wanted them to go do that peacefully. You’re stupid. There was no way that 20,000 people standing outside the capital peacefully demonstrating we’re going to “stop the steal”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sure it could. If enough attention was brought to bear, if the nation as a whole put tons of pressure on Congress, they might have stopped teh count to address some of the concerns of the President and his supporters*.
> 
> 
> It was a possibility.
> 
> 
> Thus, your assumption that his words are "proof" of inciting violence are thus shown to be just that. An assumption.
> 
> 
> AND you are judging him as though your assumptions are fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize, don't you - that by justifying that, you are putting an end to 250 years of a peaceful transfer of power?
Click to expand...



1. I'm not justify anything. I'm disagreeing that Trump incited violence. 

2. The peaceful transfer of power tradition ended when you people refused to respect Trump's 2016 victory. Your request that we follow the rules, while you don't, is rejected.


----------



## Circe

georgephillip said:


> I wonder if the split will happen automatically during 2022 primaries? Republicans have an uphill fight in the Senate that year, so I don't think they can afford a major division within their ranks without Democrats taking advantage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Senate 2022: An Early Look – Sabato's Crystal Ball


There have been threats to primary this person or that. I think you are right, if there is a move to make a split (but I really doubt it because the prize is so big if someone can take Trump's whole following) it could start then.


----------



## georgephillip

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> It looks like a show trial because it is a show trial. The Congress has no authority to bar a private citizen from running for office.


Trump wasn't a private citizen when he incited insurrection on January 6th. If his actions on that day don't merit impeachment and conviction, what behaviors would?


----------



## Correll

jasonnfree said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are ginning up hysteria and panic in order do justify dismissing and marginalizing people that you don't like
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am ginning  up hysteria and TrumpQ was  not?
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump was upset about losing and riled up a crowd for a day.
> 
> 
> You people have been tearing this nation apart for years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you're saying Democrats are tearing up this nation.  Can you explain what you mean by that?
Click to expand...



Sure. The Democrats are tearing the nation apart, by setting large groups of citizens at odds with each other, though Identity Politics.


Normal and reasonable policy differences, instead become, in the minds of liberals at least, existential threats.


AND, as they respond increasingly bitterly and hatefully to ever minor disagreement, those they viciously smear and marginalize become increasing angry in return.


I'm actually surprised it took this long, before there was an escalation from the Right to all the violence and hate coming from the left over the last 5 years.


----------



## Correll

jasonnfree said:


> Coyote said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> nd you think Trump wanted them to go do that peacefully. You’re stupid. There was no way that 20,000 people standing outside the capital peacefully demonstrating we’re going to “stop the steal”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Sure it could. If enough attention was brought to bear, if the nation as a whole put tons of pressure on Congress, they might have stopped teh count to address some of the concerns of the President and his supporters*.
> 
> 
> It was a possibility.
> 
> 
> Thus, your assumption that his words are "proof" of inciting violence are thus shown to be just that. An assumption.
> 
> 
> AND you are judging him as though your assumptions are fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You realize, don't you - that by justifying that, you are putting an end to 250 years of a peaceful transfer of power?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I don't understand is that  even had Trump won Georgia, he still would have had insufficient votes to win,  since Biden  would have still had too many electoral votes.
Click to expand...



Yes, we've heard this argument before, that it doesn't matter to investigate cheating, if the cheating cannot be shown to have been widespread enough to swing the election.


I think that is a morally and ethically and pragmatically indefensible position.


----------



## Correll

Synthaholic said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton was impeached for the crimes of perjury and obstruction of justice.  That you pretend that is ridiculous, is you revealing you are not a serious or honest person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why was he testifying under oath?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because of an accusation of sexual harassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Monica Lewinsky didn't accuse him of sexual harassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. She did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were the only 2 principles. No one else was in the Oval with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ummm, are you seriously this ignorant?
> 
> Then go read a book, don't post about shit you don't  know shit about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you claiming there were more than two people in the Oval?
Click to expand...



Nope. Not what I am claiming at all. 

My God. So, I take it you are too young to remember the actual events. 


Whoever taught you about this, lied to you, so that you would be a good little, uninformed peasant. 


Who was it?


----------



## georgephillip

Correll said:


> The peaceful transfer of power tradition ended when you people refused to respect Trump's 2016 victory. Your request that we follow the rules, while you don't, is rejected.


Obama attended Trump's inauguration, and his supporters did NOT storm the Capitol, so what rules did Democrats break in 2016?





Voter suppression helped decide presidential election - The Pitt News


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> FOr example, Trump called Pence a coward. Ok fine. But then you assume that he was directing it to specific people, with a specific intent, without any support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The TrumpQ mob has breached the Capitol for over an hour when TrumpQ updates the mob that Pence is a coward.
> 
> 
> View attachment 455650
> 
> Immediately the tweet was read by a rioter with a bullhorn to the rest of the mob. So they decided they needed to find the white evangelical Christian ‘coward’ and hang him.
> 
> 
> Now the mob had to stop the steal for sure because Pence abandoned his post and ran to the enemy.
Click to expand...



Trump tweets something, and you pretend that it specific communication to the mob. 


That is you lying. 


THe rest of your post, are assumptions based on pretending that your lie, is a fact. 


That is your entire world view, completely assed assumptions, based on made up lies treated as facts.



WHen you demonstrate that you know you have to lie, to make your case, you are admitting that you know your position is false.


----------



## B. Kidd

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> FOr example, Trump called Pence a coward. Ok fine. But then you assume that he was directing it to specific people, with a specific intent, without any support.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The TrumpQ mob has breached the Capitol for over an hour when TrumpQ updates the mob that Pence is a coward.
> 
> 
> View attachment 455650
> 
> Immediately the tweet was read by a rioter with a bullhorn to the rest of the mob. So they decided they needed to find the white evangelical Christian ‘coward’ and hang him.
> 
> 
> Now the mob had to stop the steal for sure because Pence abandoned his post and ran to the enemy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trump tweets something, and you pretend that it specific communication to the mob.
> 
> 
> That is you lying.
> 
> 
> THe rest of your post, are assumptions based on pretending that your lie, is a fact.
> 
> 
> That is your entire world view, completely assed assumptions, based on made up lies treated as facts.
> 
> 
> 
> WHen you demonstrate that you know you have to lie, to make your case, you are admitting that you know your position is false.
Click to expand...


This about sums up the current Dimm mental make-up. It's both shallow and ugly.


----------



## AFrench2

Dogmaphobe said:


> it says in the constitution that impeachment is to be considered as an action to remove a sitting president AND prevent them from further office. The second clause is dependant on the first.
> 
> It doesn't say OR prevent a person from further office.
> 
> This is all a fraudulent dog and pony show, as impeachment was never meant to be an action taken against a private citizen


cool. he was impeached while in office. next question.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> . I don't think that the election was fair,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You whiny little fascist sore loser.  Talk about frickin unfair? Do you want to give up your electoral college system? Do you want to be fair to all those Black people that live in big cities who don’t get the vote representation that some farmer in Wyoming gets. Wyoming has two senators. California and New York have two senators. That’s the system - live with a crybaby.
> 
> 
> Try to turn yourself into an an American Citizen again. Citizenship in Trumpworld aint worth a damn anymore since you guys tried to overthrow the real American Government.
> 
> Do you want to make the popular vote count for something?
Click to expand...



You talk real tough online. You  ever talk like that to anyone in real life? Without a mob backing you up?


I bet not. FUCKING COWARD.


----------



## Correll

Superbadbrutha said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say he accepted it. I said he was upset about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is TrumpQ upset about losing the election if he has not accepted the fact that he lost?
> 
> Have you accepted the fact that TrumpQ lost?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly understand that Biden has taken power. I don't think that the election was fair, nor do I know what the level of cheating was.
> 
> 
> I have no faith in an election "day" that is actually like a month or more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't like the average citizen to vote in the same manner that Trump voted.
Click to expand...



I made my point. If you have a counter point make it.

Save your pretend questions for the tourists. Otherwise, fuck off.


----------



## OldLady

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like a show trial because it is a show trial.  The Congress has no authority to bar a private citizen from running for office.  This is most unconstitutional.  What's worse, is Plan B is to use the 14th Amendment, which would be even more unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

The 14th Amendment?  Are we going to take his citizenship away?


----------



## Correll

georgephillip said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The peaceful transfer of power tradition ended when you people refused to respect Trump's 2016 victory. Your request that we follow the rules, while you don't, is rejected.
> 
> 
> 
> Obama attended Trump's inauguration, and his supporters did NOT storm the Capitol, so what rules did Democrats break in 2016?ws
Click to expand...


1. FBI agents conspired to prevent Trump's presidency after his election.

2. Obama had Trump spied on, based on bullshit.

3. FBI agents lied to a federal judge to permission for an investigation that was NOT justified and was NOT conducted in a fair or ethical manner.

4. Congress  used the results of that investigation for a political impeachment, in violation of their oaths of office.

.5 5 years of riots.

6. Mayor violating their citizens rights  by ordering the police to stand down or even help the rioters looting and killing.

7. Increasing numbers of people imprisoned by unequal application of the law, a violation of their civil rights.

8. Mob attacks on federal buildings. 

9 Murders. 

Off the top of my head.


----------



## georgephillip

Circe said:


> There have been threats to primary this person or that. I think you are right, if there is a move to make a split (but I really doubt it because the prize is so big if someone can take Trump's whole following) it could start then.


According to numbers I've seen, there are currently about 60 million Democrats and 55 million Republicans. If support for Donald Trump becomes a litmus test for Republicans in 2022 and 2024, it's hard to see how they will win national elections.

Political parties in the United States - Wikipedia


----------



## Correll

georgephillip said:


> Circe said:
> 
> 
> 
> There have been threats to primary this person or that. I think you are right, if there is a move to make a split (but I really doubt it because the prize is so big if someone can take Trump's whole following) it could start then.
> 
> 
> 
> According to numbers I've seen, there are currently about 60 million Democrats and 55 million Republicans. If support for Donald Trump becomes a litmus test for Republicans in 2022 and 2024, it's hard to see how they will win national elections.
> 
> Political parties in the United States - Wikipedia
Click to expand...



As the country becomes assimilated into the Third World, and less American, it becomes hard to see how the gop will win national elections.


I mean, that is the point of your side's support of massive Third World Immigration, legal and illegal. 


So, your pretense that it is all about Trump, is just you rubbing salt into the wound.


Which makes sense, because you want a Civil War to help destroy America.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

OldLady said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like a show trial because it is a show trial.  The Congress has no authority to bar a private citizen from running for office.  This is most unconstitutional.  What's worse, is Plan B is to use the 14th Amendment, which would be even more unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th Amendment?  Are we going to take his citizenship away?
Click to expand...


They want to use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:

"No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

georgephillip said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like a show trial because it is a show trial. The Congress has no authority to bar a private citizen from running for office.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump wasn't a private citizen when he incited insurrection on January 6th. If his actions on that day don't merit impeachment and conviction, what behaviors would?
Click to expand...


But, he's a private citizen now.  The Constitution specifically refers to a sitting president. 

Since he's a private citizen and if someone thinks the evidence is strong enough, he should be brought before a grand jury.


----------



## OldLady

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like a show trial because it is a show trial.  The Congress has no authority to bar a private citizen from running for office.  This is most unconstitutional.  What's worse, is Plan B is to use the 14th Amendment, which would be even more unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th Amendment?  Are we going to take his citizenship away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They want to use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:
> 
> "No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
Click to expand...

Thank you, Bill! 
There's that 2/3 problem again, though.  Wonder if they can cut a backroom deal--okay, don't vote to convict, but agree to vote yes on the 14th.  We'll be friends.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

OldLady said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like a show trial because it is a show trial.  The Congress has no authority to bar a private citizen from running for office.  This is most unconstitutional.  What's worse, is Plan B is to use the 14th Amendment, which would be even more unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th Amendment?  Are we going to take his citizenship away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They want to use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:
> 
> "No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you, Bill!
> There's that 2/3 problem again, though.  Wonder if they can cut a backroom deal--okay, don't vote to convict, but agree to vote yes on the 14th.  We'll be friends.
Click to expand...


It would still be unconstitutional.


----------



## B. Kidd

OldLady said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like a show trial because it is a show trial.  The Congress has no authority to bar a private citizen from running for office.  This is most unconstitutional.  What's worse, is Plan B is to use the 14th Amendment, which would be even more unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th Amendment?  Are we going to take his citizenship away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They want to use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:
> 
> "No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you, Bill!
> There's that 2/3 problem again, though.  Wonder if they can cut a backroom deal--okay, don't vote to convict, but agree to vote yes on the 14th.  We'll be friends.
Click to expand...


You're needy. Aren't you?


----------



## OldLady

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like a show trial because it is a show trial.  The Congress has no authority to bar a private citizen from running for office.  This is most unconstitutional.  What's worse, is Plan B is to use the 14th Amendment, which would be even more unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th Amendment?  Are we going to take his citizenship away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They want to use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:
> 
> "No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you, Bill!
> There's that 2/3 problem again, though.  Wonder if they can cut a backroom deal--okay, don't vote to convict, but agree to vote yes on the 14th.  We'll be friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would still be unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

It's already been decided by the senate that the trial is constitutional.  Let's move on.  There are much more important matters to consider.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

OldLady said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like a show trial because it is a show trial.  The Congress has no authority to bar a private citizen from running for office.  This is most unconstitutional.  What's worse, is Plan B is to use the 14th Amendment, which would be even more unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th Amendment?  Are we going to take his citizenship away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They want to use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:
> 
> "No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you, Bill!
> There's that 2/3 problem again, though.  Wonder if they can cut a backroom deal--okay, don't vote to convict, but agree to vote yes on the 14th.  We'll be friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would still be unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's already been decided by the senate that the trial is constitutional.  Let's move on.  There are much more important matters to consider.
Click to expand...


The Senate doesn't have the authority to make that decision.  Only the Judicial Branch has that power.


----------



## B. Kidd

OldLady said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like a show trial because it is a show trial.  The Congress has no authority to bar a private citizen from running for office.  This is most unconstitutional.  What's worse, is Plan B is to use the 14th Amendment, which would be even more unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th Amendment?  Are we going to take his citizenship away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They want to use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:
> 
> "No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you, Bill!
> There's that 2/3 problem again, though.  Wonder if they can cut a backroom deal--okay, don't vote to convict, but agree to vote yes on the 14th.  We'll be friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would still be unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's already been decided by the senate that the trial is constitutional.  Let's move on.  There are much more important matters to consider.
Click to expand...


Most Senators, especially the Dimm ones usually are anti-Constitution.  Duhhh...!


----------



## Mac1958

NotfooledbyW said:


> Try to turn yourself into an an American Citizen again. Citizenship in Trumpworld aint worth a damn anymore since you guys tried to overthrow the real American Government.


These people are not affected in the least by the events of Jan 6 or this trial.  They don't give a shit.

Like Trump, they just ignore all of it because it could damage him.  So they just brush it all off.  Dismiss it.

And like Trump, they are anti-American sociopaths.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

Mac1958 said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to turn yourself into an an American Citizen again. Citizenship in Trumpworld aint worth a damn anymore since you guys tried to overthrow the real American Government.
> 
> 
> 
> These people are not affected in the least by the events of Jan 6 or this trial.  They don't give a shit.
> 
> Like Trump, they just ignore all of it because it could damage him.  So they just brush it all off.  Dismiss it.
> 
> And like Trump, they are anti-American sociopaths.
Click to expand...


So, the unconstitutionality of this impeachment trial doesn't concern you?


----------



## B. Kidd

Mac1958 said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to turn yourself into an an American Citizen again. Citizenship in Trumpworld aint worth a damn anymore since you guys tried to overthrow the real American Government.
> 
> 
> 
> These people are not affected in the least by the events of Jan 6 or this trial.  They don't give a shit.
> 
> Like Trump, they just ignore all of it because it could damage him.  So they just brush it all off.  Dismiss it.
> 
> And like Trump, they are anti-American sociopaths.
Click to expand...


Are you still comparing this riot to Omaha Beach on D-Day?


----------



## Correll

OldLady said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like a show trial because it is a show trial.  The Congress has no authority to bar a private citizen from running for office.  This is most unconstitutional.  What's worse, is Plan B is to use the 14th Amendment, which would be even more unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th Amendment?  Are we going to take his citizenship away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They want to use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:
> 
> "No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you, Bill!
> There's that 2/3 problem again, though.  Wonder if they can cut a backroom deal--okay, don't vote to convict, but agree to vote yes on the 14th.  We'll be friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would still be unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's already been decided by the senate that the trial is constitutional.  Let's move on.  There are much more important matters to consider.
Click to expand...



More important than the fact that the Senate is clearly violating the constitution?


----------



## OldLady

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like a show trial because it is a show trial.  The Congress has no authority to bar a private citizen from running for office.  This is most unconstitutional.  What's worse, is Plan B is to use the 14th Amendment, which would be even more unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th Amendment?  Are we going to take his citizenship away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They want to use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:
> 
> "No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you, Bill!
> There's that 2/3 problem again, though.  Wonder if they can cut a backroom deal--okay, don't vote to convict, but agree to vote yes on the 14th.  We'll be friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would still be unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's already been decided by the senate that the trial is constitutional.  Let's move on.  There are much more important matters to consider.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Senate doesn't have the authority to make that decision.  Only the Judicial Branch has that power.
Click to expand...

Or you, I gather.


----------



## georgephillip

Correll said:


> 1. FBI agents conspired to prevent Trump's presidency after his election.
> 
> 2. Obama had Trump spied on, based on bullshit.


*Trump's campaign manager colluded with Russian intelligence during the 2016 campaign. Once elected Trump used executive privilege to prevent testimony and prevent witness testimony about those events. 

After Manafort's conviction for financial crimes Trump pardoned him, essentially rewarding Manafort for his treachery. 

All of this will be reinvestigated now that Trump no longer controls the Executive Branch, and you will not like the outcome unless you think America needs a dictator.*




Senate Report: Former Trump Aide Paul Manafort Shared Campaign Info With Russia

"Former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort passed internal Trump campaign information to a Russian intelligence officer during the 2016 election, a new bipartisan Senate report concludes.

"The findings draw a direct line between the president's former campaign chairman and Russian intelligence during the 2016 campaign."


----------



## Correll

georgephillip said:


> Trump's campaign manager colluded with Russian intelligence during the 2016 campaign. O




No, he didn't. Mueller investigated all that shit and found nothing.


----------



## MisterBeale

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.



Wow.  

I once respected you.  

You have been really brainwashed, haven't you?

. .  and frankly?  I don't even give a shit about Trump, or the DNC.  I only care about free and fair elections, and folks not interferring in the electorate.  Now, the oligarchs control everything.  You are either one of them, or too dumb to understand what is going on.

Let me give you a little direction about where the real crime is, who admitted to it, and the Federal Law the will never be applied, because the folks in charge of applying it, are the ones that violated it.









						Stunning: TIME admits well-funded cabal of influencers worked behind-the-scenes to ‘save’ 2020 election
					

Time Magazine ran a stunning piece admitting a behind the scenes liberal 'conspiracy' to impact the outcome of the 2020 election.




					www.bizpacreview.com
				












						Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## georgephillip

Correll said:


> 3. FBI agents lied to a federal judge to permission for an investigation that was NOT justified and was NOT conducted in a fair or ethical manner.
> 
> 4. Congress used the results of that investigation for a political impeachment, in violation of their oaths of office.


T*rump was and likely still is a Russian pawn. If he has been laundering money for corrupt Russian gangsters for the last twenty years, that information will become public now that he no longer has the power to prevent testimony and deny subpoenas. Your Dear Leader will die in prison and no scumbag in US History has ever deserved it more.*

Senate Report: Former Trump Aide Paul Manafort Shared Campaign Info With Russia

"Manafort's connection with Kilimnik was a 'grave counterintelligence threat,' the report reads, adding that it found evidence the Russian intelligence officer may have been linked to the Russian government's efforts to hack and leak Democratic Party emails.

"The findings are part of the Senate Intelligence Committee's fifth and final bipartisan report investigating Russian efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. 

*"This volume is primarily focused on counterintelligence threats and the wide range of Russian attempts to influence both the Trump campaign and the election.*

"The report builds on special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation — and while it was consistent with the Mueller Report, it in fact goes further."


----------



## georgephillip

Correll said:


> 6. Mayor violating their citizens rights by ordering the police to stand down or even help the rioters looting and killing.
> 
> 7. Increasing numbers of people imprisoned by unequal application of the law, a violation of their civil rights.
> 
> 8. Mob attacks on federal buildings.
> 
> 9 Murders.
> 
> Off the top of my head.


Sounds like white supremacy has you worried.
Is Trump a victim or perpetrator?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> So, the unconstitutionality of this impeachment trial doesn't concern you?


 That defense strategy was voted down by the 100 person jury Constitutionally sitting for the trial.

TrumpQ was impeached while he a was a sitting riot inciting president.


----------



## georgephillip

Correll said:


> Which makes sense, because you want a Civil War to help destroy America.


If another civil war comes to America, you can blame Trump and his MAGA mob.




And you will lose that Lost Cause just like the first time.


----------



## Correll

georgephillip said:


> T*rump was and likely still is a Russian pawn. *




Mueller spend years and millions of dollars and was unable to find a single shred of evidence supporting this fucktard nonsense.


----------



## Correll

georgephillip said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which makes sense, because you want a Civil War to help destroy America.
> 
> 
> 
> If another civil war comes to America, you can blame Trump and his MAGA mob.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you will lose that Lost Cause just like the first time.
Click to expand...



No, I think I will blame you and people like you.


----------



## georgephillip

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> But, he's a private citizen now. The Constitution specifically refers to a sitting president.


*No, it doesn't.
In fact it is deliberately vague on timing.*

The Constitution's Option for Impeachment After a President Leaves Office

"The Constitution provides that the President 'shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,' *but it says nothing about the timing of when the impeachment and trial may take place*. That omission makes sense..."


----------



## Correll

georgephillip said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, he's a private citizen now. The Constitution specifically refers to a sitting president.
> 
> 
> 
> *No, it doesn't.
> In fact it is deliberately vague on timing.*
> 
> The Constitution's Option for Impeachment After a President Leaves Office
> 
> "The Constitution provides that the President 'shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,' *but it says nothing about the timing of when the impeachment and trial may take place*. That omission makes sense..."
Click to expand...



He is already out of office. 

It is quite a stretch to go though a process to remove him from office, if he is already out of office.


----------



## georgephillip

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Since he's a private citizen and if someone thinks the evidence is strong enough, he should be brought before a grand jury.


*That is exactly what will happen AFTER his second impeachment "trial" finishes. *

Trump’s New Criminal Problem

"The federal criminal code (18 USC 373) makes it a crime to solicit, command, induce or 'endeavor to persuade' another person to commit a felony that includes the threat or use of physical force. 

*"Simply put, it is a crime to persuade another person, or a mob of several thousand, to commit a violent felony."*


----------



## Flopper

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.


I agree with most of your comments, particular the need to make an example of this president or more politicians like Trump will rise. Once it is clear that showmanship, lies, and provoking anger and hostility is the path to pollical success, we will be seeing many more Trump like charlatans wrapping themselves in the flag and promising to make America great again.


----------



## Correll

georgephillip said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since he's a private citizen and if someone thinks the evidence is strong enough, he should be brought before a grand jury.
> 
> 
> 
> *That is exactly what will happen AFTER his second impeachment "trial" finishes. *
> 
> Trump’s New Criminal Problem
> 
> "The federal criminal code (18 USC 373) makes it a crime to solicit, command, induce or 'endeavor to persuade' another person to commit a felony that includes the threat or use of physical force.
> 
> *"Simply put, it is a crime to persuade another person, or a mob of several thousand, to commit a violent felony."*
Click to expand...



Good. I was worried you guys would wait until I was too old, before you kicked off the civil war. 

Nice to see you are putting the pedal to the medal.


----------



## georgephillip

Correll said:


> No, he didn't. Mueller investigated all that shit and found nothing.


Mueller's a life-long Republican fixer who didn't subpoena Trump's taxes. Upcoming investigations under Biden's DOJ won't be so charitable.

The BCCI Affair - 8 BCCI and Law Enforcement - The Justice Deparment and the US Customs Service


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> No, I think I will blame you and people like you.



You gonna join the TrumpQ white side. 

On the other hand I’m letting my black brothers sand sisters know that there’s way more white Americans with them than there are against them in the Trump white supremacy militia.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> It is quite a stretch to go though a process to remove him from office, if he is already out of office.



TrumpQ was in office when he incited a riot and was impeached.


----------



## Tumblin Tumbleweed

lantern2814 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we have better things to do than listen to what is a foregone conclusion. Meaning that you lose again.
Click to expand...


Isn't it your political cult that lost? You sound like a salty loser projecting his insecurities upon everybody else. What else is new?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> 1. FBI agents conspired to prevent Trump's presidency after his election.
> 
> 2. Obama had Trump spied on, based on bullshit.
> 
> 3. FBI agents lied to a federal judge to permission for an investigation that was NOT justified and was NOT conducted in a fair or ethical manner.



Your top three are all not true , pathetic rightwing bullshit - you suck for picking lies as your top three and go downhill from there.,


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Correll said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since he's a private citizen and if someone thinks the evidence is strong enough, he should be brought before a grand jury.
> 
> 
> 
> *That is exactly what will happen AFTER his second impeachment "trial" finishes. *
> 
> Trump’s New Criminal Problem
> 
> "The federal criminal code (18 USC 373) makes it a crime to solicit, command, induce or 'endeavor to persuade' another person to commit a felony that includes the threat or use of physical force.
> 
> *"Simply put, it is a crime to persuade another person, or a mob of several thousand, to commit a violent felony."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good. I was worried you guys would wait until I was too old, before you kicked off the civil war.
> 
> Nice to see you are putting the pedal to the medal.
Click to expand...

I would think that after the disaster on Jan. 6th carried out by lunatics talking about “civil war” to “take back the country” (some carrying Confederate flags), you would have learned a lesson. Wild accusations about “the other side” provoking civil war while your own side gins up its thugs for a “trial by combat” won’t fly anymore.

We’ve heard this talk all year long, before, during and after Trump was defeated. Hearing it _*now *_when what is necessary is fulsome denunciation of lunatic attempts at violent insurrection and domestic terrorism ... only makes you look like a hardcore Trump fanatic. Talk like this will only succeed in encouraging the “Security State” to pass draconian new domestic security legislation, and bring down more state repression ... on everyone.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since he's a private citizen and if someone thinks the evidence is strong enough, he should be brought before a grand jury.
> 
> 
> 
> *That is exactly what will happen AFTER his second impeachment "trial" finishes. *
> 
> Trump’s New Criminal Problem
> 
> "The federal criminal code (18 USC 373) makes it a crime to solicit, command, induce or 'endeavor to persuade' another person to commit a felony that includes the threat or use of physical force.
> 
> *"Simply put, it is a crime to persuade another person, or a mob of several thousand, to commit a violent felony."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good. I was worried you guys would wait until I was too old, before you kicked off the civil war.
> 
> Nice to see you are putting the pedal to the medal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would think that after the disaster on Jan. 6th carried out by lunatics talking about “civil war” to “take back the country” (some carrying Confederate flags), you would have learned a lesson. Wild accusations about “the other side” provoking civil war while your own side gins up its thugs for a “trial by combat” won’t fly anymore.
> 
> We’ve heard this talk all year long, before, during and after Trump was defeated. Hearing it _*now *_when what is necessary is fulsome denunciation of lunatic attempts at violent insurrection and domestic terrorism ... only makes you look like a hardcore Trump fanatic. Talk like this will only succeed in encouraging the “Security State” to pass draconian new domestic security legislation, and bring down more state repression ... on everyone.
Click to expand...


Your willingness to allow Congress to grossly violate the Constitution will pave the way for such draconian measures.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

Correll said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since he's a private citizen and if someone thinks the evidence is strong enough, he should be brought before a grand jury.
> 
> 
> 
> *That is exactly what will happen AFTER his second impeachment "trial" finishes. *
> 
> Trump’s New Criminal Problem
> 
> "The federal criminal code (18 USC 373) makes it a crime to solicit, command, induce or 'endeavor to persuade' another person to commit a felony that includes the threat or use of physical force.
> 
> *"Simply put, it is a crime to persuade another person, or a mob of several thousand, to commit a violent felony."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good. I was worried you guys would wait until I was too old, before you kicked off the civil war.
> 
> Nice to see you are putting the pedal to the medal.
Click to expand...




Correll said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since he's a private citizen and if someone thinks the evidence is strong enough, he should be brought before a grand jury.
> 
> 
> 
> *That is exactly what will happen AFTER his second impeachment "trial" finishes. *
> 
> Trump’s New Criminal Problem
> 
> "The federal criminal code (18 USC 373) makes it a crime to solicit, command, induce or 'endeavor to persuade' another person to commit a felony that includes the threat or use of physical force.
> 
> *"Simply put, it is a crime to persuade another person, or a mob of several thousand, to commit a violent felony."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good. I was worried you guys would wait until I was too old, before you kicked off the civil war.
> 
> Nice to see you are putting the pedal to the medal.
Click to expand...


Where did I say anything about a civil war?...lol


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

georgephillip said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since he's a private citizen and if someone thinks the evidence is strong enough, he should be brought before a grand jury.
> 
> 
> 
> *That is exactly what will happen AFTER his second impeachment "trial" finishes. *
> 
> Trump’s New Criminal Problem
> 
> "The federal criminal code (18 USC 373) makes it a crime to solicit, command, induce or 'endeavor to persuade' another person to commit a felony that includes the threat or use of physical force.
> 
> *"Simply put, it is a crime to persuade another person, or a mob of several thousand, to commit a violent felony."*
Click to expand...


No it won't.  In a criminal trial, it's illegal to present faslified evidence.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

NotfooledbyW said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, the unconstitutionality of this impeachment trial doesn't concern you?
> 
> 
> 
> That defense strategy was voted down by the 100 person jury Constitutionally sitting for the trial.
> 
> TrumpQ was impeached while he a was a sitting riot inciting president.
Click to expand...


The Senate doesn't have the power to rule on constitutionality.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since he's a private citizen and if someone thinks the evidence is strong enough, he should be brought before a grand jury.
> 
> 
> 
> *That is exactly what will happen AFTER his second impeachment "trial" finishes. *
> 
> Trump’s New Criminal Problem
> 
> "The federal criminal code (18 USC 373) makes it a crime to solicit, command, induce or 'endeavor to persuade' another person to commit a felony that includes the threat or use of physical force.
> 
> *"Simply put, it is a crime to persuade another person, or a mob of several thousand, to commit a violent felony."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good. I was worried you guys would wait until I was too old, before you kicked off the civil war.
> 
> Nice to see you are putting the pedal to the medal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would think that after the disaster on Jan. 6th carried out by lunatics talking about “civil war” to “take back the country” (some carrying Confederate flags), you would have learned a lesson. Wild accusations about “the other side” provoking civil war while your own side gins up its thugs for a “trial by combat” won’t fly anymore.
> 
> We’ve heard this talk all year long, before, during and after Trump was defeated. Hearing it _*now *_when what is necessary is fulsome denunciation of lunatic attempts at violent insurrection and domestic terrorism ... only makes you look like a hardcore Trump fanatic. Talk like this will only succeed in encouraging the “Security State” to pass draconian new domestic security legislation, and bring down more state repression ... on everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your willingness to allow Congress to grossly violate the Constitution will pave the way for such draconian measures.
Click to expand...

To my mind there is absolutely no violation of the Constitution here. Impeachment is the bare minimum Trump deserves. There is nothing draconian whatever about this impeachment. It would be a betrayal of our Constitution _*not*_ to impeach after Jan. 6th.

That aside, I believe impeachment is likely to play a bigger role in U.S. politics as our country’s social cohesion collapses under growing international competitive pressure. The chance of proxy wars with China and Russia is growing, and that too will divide our citizens.

I can see a time when impeachment almost inevitably occurs when one party holds the two Houses of Congress, but the other party holds the Presidency.. Sort of like in parliamentary systems in most of Europe, we may de facto institute a clumsy sort of “vote of no-confidence” recall procedure. That by itself doesn’t bother me, though party ultra-partisanship is of course very unfortunate.

Our Congress has been granting way too much power to “the imperial presidency” for decades. Of course neither party can “save us” from a mad and riotous voter base, big money domination of politics, or from a President gone berserk. The partisan deadlock in Congress indicates our Senators are  not up to the job.  It is simply not in the interest of the great corporations to allow real government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Which makes sense, because you want a Civil War to help destroy America.



We do? I proudly voted for Biden. So did 80 million more. We don’t want a civil war. We wanted the normal civil transfer of power based on elections that we’ve had since George handed the reins to John.

What do you want? Throw out the majority black votes from cities in Michigan Wisconsin Michigan Pennsylvania Georgia Arizona and Nevada.

That’s what “stop the steal” meant to the white militant racist mob that stormed the Capitol on January 6th.

I don’t want civil war. I don’t want a racist fascist liar President staying in ithe White House after losing a bid for a second term because he can mobilize a violent mob to assault Congress to stop the transfer of power to the winner who was my choice.

My vote went to the winner. What the fuck do I need or want a civil war.. When my vote went to the loser in 2016 I didn’t storm the Capitol to put Hillary in .  . I watched TrumpQ destroy the Republican Party and drive the final nail in the coffin on January 6 2021.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> 1. I'm not justify anything. I'm disagreeing that Trump incited violence.




There is no question that TrumoQ incited violence. If Trump did not instruct the mob to stop the steal there was no reason for Trump’s forces to invade the Capitol at the exact moment in which members were certifying Joe Biden’s win.


----------



## Utilitarian

NotfooledbyW said:


> You gonna join the TrumpQ white side.
> 
> On the other hand I’m letting my black brothers sand sisters know that there’s way more white Americans with them than there are against them in the Trump white supremacy militia.



Do you even begin to understand how ridiculous you sound?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Utilitarian said:


> Do you even begin to understand how ridiculous you sound?



Actually there is nothing ridiculous about what I wrote.  If you think there is, please explain what it is exactly.

Oh No!  The globalists are coming! The globalists are coming!



Utilitarian said:


> because the actual oligarchs wanted Trump out. You don't have to worry about another Trump getting into office though. They've made sure that only globalists can enter office now.



 Never mind.


----------



## Correll

georgephillip said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he didn't. Mueller investigated all that shit and found nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Mueller's a life-long Republican fixer who didn't subpoena Trump's taxes. Upcoming investigations under Biden's DOJ won't be so charitable.
> 
> The BCCI Affair - 8 BCCI and Law Enforcement - The Justice Deparment and the US Customs Service
Click to expand...



Muelller is Deep State and did his best to go fishing for ANYTHING to justify his massive investigation.

There was NOTHING. 


The only people still touting the lies that he tried and failed to support, are people who are complete liars, or complete retards.


----------



## Mac1958

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Talk like this will only succeed in encouraging the “Security State” to pass draconian new domestic security legislation, and bring down more state repression ... on everyone.


Certainly one of the ironies of this ignorant, tribal, simplistic movement.  They want us to believe they're civil libertarians, yet they go out of their way to invite repression, with which ALL of us will have to deal.

They have demonstrated over and over that, instead of using intellect and reason to solve an issue, they'd much rather beat on it with a stick.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I think I will blame you and people like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You gonna join the TrumpQ white side.
> 
> On the other hand I’m letting my black brothers sand sisters know that there’s way more white Americans with them than there are against them in the Trump white supremacy militia.
Click to expand...



THe majority of whites in this country, are not on your side. Trump won the white vote in both elections. 


The Left's Plan to Rule, is based on the marginalization and oppression of the largest single ethnic group in the country.


That is not going to work out well for the nation as as whole or it's citizens.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. FBI agents conspired to prevent Trump's presidency after his election.
> 
> 2. Obama had Trump spied on, based on bullshit.
> 
> 3. FBI agents lied to a federal judge to permission for an investigation that was NOT justified and was NOT conducted in a fair or ethical manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your top three are all not true , pathetic rightwing bullshit - you suck for picking lies as your top three and go downhill from there.,
Click to expand...



They have all been documented and/or admitted.


Your denial is a combination of stonewalling and gaslighting.


NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. FBI agents conspired to prevent Trump's presidency after his election.
> 
> 2. Obama had Trump spied on, based on bullshit.
> 
> 3. FBI agents lied to a federal judge to permission for an investigation that was NOT justified and was NOT conducted in a fair or ethical manner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your top three are all not true , pathetic rightwing bullshit - you suck for picking lies as your top three and go downhill from there.,
Click to expand...



The top three have all been documented and/or admitted.


Your denial of that is a combination of stonewalling and gaslighting. 


My point stands. Your side ended the tradition of peaceful transfer of power, with your "Resistance" and your soft coup attempt and years of street violence. 


Now you are whining like faggots because we aren't playing by the rules while you cheat.


----------



## Correll

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since he's a private citizen and if someone thinks the evidence is strong enough, he should be brought before a grand jury.
> 
> 
> 
> *That is exactly what will happen AFTER his second impeachment "trial" finishes. *
> 
> Trump’s New Criminal Problem
> 
> "The federal criminal code (18 USC 373) makes it a crime to solicit, command, induce or 'endeavor to persuade' another person to commit a felony that includes the threat or use of physical force.
> 
> *"Simply put, it is a crime to persuade another person, or a mob of several thousand, to commit a violent felony."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good. I was worried you guys would wait until I was too old, before you kicked off the civil war.
> 
> Nice to see you are putting the pedal to the medal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would think that after the disaster on Jan. 6th carried out by lunatics talking about “civil war” to “take back the country” (some carrying Confederate flags), you would have learned a lesson. Wild accusations about “the other side” provoking civil war while your own side gins up its thugs for a “trial by combat” won’t fly anymore.
> 
> We’ve heard this talk all year long, before, during and after Trump was defeated. Hearing it _*now *_when what is necessary is fulsome denunciation of lunatic attempts at violent insurrection and domestic terrorism ... only makes you look like a hardcore Trump fanatic. Talk like this will only succeed in encouraging the “Security State” to pass draconian new domestic security legislation, and bring down more state repression ... on everyone.
Click to expand...



Dude. When you dehumanize your enemies, we see you doing it. We can see the path you are on, and where it is going.


We are reacting to your clear and obvious intent. 


The  bit where you blame us for the system of oppression your side is building, 


is that meant to piss us off more, or is that you trying to rationalize to yourself how you are staying on the side of tyranny?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> we aren't playing by the rules while you cheat.


 what rule are you breaking exactly?

Beating a Capitol Police officer with a TtumpQ flag???  Yeah bet you are real proud of that one TrumpQ coward. Don’t you have to prove cheating before assembling a mob to go beat up unarmed Capitol police officers, and killing one?


----------



## Correll

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I can see a time when impeachment almost inevitably occurs when one party holds the two Houses of Congress, but the other party holds the Presidency.. Sort of like in parliamentary systems in most of Europe, we may de facto institute a clumsy sort of “vote of no-confidence” recall procedure. That by itself doesn’t bother me, though party ultra-partisanship is of course very unfortunate.




That would be the congress completely violating it's oath, and abusing it's power, every time. 

By itself that would be the end of our system of Constitutional Government.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> We do? I proudly voted for Biden. So did 80 million more. We don’t want a civil war. We wanted the normal civil transfer of power based on elections that we’ve had since George handed the reins to John.




i was talking to an individual. A very radical and hate filled individual who is a marxist and is deeply anti-American.


The bit where you cut out the part of who I was talking to, and just pretended that I was making a blanket statement about all dems?


That was  you being a dishonest hack. 


TBC. I think Biden and his supporters are useful dupes of the Far Left and their anti-American goals.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I'm not justify anything. I'm disagreeing that Trump incited violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no question that TrumoQ incited violence. If Trump did not instruct the mob to stop the steal there was no reason for Trump’s forces to invade the Capitol at the exact moment in which members were certifying Joe Biden’s win.
Click to expand...



So, you are basing your blaming of Trump on the unstated premise that mobs do not ever get out of control. 


So, if I show ONE case of a mob, getting out of control, and spontaneously committing violence, you will admit that the chain

 of logic you used to put the blame on Trump is proven false?


----------



## Correll

Mac1958 said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Talk like this will only succeed in encouraging the “Security State” to pass draconian new domestic security legislation, and bring down more state repression ... on everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly one of the ironies of this ignorant, tribal, simplistic movement.  They want us to believe they're civil libertarians, yet they go out of their way to invite repression, with which ALL of us will have to deal.
> 
> They have demonstrated over and over that, instead of using intellect and reason to solve an issue, they'd much rather beat on it with a stick.
Click to expand...



If only there was something your side could do to reverse the cycle....


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> i was talking to an individual. A very radical and hate filled individual who is a marxist and is deeply anti-American.



which radical deeply anti-American Marxist were you talking to?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> we aren't playing by the rules while you cheat.
> 
> 
> 
> what rule are you breaking exactly?
> 
> Beating a Capitol Police officer with a TtumpQ flag???  Yeah bet you are real proud of that one TrumpQ coward. Don’t you have to prove cheating before assembling a mob to go beat up unarmed Capitol police officers, and killing one?
Click to expand...



No, I am not "proud" of the riot. 

I am just pointing out that when your side stopped respecting the peaceful transfer of power and started a period of political violence, 


that that ended the rules that we used to play by.


That is what happens when you end a game. 


That you whine about it now, is pathetic and weak of you.


BUT, you are missing the bigger point.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> i was talking to an individual. A very radical and hate filled individual who is a marxist and is deeply anti-American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> which radical deeply anti-American Marxist were you talking to?
Click to expand...



Dude. You are the one that cut my post down to nothing. If you want to know what I said before you cut it down to nothing, or who I was talking to, go back and read it. 


Or why bother. YOu are just going to talk shit anyways. Why pretend that you care who I was talking to?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> he top three have all been documented and/or admitted.



No they have not. You are a liar.

Nikki Haley dumped the lying fascist  TrumpQ finally  I think she has the best plan for rendering the insurrectionist goon harmless to the deep state Republicans going forward to give a Trumpless Party s shot at success in 2022 mid-terns. 

Haley insisted that she was proud of the work she had done for the former president, and claimed that something fundamentally changed in him after he lost the election. 'We shouldn't have followed him': Nikki Haley turns on Trump after MAGA riots​
Of course that’s if she can keep from being hanged.

I can see Mitch coming up with a talking point like that and getting 16 Senators to vote for conviction.

I think Repubs just my see the slight advanrange to getting the word out that TrumpQ was a great President until he lost. Then he lost it mentally and became someone that can no longer support and get away with inciting a riot even if he was mentally unstable when he did it.,


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> he top three have all been documented and/or admitted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No they have not. You are a liar.
> 
> Nikki Haley dumped the ....
Click to expand...



The bit where you make a strong claim, and then immediately throw out another accusation, completely unrelated?

That is a tell that you know your strong claim was actually a lie.


YOur intend is to make the strong  claim, and then immediately sidetrack the conversation, in the hopes that you can avoid being called on to support your claim.


It is telling that you did not challenge me to support my claim.


Specifically for the slow kids in the class, it is because you know that my claims are true and can be supported.



THis is teh bit where if you are smart, you stop responding to this thread and instead hope that other posts quickly bury this and you can focus on forgetting about how badly you were schooled.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Dude. You are the one that cut my post down to nothing. If you want to know what I said before you cut it down to nothing, or who I was talking to, go back and read it.



I did scroll back and checked the two posters you responded too.  I don’t see either one as anti-Anerican.m

Your statement was direct to them - sounds like another lie and dodge it.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Correll said:


> Now you are whining like faggots because we aren't playing by the rules while you cheat.


Well, at least you now admit your side is not playing by the rules!

The thugs who tried to stop the transfer of power to the newly elected, certified, Constitutional president at the request of their cult leader and lame duck President, were not playing by the established and institutionalized rules of democracy. The anti-Trump side was. Trump was attacking the very heart of our Republic, our Congress, our courts, his own Vice President.

Everything else you say is b.s., and your insults about _*us*_ “whining like faggots” and “encouraging civil war” reminds me of nothing so much as the attitude of the South before the Civil War — when most Southern newspapers _*supported or made light of*_ the caning almost to death of radical Republican Charles Sumner on the Senate floor, by three slave-owning Southern politicians. Well, it only mobilized national opposition, just like the violence of marauding “tough-guy” Southerners in Kansas and elsewhere. Then _*my side*_ were the radical Republicans. Your side’s domestic terrorists —  will get what they deserve.

But as I said, this is bad for the country. Very bad. You and your hysteria are part of it. You cannot beat, you haven’t even any program to reform, corporate power or crony capitalism. You will only excite the security services to become more active. If your side’s cowardly Republican politicians should beat the Democrats in the future, you can try to put whatever “program” you have to “fix” our country. Hopefully it won’t be a fascist or military dictatorship!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> and then immediately throw out another accusation, completely unrelated?



I didn’t throw another accusation.

And you did not source your original claims.


----------



## Correll

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now you are whining like faggots because we aren't playing by the rules while you cheat.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least you now admit your side is not playing by the rules!
> ...
Click to expand...


Of course storming the Capitol was "not playing by the rules".

I've never said otherwise.


My point is, that if you liked the old rules so much, you should not have thrown them out the window.


Now, political violence is the new normal. 


YOu seem to be missing the real point here.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> and then immediately throw out another accusation, completely unrelated?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn’t throw another accusation.
> 
> And you did not source your original claims.
Click to expand...


Why cut down the thread to nothing? Do you think that that is the only way to try to pretend I did not utterly refute your arguments?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Well, at least you now admit your side (“we”) is not playing by the rules!



and Correll has yet to tell what rules he is breaking personally.

Personally I think he is lying again about himself, but he is condoning and justifying  the violent ‘rule breaking’  behavior of the January 6 insurrectionists.

Because TrumoQ told them different rules apply to get the wild stuff started for the mob revolt that day:


*Trump told the crowd that ‘very different rules’ applied.*


> “When you catch somebody in a fraud, *you are allowed to go by very different rules*. So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do, and I hope he doesn’t listen to the RINOs and the stupid people that he’s listening to.” Incitement to Riot? What Trump Told Supporters Before Mob Stormed Capitol



It is amazing what a dumb ass Correll is. Posting one of the  the many reasons why Trump should be convicted of inciting a riot.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, at least you now admit your side (“we”) is not playing by the rules!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and Correll has yet to tell what rules he is breaking personally.
> 
> ....
Click to expand...


I am not respecting the peaceful transfer of power either. I do not consider BIden's election to be legitimate nor do I consider him to be a legitimate President.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> So, you are basing your blaming of Trump on the unstated premise that mobs do not ever get out of control.



nope, you are wrong again.

I am blaming Trump for assembling a mob to stop the steal by fighting. The next few hours presented the last chance to put Trump in the White House with that stirred up mob being the only way to stop the steal

There is no way in a million years that a peaceful demonstration standing behind the police barriers would have been considered by the mob to be “stopping the steal” or “fighting like hell”

So the mob understood their patriotic duty and loyalty to TrumpQ and moved to fight their way in , get to the Senate chamber and “Stop the Steal” .

All based upon TrumpQ’s incendiary grand lie that Biden stole the election from him.

IF TrumP doesn’t shout for two months there’s a fire in the theater when there is none and tell an assembled mob to extinguish a fire that never existed if they don’t we all die, and the mob has to knock heads and commit felonies to get to the fire -    None of January 6 2021 happens.

Without Trump no insurrection that killed five Americans. Lucky it wasn’t more.

Why you delivered that piece of shit is beyond all reason decency and the American  ideal.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I am not respecting the peaceful transfer of power either. I do not consider BIden's election to be legitimate nor do I consider him to be a legitimate President.



you don’t have to. who cares. 70% of Americans do not agree. And that includes the highest ranking Republican in the nation Mitch McConnel. The entire judicial system, and Vladimir Putin and the rest of the world’s leaders. The US military too. And my dog. The world does not care that you are stupid. Just don’t join a fucking insurrection and try to overturn Biden’s win. Something Q-ish us coming March 4 .   We only care that you don’t do any violent stuff like that.

Now that Trump is a civilian if he thinks the election was stolen he should be suing who he thinks stole it from him.

You can thank me some day when you realize (like theQAnon Shaman) what a duped fool you’ve been staying loyal to that incompetent lying insurrectionist fascist jackass.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Correll said:


> My point is, that if you liked the old rules so much, you should not have thrown them out the window....
> 
> I am not respecting the peaceful transfer of power either.


Who changed the old rules?

These same rules have been around for generations!

Big money in politics, corporate corruption, these were there since the Gilded Age! The Military Industrial Complex has been there from WWII at least! We had more and more successful elite “manufacturing of consent” in the past than we do today!

Few Americans objected to global U.S. corporarations — until relatively recently. _*Your people*_ in particular wrap yourself in the flag, and for generations supported “democratic” U.S. imperialism and even U.S.-supported coups everywhere. Many on your side *still* celebrate the “Pinochets of the world” and their “helicopter” treatment of opponents.

Domestically, for well over a hundred years Jim Crow was layered on top of oligarchic and demagogic populist politics in the pre-Civil Rights Movement South. *Now* you complain “the rules have been thrown out the window.” Why? Because African-Americans and liberals and centrist Democrats finally out-organized you in places like Georgia. “Fraud!” you scream and lie.

The old rules were never very pretty. But fortunately “democracy” doesn’t guarantee that _*your*_ _*side’s*_ _*lunatic, incompetent amoral conman*_ will always beat _*their side’s *_corporate Establishment “liberal.”

So suck it up. Or don’t. Keep talking about “civil war” and how you are “not respecting the peaceful transfer of power.” How you “do not consider BIden's election to be legitimate.” Try to _*overthrow*_ him violently if you want!

You are damn lucky this remains a “bourgeois democratic” Republican system where you are free to vote — for your local, state and Federal representatives. Our rural voters already get special representative privileges!  Maybe next time don’t pick a megalomaniacal narcissist as your candidate?

If you _*do*_ choose to “overthrow the system” or our elected President by acting like Trump’s domestic terrorists, thugs and QAnons did on Jan. 6th — you belong in prison, with common criminals.

They also — or didn’t you know? — object to “the system.”


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

I would think that after the disaster on Jan. 6th carried out by lunatics talking about “civil war” to “take back the country” (some carrying Confederate flags), you would have learned a lesson. Wild accusations about “the other side” provoking civil war while your own side gins up its thugs for a “trial by combat” won’t fly anymore.

We’ve heard this talk all year long, before, during and after Trump was defeated. Hearing it _*now *_when what is necessary is fulsome denunciation of lunatic attempts at violent insurrection and domestic terrorism ... only makes you look like a hardcore Trump fanatic. Talk like this will only succeed in encouraging the “Security State” to pass draconian new domestic security legislation, and bring down more state repression ... on everyone.
[/QUOTE]
Your willingness to allow Congress to grossly violate the Constitution will pave the way for such draconian measures.
[/QUOTE]
To my mind there is absolutely no violation of the Constitution here. Impeachment is the bare minimum Trump deserves. There is nothing draconian whatever about this impeachment. It would be a betrayal of our Constitution _*not*_ to impeach after Jan. 6th.

That aside, I believe impeachment is likely to play a bigger role in U.S. politics as our country’s social cohesion collapses under growing international competitive pressure. The chance of proxy wars with China and Russia is growing, and that too will divide our citizens.

I can see a time when impeachment almost inevitably occurs when one party holds the two Houses of Congress, but the other party holds the Presidency.. Sort of like in parliamentary systems in most of Europe, we may de facto institute a clumsy sort of “vote of no-confidence” recall procedure. That by itself doesn’t bother me, though party ultra-partisanship is of course very unfortunate.

Our Congress has been granting way too much power to “the imperial presidency” for decades. Of course neither party can “save us” from a mad and riotous voter base, big money domination of politics, or from a President gone berserk. The partisan deadlock in Congress indicates our Senators are  not up to the job.  It is simply not in the interest of the great corporations to allow real government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
[/QUOTE]


Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since he's a private citizen and if someone thinks the evidence is strong enough, he should be brought before a grand jury.
> 
> 
> 
> *That is exactly what will happen AFTER his second impeachment "trial" finishes. *
> 
> Trump’s New Criminal Problem
> 
> "The federal criminal code (18 USC 373) makes it a crime to solicit, command, induce or 'endeavor to persuade' another person to commit a felony that includes the threat or use of physical force.
> 
> *"Simply put, it is a crime to persuade another person, or a mob of several thousand, to commit a violent felony."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good. I was worried you guys would wait until I was too old, before you kicked off the civil war.
> 
> Nice to see you are putting the pedal to the medal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would think that after the disaster on Jan. 6th carried out by lunatics talking about “civil war” to “take back the country” (some carrying Confederate flags), you would have learned a lesson. Wild accusations about “the other side” provoking civil war while your own side gins up its thugs for a “trial by combat” won’t fly anymore.
> 
> We’ve heard this talk all year long, before, during and after Trump was defeated. Hearing it _*now *_when what is necessary is fulsome denunciation of lunatic attempts at violent insurrection and domestic terrorism ... only makes you look like a hardcore Trump fanatic. Talk like this will only succeed in encouraging the “Security State” to pass draconian new domestic security legislation, and bring down more state repression ... on everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your willingness to allow Congress to grossly violate the Constitution will pave the way for such draconian measures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To my mind there is absolutely no violation of the Constitution here. Impeachment is the bare minimum Trump deserves. There is nothing draconian whatever about this impeachment. It would be a betrayal of our Constitution _*not*_ to impeach after Jan. 6th.
> 
> That aside, I believe impeachment is likely to play a bigger role in U.S. politics as our country’s social cohesion collapses under growing international competitive pressure. The chance of proxy wars with China and Russia is growing, and that too will divide our citizens.
> 
> I can see a time when impeachment almost inevitably occurs when one party holds the two Houses of Congress, but the other party holds the Presidency.. Sort of like in parliamentary systems in most of Europe, we may de facto institute a clumsy sort of “vote of no-confidence” recall procedure. That by itself doesn’t bother me, though party ultra-partisanship is of course very unfortunate.
> 
> Our Congress has been granting way too much power to “the imperial presidency” for decades. Of course neither party can “save us” from a mad and riotous voter base, big money domination of politics, or from a President gone berserk. The partisan deadlock in Congress indicates our Senators are  not up to the job.  It is simply not in the interest of the great corporations to allow real government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Click to expand...




Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since he's a private citizen and if someone thinks the evidence is strong enough, he should be brought before a grand jury.
> 
> 
> 
> *That is exactly what will happen AFTER his second impeachment "trial" finishes. *
> 
> Trump’s New Criminal Problem
> 
> "The federal criminal code (18 USC 373) makes it a crime to solicit, command, induce or 'endeavor to persuade' another person to commit a felony that includes the threat or use of physical force.
> 
> *"Simply put, it is a crime to persuade another person, or a mob of several thousand, to commit a violent felony."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good. I was worried you guys would wait until I was too old, before you kicked off the civil war.
> 
> Nice to see you are putting the pedal to the medal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would think that after the disaster on Jan. 6th carried out by lunatics talking about “civil war” to “take back the country” (some carrying Confederate flags), you would have learned a lesson. Wild accusations about “the other side” provoking civil war while your own side gins up its thugs for a “trial by combat” won’t fly anymore.
> 
> We’ve heard this talk all year long, before, during and after Trump was defeated. Hearing it _*now *_when what is necessary is fulsome denunciation of lunatic attempts at violent insurrection and domestic terrorism ... only makes you look like a hardcore Trump fanatic. Talk like this will only succeed in encouraging the “Security State” to pass draconian new domestic security legislation, and bring down more state repression ... on everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your willingness to allow Congress to grossly violate the Constitution will pave the way for such draconian measures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To my mind there is absolutely no violation of the Constitution here. Impeachment is the bare minimum Trump deserves. There is nothing draconian whatever about this impeachment. It would be a betrayal of our Constitution _*not*_ to impeach after Jan. 6th.
> 
> That aside, I believe impeachment is likely to play a bigger role in U.S. politics as our country’s social cohesion collapses under growing international competitive pressure. The chance of proxy wars with China and Russia is growing, and that too will divide our citizens.
> 
> I can see a time when impeachment almost inevitably occurs when one party holds the two Houses of Congress, but the other party holds the Presidency.. Sort of like in parliamentary systems in most of Europe, we may de facto institute a clumsy sort of “vote of no-confidence” recall procedure. That by itself doesn’t bother me, though party ultra-partisanship is of course very unfortunate.
> 
> Our Congress has been granting way too much power to “the imperial presidency” for decades. Of course neither party can “save us” from a mad and riotous voter base, big money domination of politics, or from a President gone berserk. The partisan deadlock in Congress indicates our Senators are  not up to the job.  It is simply not in the interest of the great corporations to allow real government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.”
Click to expand...


Hatred is no excuse for violating the Constitution.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not respecting the peaceful transfer of power either. I do not consider BIden's election to be legitimate nor do I consider him to be a legitimate President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you don’t have to. who cares. 70% of Americans do not agree. And that includes the highest ranking Republican in the nation Mitch McConnel. The entire judicial system, and Vladimir Putin and the rest of the world’s leaders. The US military too. And my dog. The world does not care that you are stupid. Just don’t join a fucking insurrection and try to overturn Biden’s win. Something Q-ish us coming March 4 .   We only care that you don’t do any violent stuff like that.
> 
> Now that Trump is a civilian if he thinks the election was stolen he should be suing who he thinks stole it from him.
> 
> You can thank me some day when you realize (like theQAnon Shaman) what a duped fool you’ve been staying loyal to that incompetent lying insurrectionist fascist jackass.
Click to expand...


Where do you get "70%" from?  If you're referring the people who voted for Biden, including the alledged votes, you're still talking about less than half the country.  So, don't say 70% of Americans disagree.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Where do you get "70%" from? If you're referring the people who voted for Biden, including the alledged votes, you're still talking about less than half the country. So, don't say 70% of Americans disagree.



TrumpQ’s approval is at around 30% and that’sv what I’d bet believe the grand TrumoQ election fraud lie. Likewise Joe is at 62% approval and don’t think it’s a stretch that 8% more don’t approve believe he won a legitimate election fair sad square.

Mitch McConnell would be one of Those.

Maybe it’s still 80%
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Nearly 80% of Americans, including more than half of Republicans, recognize President-elect Joe Biden as the winner of the Nov. 3 election after most media organizations called the race for the Democrat based on his leads in critical battleground states, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.


White House, ignoring Trump's ... - Reuters


Biden - who needed 270 Electoral College votes to win - had 279 of those votes to ... The poll also found that 72% think the loser of the election must concede defeat, ...

www.reuters.com › article › us-...
Half of Republicans say Biden won because of a 'rigged' election: Reuters/Ipsos poll ...

Nov 18, 2020 — Altogether, 73% of those polled agreed that Biden won the election while 5% thought Trump won. But when


----------



## lantern2814

Tumblin Tumbleweed said:


> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we have better things to do than listen to what is a foregone conclusion. Meaning that you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it your political cult that lost? You sound like a salty loser projecting his insecurities upon everybody else. What else is new?
Click to expand...

You stupid fuck. This case is a foregone conclusion. You’ve already lost. Seems like you’re an idiot. Nothing new there.


----------



## noonereal

toobfreak said:


> Doc7505 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree and Progressive Marxist/DSA Democrat Leftists are doing their best to destroy the REPUBLIC....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first House manager made a persuasive argument.  His best argument was that Trump was in office when the alleged incitement happened and was in office when he was impeached.  From that it follows that naturally the Senate must try the impeachment!
> The third House manager presented much evidence totally hearsay and irrelevant, having nothing to do with Trump himself!
> Trump's first lawyer better get a lot better.  He was so dull and boring I finally had to FF skipping through most of his presentation looking for the meat!  He kept making a case, if any, that sounded more like he was improving the House's argument rather than refuting it! * He failed on the worst front:* While talking about the horrible travesty of 1-6, he failed to point out that the people there and the riot that ensued had pre-planned the whole event and were not there because Trump "sent them," but that they were there because tens of millions of Americans object not only to how the election was run, but how all of the evidence of fraud has been denied and swept under the rug without any look at it much less vetting while claiming it was baseless. He failed to make the case that the real reason for the riot was the Democrats shoving an illegal and improper election down America's throats leaving tons of HUGE and serious questions and doubts remaining about it unanswered. Trump was fully in his rights to question it. Being at that rally that day merely set the stage for what had started out a rather peaceful ordinary protest that quickly, unfortunately grew out of control and the Dems want to hang it all on Trump to cover for their involvement. The only thing the guy said any good at all is that this is all really about trying to deprive America of the chance that Trump might run again because there is every credible chance HE WOULD WIN.
> The 2nd Trump lawyer Schron was great and made fully the case that the trial is illegal, conclusively showed that the Constitution does NOT support it, and it will only rip the nation farther apart.  He also conclusively showed how the House hastily threw the impeachment together without any fact finding or due process, and had sought for four years to demonize and impeach Trump for anything at all long before he had even done anything, indeed, nothing that Biden hasn't already done.
> The six GOP voting to move ahead with the trial are the usual worthless RINO scum vermin traitors that make me hate the GOP and want to puke.
> Trump's lawyers lost on the procedural basis to dismiss the trial as illegal.  They will win on showing that Trump cannot be made wholly accountable for the riot, that he had not intended it and had every right to think, feel and say the things he did, but to do that, they better build the case for the real CAUSE of the riot:  the highly specious election and its many unanswered questions which left 100 million people doubting an honest, fair and open election has been held.
> 
> *IN THE END:*  Trump is really being put on trial for being a President of the People first, and putting them and their interests above and before his role in government.  What is really being tried today and trying to be stopped is the populist movement of the millions totally dissatisfied with the government and their representatives rising up to take power from government and put is squarely back in the hands of its citizenry where it belongs.
Click to expand...


I just hope no one including the author believes such drivel.


----------



## toobfreak

noonereal said:


> such drivel.





^^^^^


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

NotfooledbyW said:


> TrumpQ’s approval is at around 30% and that’sv what I’d bet believe the grand TrumoQ election fraud lie. Likewise Joe is at 62% approval and don’t think it’s a stretch that 8% more don’t approve believe he won a legitimate election fair sad square.
> 
> Mitch McConnell would be one of Those.
> 
> Maybe it’s still 80%
> NEW YORK (Reuters) - Nearly 80% of Americans, including more than half of Republicans, recognize President-elect Joe Biden as the winner of the Nov. 3 election after most media organizations called the race for the Democrat based on his leads in critical battleground states, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.
> 
> 
> White House, ignoring Trump's ... - Reuters
> 
> 
> Biden - who needed 270 Electoral College votes to win - had 279 of those votes to ... The poll also found that 72% think the loser of the election must concede defeat, ...
> 
> www.reuters.com › article › us-...
> Half of Republicans say Biden won because of a 'rigged' election: Reuters/Ipsos poll ...
> 
> Nov 18, 2020 — Altogether, 73% of those polled agreed that Biden won the election while 5% thought Trump won. But when



Those polls don't querry 100% of the citizenry and what with the proven inaccuracy of polls means that the 70% claim is dubious at best.


----------



## Tumblin Tumbleweed

lantern2814 said:


> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we have better things to do than listen to what is a foregone conclusion. Meaning that you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it your political cult that lost? You sound like a salty loser projecting his insecurities upon everybody else. What else is new?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You stupid fuck. This case is a foregone conclusion. You’ve already lost. Seems like you’re an idiot. Nothing new there.
Click to expand...


Oh, pipe down you moron. You're embarrassing yourself.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Those polls don't querry 100% of the citizenry and what with the proven inaccuracy of polls means that the 70% claim is dubious at best.



What do you think it is if it is not around 75 percent. better to go by polls than listening to QAnon whackos.


----------



## georgephillip

New details about Trump-McCarthy shouting match show Trump refused to call off the rioters

"*'Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,' Trump said*, according to lawmakers who were briefed on the call afterward by McCarthy.

"McCarthy insisted that the rioters were Trump's supporters and begged Trump to call them off.

"Trump's comment set off what Republican lawmakers familiar with the call described as a shouting match between the two men. 

"A furious McCarthy told the President the rioters were breaking into his office through the windows, and asked Trump, '*Who the f--k do you think you are talking to?*' according to a Republican lawmaker familiar with the call."


----------



## BWK

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.


Too much evidence against Trump. He's guilty as hell. What was especially striking, is the fact that the defense was complaining about a lack of evidence, yet, when Raskin invited Trump to testify to clear his name, the lawyers said no. LOl! The prosecution reserves the right to present their evidence in the absence of the very witness that can supply the evidence. Trump and his dunce team of lawyers gave themselves away;


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

NotfooledbyW said:


> What do you think it is if it is not around 75 percent. better to go by polls than listening to QAnon whackos.



Only the Leftist nutjobs believe political polls.  Wishful thinking much?


----------



## BWK

CrusaderFrank said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not watching! LOL
Click to expand...

You know Trump is guilty as hell, that's why.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

BWK said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not watching! LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know Trump is guilty as hell, that's why.
Click to expand...


Guilty of what?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

BWK said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> Too much evidence against Trump. He's guilty as hell. What was especially striking, is the fact that the defense was complaining about a lack of evidence, yet, when Raskin invited Trump to testify to clear his name, the lawyers said no. LOl! The prosecution reserves the right to present their evidence in the absence of the very witness that can supply the evidence. Trump and his dunce team of lawyers gave themselves away;
Click to expand...


If there's so much evidence, why did the impeachment managers resort to using falsified evidence?


----------



## BWK

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not watching! LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know Trump is guilty as hell, that's why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guilty of what?
Click to expand...

Inciting insurrection. Trump never did anything about the riot. That's all the evidence the prosecution needs in the absence and refusal of the defense to testify. 
Daniel Goldman said this trial would have been over in thirty seconds to convict had it been a real trial. He is right.


----------



## BWK

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> Too much evidence against Trump. He's guilty as hell. What was especially striking, is the fact that the defense was complaining about a lack of evidence, yet, when Raskin invited Trump to testify to clear his name, the lawyers said no. LOl! The prosecution reserves the right to present their evidence in the absence of the very witness that can supply the evidence. Trump and his dunce team of lawyers gave themselves away;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's so much evidence, why did the impeachment managers resort to using falsified evidence?
Click to expand...

There was no falsified evidence. That's something you made up in your head.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

BWK said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> Too much evidence against Trump. He's guilty as hell. What was especially striking, is the fact that the defense was complaining about a lack of evidence, yet, when Raskin invited Trump to testify to clear his name, the lawyers said no. LOl! The prosecution reserves the right to present their evidence in the absence of the very witness that can supply the evidence. Trump and his dunce team of lawyers gave themselves away;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's so much evidence, why did the impeachment managers resort to using falsified evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no falsified evidence. That's something you made up in your head.
Click to expand...


The impeachment managers used an edited video as their number one piece of evidence: the "goods" as they called it.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

BWK said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We're not watching! LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know Trump is guilty as hell, that's why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guilty of what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inciting insurrection. Trump never did anything about the riot. That's all the evidence the prosecution needs in the absence and refusal of the defense to testify.
> Daniel Goldman said this trial would have been over in thirty seconds to convict had it been a real trial. He is right.
Click to expand...


Oh, NOW you want him to stop a riot?...lol

It's not a real trial and won't be, because he didn't commit a crime


----------



## BWK

lantern2814 said:


> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we have better things to do than listen to what is a foregone conclusion. Meaning that you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it your political cult that lost? You sound like a salty loser projecting his insecurities upon everybody else. What else is new?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You stupid fuck. This case is a foregone conclusion. You’ve already lost. Seems like you’re an idiot. Nothing new there.
Click to expand...

This trial isn't about losing. It's about exposing the traitors to this country within the GOP. We have confirmed who they are. It was always known they wouldn't convict. But now they were brought out into the open. That's what was won. They will be labeled forever.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

BWK said:


> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we have better things to do than listen to what is a foregone conclusion. Meaning that you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it your political cult that lost? You sound like a salty loser projecting his insecurities upon everybody else. What else is new?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You stupid fuck. This case is a foregone conclusion. You’ve already lost. Seems like you’re an idiot. Nothing new there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This trial isn't about losing. It's about exposing the traitors to this country within the GOP. We have confirmed who they are. It was always known they wouldn't convict. But now they were brought out into the open. That's what was won. They will be labeled forever.
Click to expand...


Exposing traitors by violating the Constitution?  All that does is expose the stupidity of the Leftists.


----------



## BWK

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> Too much evidence against Trump. He's guilty as hell. What was especially striking, is the fact that the defense was complaining about a lack of evidence, yet, when Raskin invited Trump to testify to clear his name, the lawyers said no. LOl! The prosecution reserves the right to present their evidence in the absence of the very witness that can supply the evidence. Trump and his dunce team of lawyers gave themselves away;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's so much evidence, why did the impeachment managers resort to using falsified evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no falsified evidence. That's something you made up in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The impeachment managers used an edited video as their number one piece of evidence: the "goods" as they called it.
Click to expand...

"Edited video?" You mean added video not seen before don't you?


----------



## Tumblin Tumbleweed

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we have better things to do than listen to what is a foregone conclusion. Meaning that you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it your political cult that lost? You sound like a salty loser projecting his insecurities upon everybody else. What else is new?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You stupid fuck. This case is a foregone conclusion. You’ve already lost. Seems like you’re an idiot. Nothing new there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This trial isn't about losing. It's about exposing the traitors to this country within the GOP. We have confirmed who they are. It was always known they wouldn't convict. But now they were brought out into the open. That's what was won. They will be labeled forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exposing traitors by violating the Constitution?  All that does is expose the stupidity of the Leftists.
Click to expand...


But you don't call them 'traitors' at all, do you?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

Tumblin Tumbleweed said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we have better things to do than listen to what is a foregone conclusion. Meaning that you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it your political cult that lost? You sound like a salty loser projecting his insecurities upon everybody else. What else is new?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You stupid fuck. This case is a foregone conclusion. You’ve already lost. Seems like you’re an idiot. Nothing new there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This trial isn't about losing. It's about exposing the traitors to this country within the GOP. We have confirmed who they are. It was always known they wouldn't convict. But now they were brought out into the open. That's what was won. They will be labeled forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exposing traitors by violating the Constitution?  All that does is expose the stupidity of the Leftists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you don't call them 'traitors' at all, do you?
Click to expand...


You call them traitors because you disagree with their politics.


----------



## BWK

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we have better things to do than listen to what is a foregone conclusion. Meaning that you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it your political cult that lost? You sound like a salty loser projecting his insecurities upon everybody else. What else is new?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You stupid fuck. This case is a foregone conclusion. You’ve already lost. Seems like you’re an idiot. Nothing new there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This trial isn't about losing. It's about exposing the traitors to this country within the GOP. We have confirmed who they are. It was always known they wouldn't convict. But now they were brought out into the open. That's what was won. They will be labeled forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exposing traitors by violating the Constitution?  All that does is expose the stupidity of the Leftists.
Click to expand...

That's not an argument. It's a rant. Try again. You're still losing.


----------



## BWK

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we have better things to do than listen to what is a foregone conclusion. Meaning that you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it your political cult that lost? You sound like a salty loser projecting his insecurities upon everybody else. What else is new?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You stupid fuck. This case is a foregone conclusion. You’ve already lost. Seems like you’re an idiot. Nothing new there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This trial isn't about losing. It's about exposing the traitors to this country within the GOP. We have confirmed who they are. It was always known they wouldn't convict. But now they were brought out into the open. That's what was won. They will be labeled forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exposing traitors by violating the Constitution?  All that does is expose the stupidity of the Leftists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you don't call them 'traitors' at all, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You call them traitors because you disagree with their politics.
Click to expand...

Attacking the Capitol,  causing the death of five individuals, chanting to hang Mike Pence and put a bullet in Nancy Pelosi's head is an attack on this country. That's not politics. That's an attack from terrorists. Period! Try again. You're still losing.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

BWK said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> Too much evidence against Trump. He's guilty as hell. What was especially striking, is the fact that the defense was complaining about a lack of evidence, yet, when Raskin invited Trump to testify to clear his name, the lawyers said no. LOl! The prosecution reserves the right to present their evidence in the absence of the very witness that can supply the evidence. Trump and his dunce team of lawyers gave themselves away;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's so much evidence, why did the impeachment managers resort to using falsified evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no falsified evidence. That's something you made up in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The impeachment managers used an edited video as their number one piece of evidence: the "goods" as they called it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Edited video?" You mean added video not see before don't you?
Click to expand...


No, I mean edited video.  The impeachment managers introduced false evidence.


----------



## BWK

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we have better things to do than listen to what is a foregone conclusion. Meaning that you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it your political cult that lost? You sound like a salty loser projecting his insecurities upon everybody else. What else is new?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You stupid fuck. This case is a foregone conclusion. You’ve already lost. Seems like you’re an idiot. Nothing new there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This trial isn't about losing. It's about exposing the traitors to this country within the GOP. We have confirmed who they are. It was always known they wouldn't convict. But now they were brought out into the open. That's what was won. They will be labeled forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exposing traitors by violating the Constitution?  All that does is expose the stupidity of the Leftists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you don't call them 'traitors' at all, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You call them traitors because you disagree with their politics.
Click to expand...

Okay coward, don't get lost just because you are losing this argument. Lol!


----------



## BWK

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> Too much evidence against Trump. He's guilty as hell. What was especially striking, is the fact that the defense was complaining about a lack of evidence, yet, when Raskin invited Trump to testify to clear his name, the lawyers said no. LOl! The prosecution reserves the right to present their evidence in the absence of the very witness that can supply the evidence. Trump and his dunce team of lawyers gave themselves away;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's so much evidence, why did the impeachment managers resort to using falsified evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no falsified evidence. That's something you made up in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The impeachment managers used an edited video as their number one piece of evidence: the "goods" as they called it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Edited video?" You mean added video not see before don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I mean edited video.  The impeachment managers introduced false evidence.
Click to expand...

You haven't proven it to be false. We are waiting.


----------



## BWK

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we have better things to do than listen to what is a foregone conclusion. Meaning that you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it your political cult that lost? You sound like a salty loser projecting his insecurities upon everybody else. What else is new?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You stupid fuck. This case is a foregone conclusion. You’ve already lost. Seems like you’re an idiot. Nothing new there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This trial isn't about losing. It's about exposing the traitors to this country within the GOP. We have confirmed who they are. It was always known they wouldn't convict. But now they were brought out into the open. That's what was won. They will be labeled forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exposing traitors by violating the Constitution?  All that does is expose the stupidity of the Leftists.
Click to expand...

You aren't saying or arguing anything. You're still losing. I'm losing my patience with you already. Present to us the falsified evidence, and make sure it comes from a documented source for its authenticity, or you are just lying here on this forum.


----------



## georgephillip

BWK said:


> Daniel Goldman said this trial would have been over in thirty seconds to convict had it been a real trial. He is right.


There have also been credible predictions of a 90 to 10 vote for conviction in a secret senate ballot. Maybe Trump should have testified in how own defense after all?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

BWK said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> Too much evidence against Trump. He's guilty as hell. What was especially striking, is the fact that the defense was complaining about a lack of evidence, yet, when Raskin invited Trump to testify to clear his name, the lawyers said no. LOl! The prosecution reserves the right to present their evidence in the absence of the very witness that can supply the evidence. Trump and his dunce team of lawyers gave themselves away;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's so much evidence, why did the impeachment managers resort to using falsified evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no falsified evidence. That's something you made up in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The impeachment managers used an edited video as their number one piece of evidence: the "goods" as they called it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Edited video?" You mean added video not see before don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I mean edited video.  The impeachment managers introduced false evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proven it to be false. We are waiting.
Click to expand...


It's sad, but predictable that you don't know this:









						Fact Check: Was Impeachment Video Edited to Remove Trump's Call For Peace?
					

Former President Donald Trump's highly anticipated second impeachment trial began on Tuesday, just a little more than a month following the riot at the U.S. Capitol Building during Congress' certification of the 2020 election results.




					www.google.com


----------



## BWK

georgephillip said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Goldman said this trial would have been over in thirty seconds to convict had it been a real trial. He is right.
> 
> 
> 
> There have also been credible predictions of a 90 to 10 vote for impeachment in a secret ballot. Maybe Trump should have testified in how own defense after all?
Click to expand...

The Right said this was a joke. They were right. It was a joke on them, and it was revealing. The evidence was overwhelming and they know it. And they also know they had to run like the cowards they are by not letting Trump testify. He would have buried himself.


----------



## BWK

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> Too much evidence against Trump. He's guilty as hell. What was especially striking, is the fact that the defense was complaining about a lack of evidence, yet, when Raskin invited Trump to testify to clear his name, the lawyers said no. LOl! The prosecution reserves the right to present their evidence in the absence of the very witness that can supply the evidence. Trump and his dunce team of lawyers gave themselves away;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's so much evidence, why did the impeachment managers resort to using falsified evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no falsified evidence. That's something you made up in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The impeachment managers used an edited video as their number one piece of evidence: the "goods" as they called it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Edited video?" You mean added video not see before don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I mean edited video.  The impeachment managers introduced false evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proven it to be false. We are waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's sad, but predictable that you don't know this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact Check: Was Impeachment Video Edited to Remove Trump's Call For Peace?
> 
> 
> Former President Donald Trump's highly anticipated second impeachment trial began on Tuesday, just a little more than a month following the riot at the U.S. Capitol Building during Congress' certification of the 2020 election results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
Click to expand...

LOl! The defense said Trump mentioned peace one time, and fight twenty times. The defense isn't hiding that. They don't need to. Trumps own rhetoric to fight twenty times, never give up, never concede, then never stopping the riot, is indisputable evidence of an insurrection to riot as terrorists, and that's what they did.

The only thing I saw from your video was on January 12th, Trump calling for peace. That's six days after he did nothing about the terrorist attack. Your video is worth about two buckets of shit. Try again.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Only the Leftist nutjobs believe political polls. Wishful thinking much?



What number do you wish it is? Since you know that mine is not true you must have one. What is it?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

BWK said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> Too much evidence against Trump. He's guilty as hell. What was especially striking, is the fact that the defense was complaining about a lack of evidence, yet, when Raskin invited Trump to testify to clear his name, the lawyers said no. LOl! The prosecution reserves the right to present their evidence in the absence of the very witness that can supply the evidence. Trump and his dunce team of lawyers gave themselves away;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's so much evidence, why did the impeachment managers resort to using falsified evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no falsified evidence. That's something you made up in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The impeachment managers used an edited video as their number one piece of evidence: the "goods" as they called it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Edited video?" You mean added video not see before don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I mean edited video.  The impeachment managers introduced false evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proven it to be false. We are waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's sad, but predictable that you don't know this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact Check: Was Impeachment Video Edited to Remove Trump's Call For Peace?
> 
> 
> Former President Donald Trump's highly anticipated second impeachment trial began on Tuesday, just a little more than a month following the riot at the U.S. Capitol Building during Congress' certification of the 2020 election results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOl! The defense said Trump mentioned peace one time, and fight twenty times. The defense isn't hiding that. They don't need to. Trumps own rhetoric to fight twenty times, never give up, never concede, then never stopping the riot, is indisputable evidence of an insurrection to riot as terrorists, and that's what they did.
Click to expand...


They edited the video.  You must now admit the impeachment managers lied.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

NotfooledbyW said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the Leftist nutjobs believe political polls. Wishful thinking much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What number do you wish it is? Since you know that mine is not true you must have one. What is it?
Click to expand...


Irrelevant


----------



## BWK

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> Too much evidence against Trump. He's guilty as hell. What was especially striking, is the fact that the defense was complaining about a lack of evidence, yet, when Raskin invited Trump to testify to clear his name, the lawyers said no. LOl! The prosecution reserves the right to present their evidence in the absence of the very witness that can supply the evidence. Trump and his dunce team of lawyers gave themselves away;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's so much evidence, why did the impeachment managers resort to using falsified evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no falsified evidence. That's something you made up in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The impeachment managers used an edited video as their number one piece of evidence: the "goods" as they called it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Edited video?" You mean added video not see before don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I mean edited video.  The impeachment managers introduced false evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proven it to be false. We are waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's sad, but predictable that you don't know this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact Check: Was Impeachment Video Edited to Remove Trump's Call For Peace?
> 
> 
> Former President Donald Trump's highly anticipated second impeachment trial began on Tuesday, just a little more than a month following the riot at the U.S. Capitol Building during Congress' certification of the 2020 election results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOl! The defense said Trump mentioned peace one time, and fight twenty times. The defense isn't hiding that. They don't need to. Trumps own rhetoric to fight twenty times, never give up, never concede, then never stopping the riot, is indisputable evidence of an insurrection to riot as terrorists, and that's what they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They edited the video.  You must now admit the impeachment managers lied.
Click to expand...

You must have cognitive problems? The defense did not deny Trump said peace one time in the speech. Are you okay? 

And by the way, saying peace one time, fight twenty, and doing nothing about this terrorist attack says absolutely zero for his defense. Get a fucking clue. You're still losing.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

BWK said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> Too much evidence against Trump. He's guilty as hell. What was especially striking, is the fact that the defense was complaining about a lack of evidence, yet, when Raskin invited Trump to testify to clear his name, the lawyers said no. LOl! The prosecution reserves the right to present their evidence in the absence of the very witness that can supply the evidence. Trump and his dunce team of lawyers gave themselves away;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's so much evidence, why did the impeachment managers resort to using falsified evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no falsified evidence. That's something you made up in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The impeachment managers used an edited video as their number one piece of evidence: the "goods" as they called it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Edited video?" You mean added video not see before don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I mean edited video.  The impeachment managers introduced false evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proven it to be false. We are waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's sad, but predictable that you don't know this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact Check: Was Impeachment Video Edited to Remove Trump's Call For Peace?
> 
> 
> Former President Donald Trump's highly anticipated second impeachment trial began on Tuesday, just a little more than a month following the riot at the U.S. Capitol Building during Congress' certification of the 2020 election results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOl! The defense said Trump mentioned peace one time, and fight twenty times. The defense isn't hiding that. They don't need to. Trumps own rhetoric to fight twenty times, never give up, never concede, then never stopping the riot, is indisputable evidence of an insurrection to riot as terrorists, and that's what they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They edited the video.  You must now admit the impeachment managers lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must have cognitive problems? The defense did not deny Trump said peace one time in the speech. Are you okay?
> 
> And by the way, saying peace one time, fight twenty, and doing nothing about this terrorist attack says absolutely zero for his defense. Get a fucking clue. You're still losing.
Click to expand...


The impeachment managers used falsified evidence.  There's no way out of this, for you.


----------



## Tumblin Tumbleweed

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we have better things to do than listen to what is a foregone conclusion. Meaning that you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it your political cult that lost? You sound like a salty loser projecting his insecurities upon everybody else. What else is new?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You stupid fuck. This case is a foregone conclusion. You’ve already lost. Seems like you’re an idiot. Nothing new there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This trial isn't about losing. It's about exposing the traitors to this country within the GOP. We have confirmed who they are. It was always known they wouldn't convict. But now they were brought out into the open. That's what was won. They will be labeled forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exposing traitors by violating the Constitution?  All that does is expose the stupidity of the Leftists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you don't call them 'traitors' at all, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You call them traitors because you disagree with their politics.
Click to expand...


I call them traitors because they were incited into an insurrection of our nation's Capitol building over butthurt due to losing a fair election and causing vandalism, violence and even death. All because they couldn't deal with the result of a legit election. Here's a middle finger in your face. 

The only thing this election result shows this far is that most of us 'real Americans' don't like you Cult45 pissants very much. So, kindly, with as much *unity *as I can stomach, *go fuck yourselves*.


----------



## BWK

NotfooledbyW said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the Leftist nutjobs believe political polls. Wishful thinking much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What number do you wish it is? Since you know that mine is not true you must have one. What is it?
Click to expand...

This guy is lost and off kilter. He'll be done soon. Guarantee it. He's trying desperately to cling to some nonsense video that he think was edited, but, lol, the video was six days after the attack that Trump said "peace." Like saying that after the fact is some how going to help.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

Tumblin Tumbleweed said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we have better things to do than listen to what is a foregone conclusion. Meaning that you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it your political cult that lost? You sound like a salty loser projecting his insecurities upon everybody else. What else is new?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You stupid fuck. This case is a foregone conclusion. You’ve already lost. Seems like you’re an idiot. Nothing new there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This trial isn't about losing. It's about exposing the traitors to this country within the GOP. We have confirmed who they are. It was always known they wouldn't convict. But now they were brought out into the open. That's what was won. They will be labeled forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exposing traitors by violating the Constitution?  All that does is expose the stupidity of the Leftists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you don't call them 'traitors' at all, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You call them traitors because you disagree with their politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I call them traitors because they were incited into an insurrection of our nation's Capitol building over butthurt due to losing a fair election and causing vandalism, violence and even death. All because they couldn't deal with the result of a legit election. Here's a middle finger in your face.
> 
> The only thing this election result shows this far is that most of us 'real Americans' don't like you Cult45 pissants very much. So, kindly, with as much *unity *as I can stomach, *go fuck yourselves*.
Click to expand...


Were you saying that during the George Floyd riots last year?


----------



## BWK

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> Too much evidence against Trump. He's guilty as hell. What was especially striking, is the fact that the defense was complaining about a lack of evidence, yet, when Raskin invited Trump to testify to clear his name, the lawyers said no. LOl! The prosecution reserves the right to present their evidence in the absence of the very witness that can supply the evidence. Trump and his dunce team of lawyers gave themselves away;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's so much evidence, why did the impeachment managers resort to using falsified evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no falsified evidence. That's something you made up in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The impeachment managers used an edited video as their number one piece of evidence: the "goods" as they called it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Edited video?" You mean added video not see before don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I mean edited video.  The impeachment managers introduced false evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proven it to be false. We are waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's sad, but predictable that you don't know this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact Check: Was Impeachment Video Edited to Remove Trump's Call For Peace?
> 
> 
> Former President Donald Trump's highly anticipated second impeachment trial began on Tuesday, just a little more than a month following the riot at the U.S. Capitol Building during Congress' certification of the 2020 election results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOl! The defense said Trump mentioned peace one time, and fight twenty times. The defense isn't hiding that. They don't need to. Trumps own rhetoric to fight twenty times, never give up, never concede, then never stopping the riot, is indisputable evidence of an insurrection to riot as terrorists, and that's what they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They edited the video.  You must now admit the impeachment managers lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You must have cognitive problems? The defense did not deny Trump said peace one time in the speech. Are you okay?
> 
> And by the way, saying peace one time, fight twenty, and doing nothing about this terrorist attack says absolutely zero for his defense. Get a fucking clue. You're still losing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The impeachment managers used falsified evidence.  There's no way out of this, for you.
Click to expand...

Dude, are you familiar with cognitive reasoning? You were asked to present falsified evidence a bunch of posts ago. Get busy. You have only presented a video of Trump mentioning the word "peace" six days after the attack. Understand something, you are saying nothing, and you are not debating anything intelligently, because you are not applying cognitive reasoning. You are just repeating the same thing that tells us nothing. Get out of here if you can't present something intelligent and with substance.


----------



## BWK

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we have better things to do than listen to what is a foregone conclusion. Meaning that you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it your political cult that lost? You sound like a salty loser projecting his insecurities upon everybody else. What else is new?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You stupid fuck. This case is a foregone conclusion. You’ve already lost. Seems like you’re an idiot. Nothing new there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This trial isn't about losing. It's about exposing the traitors to this country within the GOP. We have confirmed who they are. It was always known they wouldn't convict. But now they were brought out into the open. That's what was won. They will be labeled forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exposing traitors by violating the Constitution?  All that does is expose the stupidity of the Leftists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you don't call them 'traitors' at all, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You call them traitors because you disagree with their politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I call them traitors because they were incited into an insurrection of our nation's Capitol building over butthurt due to losing a fair election and causing vandalism, violence and even death. All because they couldn't deal with the result of a legit election. Here's a middle finger in your face.
> 
> The only thing this election result shows this far is that most of us 'real Americans' don't like you Cult45 pissants very much. So, kindly, with as much *unity *as I can stomach, *go fuck yourselves*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you saying that during the George Floyd riots last year?
Click to expand...

Your whataboutism is for cowards. Try something better. The protesters for George Floyd didn't kill five people at the Capitol.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

BWK said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the Leftist nutjobs believe political polls. Wishful thinking much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What number do you wish it is? Since you know that mine is not true you must have one. What is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This guy is lost and off kilter. He'll be done soon. Guarantee it. He's trying desperately to cling to some nonsense video that he think was edited, but, lol, the video was six days after the attack that Trump said "peace." Like saying that after the fact is some how going to help.
Click to expand...


You're sticking with your lie that the video wasn't edited?


----------



## BWK

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only the Leftist nutjobs believe political polls. Wishful thinking much?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What number do you wish it is? Since you know that mine is not true you must have one. What is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This guy is lost and off kilter. He'll be done soon. Guarantee it. He's trying desperately to cling to some nonsense video that he think was edited, but, lol, the video was six days after the attack that Trump said "peace." Like saying that after the fact is some how going to help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're sticking with your lie that the video wasn't edited?
Click to expand...

Okay thanks, you aren't intelligent enough to debate here. Do yourself a favor and watch your own video and pay attention to the date when Trump mentioned "peace." If you can't do that, you have no business here. You aren't smart enough to engage cognitively.


----------



## Tumblin Tumbleweed

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we have better things to do than listen to what is a foregone conclusion. Meaning that you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it your political cult that lost? You sound like a salty loser projecting his insecurities upon everybody else. What else is new?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You stupid fuck. This case is a foregone conclusion. You’ve already lost. Seems like you’re an idiot. Nothing new there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This trial isn't about losing. It's about exposing the traitors to this country within the GOP. We have confirmed who they are. It was always known they wouldn't convict. But now they were brought out into the open. That's what was won. They will be labeled forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exposing traitors by violating the Constitution?  All that does is expose the stupidity of the Leftists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you don't call them 'traitors' at all, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You call them traitors because you disagree with their politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I call them traitors because they were incited into an insurrection of our nation's Capitol building over butthurt due to losing a fair election and causing vandalism, violence and even death. All because they couldn't deal with the result of a legit election. Here's a middle finger in your face.
> 
> The only thing this election result shows this far is that most of us 'real Americans' don't like you Cult45 pissants very much. So, kindly, with as much *unity *as I can stomach, *go fuck yourselves*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you saying that during the George Floyd riots last year?
Click to expand...


Whataboutism. The only tool in a Cult45 c*nt's toolbox. When do you people break through your political conditioning enough to process reality? *Hey genius*: we're talking about your shitty excuse of a *pResident you support inciting an equally shitty, loser, Insurrection on the Capitol. 

Try to keep up.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> Too much evidence against Trump. He's guilty as hell. What was especially striking, is the fact that the defense was complaining about a lack of evidence, yet, when Raskin invited Trump to testify to clear his name, the lawyers said no. LOl! The prosecution reserves the right to present their evidence in the absence of the very witness that can supply the evidence. Trump and his dunce team of lawyers gave themselves away;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's so much evidence, why did the impeachment managers resort to using falsified evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no falsified evidence. That's something you made up in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The impeachment managers used an edited video as their number one piece of evidence: the "goods" as they called it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Edited video?" You mean added video not see before don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I mean edited video.  The impeachment managers introduced false evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proven it to be false. We are waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's sad, but predictable that you don't know this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact Check: Was Impeachment Video Edited to Remove Trump's Call For Peace?
> 
> 
> Former President Donald Trump's highly anticipated second impeachment trial began on Tuesday, just a little more than a month following the riot at the U.S. Capitol Building during Congress' certification of the 2020 election results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOl! The defense said Trump mentioned peace one time, and fight twenty times. The defense isn't hiding that. They don't need to. Trumps own rhetoric to fight twenty times, never give up, never concede, then never stopping the riot, is indisputable evidence of an insurrection to riot as terrorists, and that's what they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They edited the video.  You must now admit the impeachment managers lied.
Click to expand...

“_They edited the video.  You must now admit the impeachment managers lied._”

Typical stupidity. No lying here at all. The video in question, the main video shown over and over again by the House Managers, was just over _13 minutes long _and featured mostly scenes of the riot itself, including violent mob scenes not before made public. It was overwhelmingly *not *about Trump’s speech at all. Trump’s speech was _around an hour long_, so it was _*obvious to all  *_that the parts about his speech were edited — and only there to give a flavor for what he had been saying generally and how the crowd subsequently reacted.

Moreover, the House Managers discussed numerous times Trump’s many months of false claims and incitements, his more recent outrageous conduct and nonsense claims after he lost.

They also *explicitly* discussed his tweets that eventually called for his violent thugs to “_remain_ peaceful.”

Of course they were already anything but peaceful by that time and Trump knew it. Trump masterfully brought this particular crowd together in order to break up the reading of the already confirmed electoral votes, which is what they accomplished. Trump was all along trying to stay in power _by any means. _Jan. 6th was just his final absurd and dangerous throw of the dice.

Trump was the singular individual responsible for the deaths that occurred. For _*everything*_ that occurred. Nothing like it could have occurred without him.

This is what I was thinking as I listened to the president’s defense lawyers make their petty arguments.

***

In another key moment, Senator Bernie Sanders asked if Mr. Trump had actually won the election. Impeachment manager Stacey Plaskett said it was clear Mr. Trump had lost the election, but van der Veen dodged, saying "in my judgment ... Who asked that?" Sanders answered "I did" and van der Veen responded "my judgment is irrelevant."

Sanders then said from his desk: "You represent the president of the United States!"


----------



## BWK

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> Too much evidence against Trump. He's guilty as hell. What was especially striking, is the fact that the defense was complaining about a lack of evidence, yet, when Raskin invited Trump to testify to clear his name, the lawyers said no. LOl! The prosecution reserves the right to present their evidence in the absence of the very witness that can supply the evidence. Trump and his dunce team of lawyers gave themselves away;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's so much evidence, why did the impeachment managers resort to using falsified evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no falsified evidence. That's something you made up in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The impeachment managers used an edited video as their number one piece of evidence: the "goods" as they called it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Edited video?" You mean added video not see before don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I mean edited video.  The impeachment managers introduced false evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proven it to be false. We are waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's sad, but predictable that you don't know this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact Check: Was Impeachment Video Edited to Remove Trump's Call For Peace?
> 
> 
> Former President Donald Trump's highly anticipated second impeachment trial began on Tuesday, just a little more than a month following the riot at the U.S. Capitol Building during Congress' certification of the 2020 election results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOl! The defense said Trump mentioned peace one time, and fight twenty times. The defense isn't hiding that. They don't need to. Trumps own rhetoric to fight twenty times, never give up, never concede, then never stopping the riot, is indisputable evidence of an insurrection to riot as terrorists, and that's what they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They edited the video.  You must now admit the impeachment managers lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “_They edited the video.  You must now admit the impeachment managers lied._”
> 
> Typical stupidity. No lying here at all. The video in question, the main video shown over and over again by the House Managers, was just over _13 minutes long _and featured mostly scenes of the riot itself, including violent mob scenes not before made public. It was overwhelmingly *not *about Trump’s speech at all. Trump’s speech was _around an hour long_, so it was _*obvious to all *_that the parts about his speech were edited — and only there to give a flavor for what he had been saying generally and how the crowd subsequently reacted.
> 
> Moreover, the House Managers discussed numerous times Trump’s many months of false claims and incitements, his more recent outrageous conduct and nonsense claims after he lost.
> 
> They also *explicitly* discussed his tweets that eventually called for his violent thugs to “_remain_ peaceful.”
> 
> Of course they were already anything but peaceful by that time and Trump knew it. Trump masterfully brought this particular crowd together in order to break up the reading of the already confirmed electoral votes, which is what they accomplished. Trump was all along trying to stay in power _by any means. _Jan. 6th was just his final absurd and dangerous throw of the dice.
> 
> Trump was the singular individual responsible for the deaths that occurred. For _*everything*_ that occurred. Nothing like it could have occurred without him.
> 
> This is what I was thinking as I listened to the president’s defense lawyers make their petty arguments.
> 
> ***
> 
> In another key moment, Senator Bernie Sanders asked if Mr. Trump had actually won the election. Impeachment manager Stacey Plaskett said it was clear Mr. Trump had lost the election, but van der Veen dodged, saying "in my judgment ... Who asked that?" Sanders answered "I did" and van der Veen responded "my judgment is irrelevant."
> 
> Sanders then said from his desk: "You represent the president of the United States!"
Click to expand...

  If you are a Trump toadie, and you still support this piece of stinking garbage after these new revelations, you stink more than Trump. It says more about how pathetic you are than the garbage you voted for.

Trump had no intention in calling off the rioters. Damn him to hell.


----------



## BWK

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> Too much evidence against Trump. He's guilty as hell. What was especially striking, is the fact that the defense was complaining about a lack of evidence, yet, when Raskin invited Trump to testify to clear his name, the lawyers said no. LOl! The prosecution reserves the right to present their evidence in the absence of the very witness that can supply the evidence. Trump and his dunce team of lawyers gave themselves away;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's so much evidence, why did the impeachment managers resort to using falsified evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no falsified evidence. That's something you made up in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The impeachment managers used an edited video as their number one piece of evidence: the "goods" as they called it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Edited video?" You mean added video not see before don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I mean edited video.  The impeachment managers introduced false evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proven it to be false. We are waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's sad, but predictable that you don't know this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact Check: Was Impeachment Video Edited to Remove Trump's Call For Peace?
> 
> 
> Former President Donald Trump's highly anticipated second impeachment trial began on Tuesday, just a little more than a month following the riot at the U.S. Capitol Building during Congress' certification of the 2020 election results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOl! The defense said Trump mentioned peace one time, and fight twenty times. The defense isn't hiding that. They don't need to. Trumps own rhetoric to fight twenty times, never give up, never concede, then never stopping the riot, is indisputable evidence of an insurrection to riot as terrorists, and that's what they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They edited the video.  You must now admit the impeachment managers lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “_They edited the video.  You must now admit the impeachment managers lied._”
> 
> Typical stupidity. No lying here at all. The video in question, the main video shown over and over again by the House Managers, was just over _13 minutes long _and featured mostly scenes of the riot itself, including violent mob scenes not before made public. It was overwhelmingly *not *about Trump’s speech at all. Trump’s speech was _around an hour long_, so it was _*obvious to all *_that the parts about his speech were edited — and only there to give a flavor for what he had been saying generally and how the crowd subsequently reacted.
> 
> Moreover, the House Managers discussed numerous times Trump’s many months of false claims and incitements, his more recent outrageous conduct and nonsense claims after he lost.
> 
> They also *explicitly* discussed his tweets that eventually called for his violent thugs to “_remain_ peaceful.”
> 
> Of course they were already anything but peaceful by that time and Trump knew it. Trump masterfully brought this particular crowd together in order to break up the reading of the already confirmed electoral votes, which is what they accomplished. Trump was all along trying to stay in power _by any means. _Jan. 6th was just his final absurd and dangerous throw of the dice.
> 
> Trump was the singular individual responsible for the deaths that occurred. For _*everything*_ that occurred. Nothing like it could have occurred without him.
> 
> This is what I was thinking as I listened to the president’s defense lawyers make their petty arguments.
> 
> ***
> 
> In another key moment, Senator Bernie Sanders asked if Mr. Trump had actually won the election. Impeachment manager Stacey Plaskett said it was clear Mr. Trump had lost the election, but van der Veen dodged, saying "in my judgment ... Who asked that?" Sanders answered "I did" and van der Veen responded "my judgment is irrelevant."
> 
> Sanders then said from his desk: "You represent the president of the United States!"
Click to expand...

He manufactured that lie out of thin air. These folks are beyond pathetic.


----------



## BWK

I told you this coward Kelsoe would run out of gas, because gas is all he had.


----------



## BWK

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> Too much evidence against Trump. He's guilty as hell. What was especially striking, is the fact that the defense was complaining about a lack of evidence, yet, when Raskin invited Trump to testify to clear his name, the lawyers said no. LOl! The prosecution reserves the right to present their evidence in the absence of the very witness that can supply the evidence. Trump and his dunce team of lawyers gave themselves away;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's so much evidence, why did the impeachment managers resort to using falsified evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no falsified evidence. That's something you made up in your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The impeachment managers used an edited video as their number one piece of evidence: the "goods" as they called it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Edited video?" You mean added video not see before don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I mean edited video.  The impeachment managers introduced false evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't proven it to be false. We are waiting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's sad, but predictable that you don't know this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact Check: Was Impeachment Video Edited to Remove Trump's Call For Peace?
> 
> 
> Former President Donald Trump's highly anticipated second impeachment trial began on Tuesday, just a little more than a month following the riot at the U.S. Capitol Building during Congress' certification of the 2020 election results.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOl! The defense said Trump mentioned peace one time, and fight twenty times. The defense isn't hiding that. They don't need to. Trumps own rhetoric to fight twenty times, never give up, never concede, then never stopping the riot, is indisputable evidence of an insurrection to riot as terrorists, and that's what they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They edited the video.  You must now admit the impeachment managers lied.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “_They edited the video.  You must now admit the impeachment managers lied._”
> 
> Typical stupidity. No lying here at all. The video in question, the main video shown over and over again by the House Managers, was just over _13 minutes long _and featured mostly scenes of the riot itself, including violent mob scenes not before made public. It was overwhelmingly *not *about Trump’s speech at all. Trump’s speech was _around an hour long_, so it was _*obvious to all  *_that the parts about his speech were edited — and only there to give a flavor for what he had been saying generally and how the crowd subsequently reacted.
> 
> Moreover, the House Managers discussed numerous times Trump’s many months of false claims and incitements, his more recent outrageous conduct and nonsense claims after he lost.
> 
> They also *explicitly* discussed his tweets that eventually called for his violent thugs to “_remain_ peaceful.”
> 
> Of course they were already anything but peaceful by that time and Trump knew it. Trump masterfully brought this particular crowd together in order to break up the reading of the already confirmed electoral votes, which is what they accomplished. Trump was all along trying to stay in power _by any means. _Jan. 6th was just his final absurd and dangerous throw of the dice.
> 
> Trump was the singular individual responsible for the deaths that occurred. For _*everything*_ that occurred. Nothing like it could have occurred without him.
> 
> This is what I was thinking as I listened to the president’s defense lawyers make their petty arguments.
> 
> ***
> 
> In another key moment, Senator Bernie Sanders asked if Mr. Trump had actually won the election. Impeachment manager Stacey Plaskett said it was clear Mr. Trump had lost the election, but van der Veen dodged, saying "in my judgment ... Who asked that?" Sanders answered "I did" and van der Veen responded "my judgment is irrelevant."
> 
> Sanders then said from his desk: "You represent the president of the United States!"
Click to expand...

I can't even say that their arguments rose to the level of weak. More like ridiculous with no merit.


----------



## lantern2814

Tumblin Tumbleweed said:


> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we have better things to do than listen to what is a foregone conclusion. Meaning that you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it your political cult that lost? You sound like a salty loser projecting his insecurities upon everybody else. What else is new?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You stupid fuck. This case is a foregone conclusion. You’ve already lost. Seems like you’re an idiot. Nothing new there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, pipe down you moron. You're embarrassing yourself.
Click to expand...

Are you naturally this stupid? This case is a foregone conclusion you moron. Trump will be exonerated again and you’ll  throw a hissyfit. Again. Seems you’re the he embarrassment thinking this isn’t already decided. Now STFU asshole.


----------



## lantern2814

BWK said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> Too much evidence against Trump. He's guilty as hell. What was especially striking, is the fact that the defense was complaining about a lack of evidence, yet, when Raskin invited Trump to testify to clear his name, the lawyers said no. LOl! The prosecution reserves the right to present their evidence in the absence of the very witness that can supply the evidence. Trump and his dunce team of lawyers gave themselves away;
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there's so much evidence, why did the impeachment managers resort to using falsified evidence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There was no falsified evidence. That's something you made up in your head.
Click to expand...

Wrong asshole. You forget Mike Lee called you assholes out right there for falsifying  evidence and those morons had to admit they did and withdrew it. In the real world that mean so automatic acquittal. Moron.


----------



## lantern2814

BWK said:


> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we have better things to do than listen to what is a foregone conclusion. Meaning that you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it your political cult that lost? You sound like a salty loser projecting his insecurities upon everybody else. What else is new?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You stupid fuck. This case is a foregone conclusion. You’ve already lost. Seems like you’re an idiot. Nothing new there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This trial isn't about losing. It's about exposing the traitors to this country within the GOP. We have confirmed who they are. It was always known they wouldn't convict. But now they were brought out into the open. That's what was won. They will be labeled forever.
Click to expand...

The only ones labeled are the Dem idiots who falsified evidence, showed edited videos and generally made asses of themselves on national television. So of course you love them.


----------



## lantern2814

Tumblin Tumbleweed said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we have better things to do than listen to what is a foregone conclusion. Meaning that you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it your political cult that lost? You sound like a salty loser projecting his insecurities upon everybody else. What else is new?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You stupid fuck. This case is a foregone conclusion. You’ve already lost. Seems like you’re an idiot. Nothing new there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This trial isn't about losing. It's about exposing the traitors to this country within the GOP. We have confirmed who they are. It was always known they wouldn't convict. But now they were brought out into the open. That's what was won. They will be labeled forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exposing traitors by violating the Constitution?  All that does is expose the stupidity of the Leftists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you don't call them 'traitors' at all, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You call them traitors because you disagree with their politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I call them traitors because they were incited into an insurrection of our nation's Capitol building over butthurt due to losing a fair election and causing vandalism, violence and even death. All because they couldn't deal with the result of a legit election. Here's a middle finger in your face.
> 
> The only thing this election result shows this far is that most of us 'real Americans' don't like you Cult45 pissants very much. So, kindly, with as much *unity *as I can stomach, *go fuck yourselves*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you saying that during the George Floyd riots last year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whataboutism. The only tool in a Cult45 c*nt's toolbox. When do you people break through your political conditioning enough to process reality? *Hey genius*: we're talking about your shitty excuse of a *pResident you support inciting an equally shitty, loser, Insurrection on the Capitol.
> 
> Try to keep up.
Click to expand...


HEY  uneducated fucking inbred retard, your lies are pathetic. Just like you. Sorry asshole, you morons supported killing cops, burning and looting buildings and riots all year. So YOU can go fuck yourself with a serrated dildo. Reality? You’re a pussy who hides in mommy’s basement. So here’s the only response you fuckwads deserve.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> nope, you are wrong again.
> 
> I am blaming Trump for assembling a mob to stop the steal by fighting. The next few hours presented the last chance to put Trump in the White House with that stirred up mob being the only way to stop the steal




He did not call for a mob, but for a protest. That you have to overstate your case, to support your argument, hell that you know you need to do that, shows that you know you are wrong.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not respecting the peaceful transfer of power either. I do not consider BIden's election to be legitimate nor do I consider him to be a legitimate President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you don’t have to. who cares. 70% of Americans do not agree. And that includes the highest ranking Republican in the nation Mitch McConnel. The entire judicial system, and Vladimir Putin and the rest of the world’s leaders. The US military too. And my dog. The world does not care that you are stupid. Just don’t join a fucking insurrection and try to overturn Biden’s win. Something Q-ish us coming March 4 .   We only care that you don’t do any violent stuff like that.
> 
> Now that Trump is a civilian if he thinks the election was stolen he should be suing who he thinks stole it from him.
> 
> You can thank me some day when you realize (like theQAnon Shaman) what a duped fool you’ve been staying loyal to that incompetent lying insurrectionist fascist jackass.
Click to expand...



You are a fool if you think this is about Trump.


----------



## Correll

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point is, that if you liked the old rules so much, you should not have thrown them out the window....
> 
> I am not respecting the peaceful transfer of power either.
> 
> 
> 
> Who changed the old rules?
> 
> These same rules have been around for generations!
> 
> Big money in politics, corporate corruption, these were there since the Gilded Age! The Military Industrial Complex has been there from WWII at least! We had more and more successful elite “manufacturing of consent” in the past than we do today!
> ....
Click to expand...



Ok, you talk of "manufacturing consent" which is a valid point, but then your supporting arguments seem to be mostly points about past issues, NOT how the consent was "manufactured". Off topic. And perhaps chosen for emotional impact, not rational discussion.


Yes, but you people have crossed a line.


When you lost the last election, and then refused to abide by the rules, thus ruining our "turn", that destroyed the system.


If even when we win, we don't get to win, then the game is no longer really a contest, but just a scam to keep the rubes from rebelling.


----------



## Mac1958

BWK said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BWK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tumblin Tumbleweed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.
> 
> 
> 
> No, we have better things to do than listen to what is a foregone conclusion. Meaning that you lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't it your political cult that lost? You sound like a salty loser projecting his insecurities upon everybody else. What else is new?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You stupid fuck. This case is a foregone conclusion. You’ve already lost. Seems like you’re an idiot. Nothing new there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This trial isn't about losing. It's about exposing the traitors to this country within the GOP. We have confirmed who they are. It was always known they wouldn't convict. But now they were brought out into the open. That's what was won. They will be labeled forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exposing traitors by violating the Constitution?  All that does is expose the stupidity of the Leftists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you don't call them 'traitors' at all, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You call them traitors because you disagree with their politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I call them traitors because they were incited into an insurrection of our nation's Capitol building over butthurt due to losing a fair election and causing vandalism, violence and even death. All because they couldn't deal with the result of a legit election. Here's a middle finger in your face.
> 
> The only thing this election result shows this far is that most of us 'real Americans' don't like you Cult45 pissants very much. So, kindly, with as much *unity *as I can stomach, *go fuck yourselves*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you saying that during the George Floyd riots last year?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your whataboutism is for cowards. Try something better. The protesters for George Floyd didn't kill five people at the Capitol.
Click to expand...

It's all they have.  They're programmed to flatly deny and change the subject when their back is against the wall.

What happened is obvious and documented.  All they can do is deny, change the subject, and try to put you on the defensive.


----------



## georgephillip

BWK said:


> The Right said this was a joke. They were right. It was a joke on them, and it was revealing. The evidence was overwhelming and they know it. And they also know they had to run like the cowards they are by not letting Trump testify. He would have buried himself.


Imho. Trump has re-proven something fundamental to American character, namely a nation in which "machines and computers, profit motives and property rights" take precedence over people invites something similar to spiritual death.





One year to the day before his murder King mused that "the world now demands a maturity of America that we many not be able to achieve."

I suspect he was right about that part too.

FEBRUARY 12, 2021
*When Poisons Curdle: Beyond Donald Trump*
BY ANDREW BACEVICH


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

I could hardly believe my ears when I listened to Trump’s attorney Bruce Castor argue that because there was pre-planning by violent rightwing  and white supremacy groups involved as attested by the FBI — this proved Trump didn’t instigate or wasn’t responsible for the mob’s actions.

_“To claim that the president in any way wished, desired or encouraged lawless or violent behavior is a preposterous and monstrous lie," Castor said.

He called the rioters who broke into the Capitol a "small group looking to engage in violent and menacing behavior" who "hijacked the event for their own purposes." Castor said the rioters were from varying political factions, who "pre-planned" the Capitol attack, asserting that the first person to be arrested was a "member of Antifa."

"You can't incite something that was already going to happen," Castor said._

Impeachment trial ends for day after defense rests, Q&A session

But of course without this lame duck president’s incitement and constant lying Jan. 6th could never have happened. What _did_ _happen_ — the disruption of the reading of the confirmed electoral votes making Joe Biden President, is exactly what Trump wanted. Trump’s only regret is that Pence, the military high command and many other men and women of principle _did not allow him to get away with his final scam_ — one that would have proven fatal to our Republic and democratic traditions.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Just watched Representative Jamie Ruskin’s summary.

To me, his indictment is logical, powerful, and irrefutable.

He started slowly. I suppose Ruskin was exhausted. Many of us know his son died just a week or so ago. But the man, a Constitutional lawyer as well as a Congressman, rallied to the challenge. He became more and more eloquent. He spoke fluently and — to me — very movingly about what was at stake.

I haven’t yet seen a less “staged” or more competent attack on Trump’s criminal & treasonous conduct.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Just watched Representative Jamie Ruskin’s summary.
> 
> To me, his indictment is logical, powerful, and irrefutable.
> 
> He started slowly. I suppose Ruskin was exhausted. Many of us know his son died just a week or so ago. But the man, a Constitutional lawyer as well as a Congressman, rallied to the challenge. He became more and more eloquent. He spoke fluently and — to me — very movingly about what was at stake.
> 
> I haven’t yet seen a less “staged” or more competent attack on Trump’s criminal & treasonous conduct.



That doesn't change the fact that this impeachment trial is unconstitutional.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just watched Representative Jamie Ruskin’s summary.
> 
> To me, his indictment is logical, powerful, and irrefutable.
> 
> He started slowly. I suppose Ruskin was exhausted. Many of us know his son died just a week or so ago. But the man, a Constitutional lawyer as well as a Congressman, rallied to the challenge. He became more and more eloquent. He spoke fluently and — to me — very movingly about what was at stake.
> 
> I haven’t yet seen a less “staged” or more competent attack on Trump’s criminal & treasonous conduct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that this impeachment trial is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...


The Senate already ruled in a bipartisan vote that the impeachment trial is Constitutional.

Both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have agreed on the procedures, witnesses and voting.

The ex-President was invited to appear at the very Capitol his violent supporters attacked, to defend himself before the Republican and Democratic Congressman they were hunting. The coward gave no reason for refusing to appear to face formal charges of inciting the mob that wished to prevent the peaceful transference of power to President Biden. Apparently Trump was afraid of being made a fool of, of breaking down into gibberish under cross examination, or of sounding maniacally irrational as he did in his first debate with Biden.

Perhaps one day you will be able to save up and buy a ticket to Mar-a-Largo,  where (for money) you will be able to hear Trump recite the “History Will Resolve Me” speech he didn’t have the courage to give today.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just watched Representative Jamie Ruskin’s summary.
> 
> To me, his indictment is logical, powerful, and irrefutable.
> 
> He started slowly. I suppose Ruskin was exhausted. Many of us know his son died just a week or so ago. But the man, a Constitutional lawyer as well as a Congressman, rallied to the challenge. He became more and more eloquent. He spoke fluently and — to me — very movingly about what was at stake.
> 
> I haven’t yet seen a less “staged” or more competent attack on Trump’s criminal & treasonous conduct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that this impeachment trial is unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The Senate already ruled in a bipartisan vote that the impeachment trial is Constitutional.*
> 
> Both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have agreed on the procedures, witnesses and voting.
> 
> The ex-President was invited to appear at the very Capitol his violent supporters attacked, to defend himself before the Republican and Democratic Congressman they were hunting. The coward gave no reason for refusing to appear to face formal charges of inciting the mob that wished to prevent the peaceful transference of power to President Biden. Apparently Trump was afraid of being made a fool of, of breaking down into gibberish under cross examination, or of sounding manically irrational as he did in his first debate with Biden.
> 
> Perhaps one day you will be able to save up and buy a ticket to Mar-a-Largo,  where (for money) you will be able to hear Trump recite the “History Will Resolve Me” speech he didn’t have the courage to give today.
Click to expand...


The Senate doesn't have the power to decide what is, or isn't constitutional.  Only the Judicial Branch has that power.


----------



## lantern2814

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just watched Representative Jamie Ruskin’s summary.
> 
> To me, his indictment is logical, powerful, and irrefutable.
> 
> He started slowly. I suppose Ruskin was exhausted. Many of us know his son died just a week or so ago. But the man, a Constitutional lawyer as well as a Congressman, rallied to the challenge. He became more and more eloquent. He spoke fluently and — to me — very movingly about what was at stake.
> 
> I haven’t yet seen a less “staged” or more competent attack on Trump’s criminal & treasonous conduct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that this impeachment trial is unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Senate already ruled in a bipartisan vote that the impeachment trial is Constitutional.
> 
> Both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have agreed on the procedures, witnesses and voting.
> 
> The ex-President was invited to appear at the very Capitol his violent supporters attacked, to defend himself before the Republican and Democratic Congressman they were hunting. The coward gave no reason for refusing to appear to face formal charges of inciting the mob that wished to prevent the peaceful transference of power to President Biden. Apparently Trump was afraid of being made a fool of, of breaking down into gibberish under cross examination, or of sounding maniacally irrational as he did in his first debate with Biden.
> 
> Perhaps one day you will be able to save up and buy a ticket to Mar-a-Largo,  where (for money) you will be able to hear Trump recite the “History Will Resolve Me” speech he didn’t have the courage to give today.
Click to expand...

Hey dummy, try getting an education. The Senate can NOT declare anything constitutional. That would be be decided by SCOTUS. Trump a coward? Laughable. You assholes had no case. No reason for him to appear and lend any legitimacy to your clown show. Seems your side went full coward once the threat was made to put Pisslosi and other Dem riot encourager seems on the stand. Now go enjoy your cry at Trump’s full ACQUITTAL.


----------



## Flopper

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I could hardly believe my ears when I listened to Trump’s attorney Bruce Castor argue that because there was pre-planning by violent rightwing  and white supremacy groups involved as attested by the FBI — this proved Trump didn’t instigate or wasn’t responsible for the mob’s actions.
> 
> _“To claim that the president in any way wished, desired or encouraged lawless or violent behavior is a preposterous and monstrous lie," Castor said.
> 
> He called the rioters who broke into the Capitol a "small group looking to engage in violent and menacing behavior" who "hijacked the event for their own purposes." Castor said the rioters were from varying political factions, who "pre-planned" the Capitol attack, asserting that the first person to be arrested was a "member of Antifa."
> 
> "You can't incite something that was already going to happen," Castor said._
> 
> Impeachment trial ends for day after defense rests, Q&A session
> 
> But of course without this lame duck president’s incitement and constant lying Jan. 6th could never have happened. What _did_ _happen_ — the disruption of the reading of the confirmed electoral votes making Joe Biden President, is exactly what Trump wanted. Trump’s only regret is that Pence, the military high command and many other men and women of principle _did not allow him to get away with his final scam_ — one that would have proven fatal to our Republic and democratic traditions.


In most of the world, Trump would be facing a firing squad


----------



## Dr Grump

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.



I think you have chosen one of the fundamental differences between the US and a lot of other countries - to much partisanship.

The other thing I would say , and the loons on the right on here (and I do mean the loons, not the normal righties) would vehemently disagree on, is that if Trump had been a Democrat, then a lot more on the left would have turned on him. People think I'm a full on leftie. I'm not. But if a Democrat had done what Trump had done I hope the senate would have thrown the book at them, too...


----------



## Faun

lantern2814 said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just watched Representative Jamie Ruskin’s summary.
> 
> To me, his indictment is logical, powerful, and irrefutable.
> 
> He started slowly. I suppose Ruskin was exhausted. Many of us know his son died just a week or so ago. But the man, a Constitutional lawyer as well as a Congressman, rallied to the challenge. He became more and more eloquent. He spoke fluently and — to me — very movingly about what was at stake.
> 
> I haven’t yet seen a less “staged” or more competent attack on Trump’s criminal & treasonous conduct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that this impeachment trial is unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Senate already ruled in a bipartisan vote that the impeachment trial is Constitutional.
> 
> Both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have agreed on the procedures, witnesses and voting.
> 
> The ex-President was invited to appear at the very Capitol his violent supporters attacked, to defend himself before the Republican and Democratic Congressman they were hunting. The coward gave no reason for refusing to appear to face formal charges of inciting the mob that wished to prevent the peaceful transference of power to President Biden. Apparently Trump was afraid of being made a fool of, of breaking down into gibberish under cross examination, or of sounding maniacally irrational as he did in his first debate with Biden.
> 
> Perhaps one day you will be able to save up and buy a ticket to Mar-a-Largo,  where (for money) you will be able to hear Trump recite the “History Will Resolve Me” speech he didn’t have the courage to give today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dummy, try getting an education. The Senate can NOT declare anything constitutional. That would be be decided by SCOTUS. Trump a coward? Laughable. You assholes had no case. No reason for him to appear and lend any legitimacy to your clown show. Seems your side went full coward once the threat was made to put Pisslosi and other Dem riot encourager seems on the stand. Now go enjoy your cry at Trump’s full ACQUITTAL.
Click to expand...

You have that backwards... it's Constitutional unless the Judiciary says it isn't.


----------



## Turtlesoup

georgephillip said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think yours is a very perceptive comment, and a warning to us all. The fact that sufficient numbers of Republican Senators apparently aren’t willing even now to convict ... is also a very ominous development. Not surprising, but ominous.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm wondering how many of the 74 million voters who supported Trump are still with him? Fifty million is a number I've heard mentioned a few times. Perhaps Trump will divide the Republican Party into a pair of warring faction by November 2022?
Click to expand...

100 million or more now easily.........


----------



## Faun

Turtlesoup said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think yours is a very perceptive comment, and a warning to us all. The fact that sufficient numbers of Republican Senators apparently aren’t willing even now to convict ... is also a very ominous development. Not surprising, but ominous.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm wondering how many of the 74 million voters who supported Trump are still with him? Fifty million is a number I've heard mentioned a few times. Perhaps Trump will divide the Republican Party into a pair of warring faction by November 2022?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 100 million or more now easily.........
Click to expand...

Pales in comparison to Biden's 150 million.


----------



## georgephillip

Turtlesoup said:


> 100 million or more now easily.........


*You think inciting insurrection has increased Don the Con's approval ratings?*

How we know the drop in Trump’s approval rating in January reflected a real shift in public opinion

*"Donald Trump’s final job approval rating as president was 29% in a Pew Research Center poll released last week, the lowest of his presidency and a 9 percentage point drop since August, when 38% of U.S. adults approved. *

"The decrease stood out because even some of the momentous events of the past four years did not affect Trump’s approval rating very much."


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Turtlesoup said:


> 100 million or more now easily.....



...and only 1000 of them were patriotic and brave enough to storm the Capitol on January 6th to save America by “Stopping the Steal’ like TrumpQ asked.

One , thousand could not get it done / but millions of you getting wild could have. So where were you and all the other 98,999,999 wild TrumpQ storm troopers on January 6th?

All talk and no action - The Donald is truly disappointed in you for sure.

You didn’t help stop the steal.


----------



## Dr Grump

lantern2814 said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just watched Representative Jamie Ruskin’s summary.
> 
> To me, his indictment is logical, powerful, and irrefutable.
> 
> He started slowly. I suppose Ruskin was exhausted. Many of us know his son died just a week or so ago. But the man, a Constitutional lawyer as well as a Congressman, rallied to the challenge. He became more and more eloquent. He spoke fluently and — to me — very movingly about what was at stake.
> 
> I haven’t yet seen a less “staged” or more competent attack on Trump’s criminal & treasonous conduct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that this impeachment trial is unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Senate already ruled in a bipartisan vote that the impeachment trial is Constitutional.
> 
> Both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have agreed on the procedures, witnesses and voting.
> 
> The ex-President was invited to appear at the very Capitol his violent supporters attacked, to defend himself before the Republican and Democratic Congressman they were hunting. The coward gave no reason for refusing to appear to face formal charges of inciting the mob that wished to prevent the peaceful transference of power to President Biden. Apparently Trump was afraid of being made a fool of, of breaking down into gibberish under cross examination, or of sounding maniacally irrational as he did in his first debate with Biden.
> 
> Perhaps one day you will be able to save up and buy a ticket to Mar-a-Largo,  where (for money) you will be able to hear Trump recite the “History Will Resolve Me” speech he didn’t have the courage to give today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dummy, try getting an education. The Senate can NOT declare anything constitutional. That would be be decided by SCOTUS. Trump a coward? Laughable. You assholes had no case. No reason for him to appear and lend any legitimacy to your clown show. Seems your side went full coward once the threat was made to put Pisslosi and other Dem riot encourager seems on the stand. Now go enjoy your cry at Trump’s full ACQUITTAL.
Click to expand...

Full acquittal? 100 Senators voted against impeachment? Methinks you need to look up the word 'full'. I'm not even going to bring up the GOP Senators who voted FOR impeachment.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Polishprince said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any EVIDENCE or TESTIMONY being given in the trial, or only "arguments"?
> 
> Arguments are fine in their place, I guess.
> 
> But unless the Persecution actually presents evidence , how can even a lib assert that guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt?
Click to expand...

What the House Managers (AKA Prosecutors) put forward were essentially what would be called opening arguments in a real court.  All verbiage not supported by testimony or facts put into evidence.


----------



## AZrailwhale

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Just watched Representative Jamie Ruskin’s summary.
> 
> To me, his indictment is logical, powerful, and irrefutable.
> 
> He started slowly. I suppose Ruskin was exhausted. Many of us know his son died just a week or so ago. But the man, a Constitutional lawyer as well as a Congressman, rallied to the challenge. He became more and more eloquent. He spoke fluently and — to me — very movingly about what was at stake.
> 
> I haven’t yet seen a less “staged” or more competent attack on Trump’s criminal & treasonous conduct.


While he may have made a "logical, powerful and irrefutable" indictment, he had no proof of anything he argued that Trump did.  He was no more than a talking head news presenter or actor.  They get paid to convincingly present "logical, powerful and irrefutable" statements without proof.  Burt Lancaster, John Wayne or Harrison Ford could easily have stood there and done as well, after all, unsupported verbiage is the stock in trade of both lawyers and actors.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

AZrailwhale said:


> All verbiage not supported by testimony or facts put into evidence.



The the House managers put forward the insurrection videos. TrumpQ’s words from speeches was evidence. We all saw the evidence on TV as it happened.

No shortage of evidence. Just a shortage of backbone and honesty from the Republican senators. The house managers got seven of them.
Before Trump there’s never been an impeached president that was convicted a member or members by his own party. Trump now has eight from his party voting to convict him. That’s something.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

AZrailwhale said:


> unsupported verbiage



The verbiage was highly supported by everything that was presented. Timelines, trumps words, the mob ransacking the capital.  WTF do you think that was?  The problem is that  all but maybe 10 of the Republican senators would perform fellatio on Trump on camera and be proud about if the TrumpQ cult demands it.


----------



## Correll

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I could hardly believe my ears when I listened to Trump’s attorney Bruce Castor argue that because there was pre-planning by violent rightwing  and white supremacy groups involved as attested by the FBI — this proved Trump didn’t instigate or wasn’t responsible for the mob’s actions.
> 
> _“To claim that the president in any way wished, desired or encouraged lawless or violent behavior is a preposterous and monstrous lie," Castor said.
> 
> He called the rioters who broke into the Capitol a "small group looking to engage in violent and menacing behavior" who "hijacked the event for their own purposes." Castor said the rioters were from varying political factions, who "pre-planned" the Capitol attack, asserting that the first person to be arrested was a "member of Antifa."
> 
> "You can't incite something that was already going to happen," Castor said._
> 
> Impeachment trial ends for day after defense rests, Q&A session
> 
> But of course without this lame duck president’s incitement and constant lying Jan. 6th could never have happened. What _did_ _happen_ — the disruption of the reading of the confirmed electoral votes making Joe Biden President, is exactly what Trump wanted. Trump’s only regret is that Pence, the military high command and many other men and women of principle _did not allow him to get away with his final scam_ — one that would have proven fatal to our Republic and democratic traditions.




Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress. 

That some people were able to use that to spark a riot, is on those people that did that. 


That they could not use the demonstration to spark a riot, if there was not a demonstration, while technically true, does not put the responsibility for their actions on anyone other than themselves.


Your desire to hold the President responsible for the actions of other people, is you showing that you are willing to make up shit to justify jailing your political enemies.


----------



## Correll

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Just watched Representative Jamie Ruskin’s summary.
> 
> To me, his indictment is logical, powerful, and irrefutable.
> 
> He started slowly. I suppose Ruskin was exhausted. Many of us know his son died just a week or so ago. But the man, a Constitutional lawyer as well as a Congressman, rallied to the challenge. He became more and more eloquent. He spoke fluently and — to me — very movingly about what was at stake.
> 
> I haven’t yet seen a less “staged” or more competent attack on Trump’s criminal & treasonous conduct.




Trump was the voice of the people. That you were so offended by his representing us, that you torn this nation apart, 



is your being a traitor.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> unsupported verbiage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The verbiage was highly supported by everything that was presented. Timelines, trumps words, the mob ransacking the capital.  WTF do you think that was?  The problem is that  all but maybe 10 of the Republican senators would perform fellatio on Trump on camera and be proud about if the TrumpQ cult demands it.
Click to expand...



It was one small riot, that pales in comparison to the last 5 years of your people's insurrection.


----------



## Polishprince

NotfooledbyW said:


> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> unsupported verbiage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The verbiage was highly supported by everything that was presented. Timelines, trumps words, the mob ransacking the capital.  WTF do you think that was?  The problem is that  all but maybe 10 of the Republican senators would perform fellatio on Trump on camera and be proud about if the TrumpQ cult demands it.
Click to expand...


Trump's usage of the word "fight" is consistent with ordinary, peaceful political rhetoric.

It isn't "proof" of anything".    No connections were drawn between Donald J Trump and the Viking guy or anyone else.

There were just "arguments" , the case wasn't rigorously proven at all.  More than reasonable doubt and alternative explanations for everything that happened.   And calling the event at the Capitol an "insurrection" was just plain inflammatory.   The broad that was murdered by the capitol police was un armed.


----------



## Correll

Polishprince said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AZrailwhale said:
> 
> 
> 
> unsupported verbiage
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The verbiage was highly supported by everything that was presented. Timelines, trumps words, the mob ransacking the capital.  WTF do you think that was?  The problem is that  all but maybe 10 of the Republican senators would perform fellatio on Trump on camera and be proud about if the TrumpQ cult demands it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump's usage of the word "fight" is consistent with ordinary, peaceful political rhetoric.
> 
> It isn't "proof" of anything".    No connections were drawn between Donald J Trump and the Viking guy or anyone else.
> 
> There were just "arguments" , the case wasn't rigorously proven at all.  More than reasonable doubt and alternative explanations for everything that happened.   And calling the event at the Capitol an "insurrection" was just plain inflammatory.   The broad that was murdered by the capitol police was un armed.
Click to expand...



Libs know that. THey are just terrified that Trump will run again. 


Makes you wonder what they know that tehy are not admitting.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> 5 years of your people's insurrection.



Your racism is out of control. ‘My people’  never storm trooped the United States Capitol to demand that US Congressional POWER be used to toss out the votes of white rural voters in several states that a Democrat presidential candidate lost. All done in order to overturn an election and refuse the inauguration of a Republican  presidential candidate who won legitimately. 

You have become one of the most ignorant posters on this message board.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Libs know that. THey are just terrified that Trump will run again.



Send Trump all your money. Sign your freaking house over to him. Beg for him to run again. Please please please keep Trump on top of the lunatic fringe and the conservative movement.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 5 years of your people's insurrection.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your racism is out of control. ‘My people’  never storm trooped the United States Capitol to demand that US Congressional POWER be used to toss out the votes of white rural voters in several states that a Democrat presidential candidate lost. All done in order to overturn an election and refuse the inauguration of a Republican  presidential candidate who won legitimately.
> 
> You have become one of the most ignorant posters on this message board.
Click to expand...



Wacism? What are you talking about? I've referring to the riots of BLM and Antifa, supported by the Democratic Party. 


All races are represented in that collection of criminals and my condemnation was based on their violent actions, not their skin color. 


FUck you. YOu wace baiting asshole.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> All races are represented in that collection of criminals and my condemnation was based on their violent actions, not their skin color.



You can surely hate white people that turn their back on your white supremacy agenda to support social justice for all Americans,  can’t you?

BLM condemns violence too. BLM is not a criminal organization and you have no right to libel them as such. You are a liar and I’m convinced it can only be explained as the result of your racism.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> All races are represented in that collection of criminals and my condemnation was based on their violent actions, not their skin color.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can surely hate white people that turn their back on your white supremacy agenda to support social justice for all Americans,  can’t you?
> 
> BLM condemns violence too. BLM is not a criminal organization and you have no right to libel them as such. You are a liar and I’m convinced it can only be explained as the result of your racism.
Click to expand...



Fucktard. My agenda is America Nationalism and Exceptionalism. 


You can shove your wace baiting up your ass. 


Fuck social justice. I support Individual rights, and ACTUAL JUSTICE. 


BLM is a criminal organization and marxist. They have engaged in far more violence and rioting and "insurrection" than the little dust up at dc.


That the FBI has not infiltrated teh fuck out of them and arrested them all, is probably due to dem party interference.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> BLM is a criminal organization and marxist. They have engaged in far more violence and rioting and "insurrection" than the little dust up at dc.



Ok racist, if you say so.

The assault on the Capitol was a racist attack on black voters in large cities with large minority populations that voted for Joe.


I made several points in my last few posts.

All you can say is BLM bad - TrumpQ white cult good. Whataboutism.

‘My people’ never storm trooped the United States Capitol to demand that US Congressional POWER be used to toss out the votes of white rural voters in several states that Democrat presidential candidate lost in order to overturn an election and refuse the inauguration I have a republican president.

Did ‘my people’ do that? Show me where and when.

Enough of your racism.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> BLM is a criminal organization and marxist. They have engaged in far more violence and rioting and "insurrection" than the little dust up at dc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok racist, if you say so.
> 
> The assault on the Capitol was a racist attack on black voters in large cities with large minority populations that voted for Joe.
> 
> 
> I made several points in my last few posts.
> 
> All you can say is BLM bad - TrumpQ white cult good. Whataboutism.
> 
> ‘My people’ never storm trooped the United States Capitol to demand that US Congressional POWER be used to toss out the votes of white rural voters in several states that Democrat presidential candidate lost in order to overturn an election and refuse the inauguration I have a republican president.
> 
> Did ‘my people’ do that? Show me where and when.
> 
> Enough of your racism.
Click to expand...



No, your people stormed thousands of small businesses and assaulted hundreds and killed dozens of people over several months in several cities with varying degrees of support from local democrat leaders.


As I said, worse than the small riot in dc.


AND I said for you to shove your wacism up your ass. Why have you not done so, wace baiter?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> My agenda is America Nationalism and Exceptionalism.



... under a fascist president where black voters in big cities have their votes thrown out if they vote for the other guy.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> My agenda is America Nationalism and Exceptionalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... under a fascist president where black voters in big cities have their votes thrown out if they vote for the other guy.
Click to expand...



You really got race on the brain, don't you?

I've said nothing about race and you keep thinking that I did....


Are you high, right now?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> As I said, worse than the small riot in dc.



Trump is directly responsible for the DC riot.

Just ask Mitch:

"There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it. The people that stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president," McConnell said. "And having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole, which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on the Earth," McConnell added.”
McConnell unloads on Trump: 'Morally responsible' for provoking mob

Now name one single Democrat official being responsible for the whatever riots you are blaming on a black social Justice movement.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I've said nothing about race and you keep thinking that I did....



You say BLM is a violent criminal organization. That is a lie. You lie because you are a racist.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> My agenda is America Nationalism and Exceptionalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... under a fascist president where black voters in big cities have their votes thrown out if they vote for the other guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really got race on the brain, don't you?
> 
> I've said nothing about race and you keep thinking that I did....
> 
> 
> Are you high, right now?
Click to expand...


Again, why can’t you respond to the point of the posts.

Throwing out black votes so Trump can win.

Why don’t you condemn what TrumpQ and his mob in DC tried to do.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, worse than the small riot in dc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is directly responsible for the DC riot.
> 
> Just ask Mitch:
> 
> "There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it. The people that stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president," McConnell said. "And having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole, which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on the Earth," McConnell added.”
> McConnell unloads on Trump: 'Morally responsible' for provoking mob
> 
> Now name one single Democrat official being responsible for the whatever riots you are blaming on a black social Justice movement.
Click to expand...



1. I don't give a damn about Mitch's opinion. 

2. I've been consist and clear that I condemn both blm and antifa for the violent riots of the last 5 years. As I have said, you can shove your wace baiting up your ass.

3. Fuck "social justice".

4. ONe example for discussion purposes? SUre. Ted Wheeler of Portland, who has ordered the police to stand down and let the rioters riot.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've said nothing about race and you keep thinking that I did....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say BLM is a violent criminal organization. That is a lie. You lie because you are a racist.
Click to expand...



BLM is a violent criminal organization. So is Antifa. 

You  are a wace baiting asshole. And a retard. ANd a faggot. 


See? I can call you names just as much as you call me names. More even. Cause I have a bigger vocabulary.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> My agenda is America Nationalism and Exceptionalism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... under a fascist president where black voters in big cities have their votes thrown out if they vote for the other guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You really got race on the brain, don't you?
> 
> I've said nothing about race and you keep thinking that I did....
> 
> 
> Are you high, right now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, why can’t you respond to the point of the posts.
> 
> Throwing out black votes so Trump can win.
> 
> Why don’t you condemn what TrumpQ and his mob in DC tried to do.
Click to expand...



Because your made up strawman has nothing to do with me or Trump. 

It is yours. I can see that you are proud of it. But it has nothing to do with me. Or Trump.


I respectfully reject your offer of joining you  in playing with it. It is all you.


AND I have repeatedly on this site, condemned all the political violence of the last 5 years. 


Do you? No, no you don't. You think saying "social justice" while you riot and loot and kill, somehow makes it ok.


----------



## Leo123

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.



Uh, no.   The Chief SCOTUS wouldn't preside because the 'impeachment' was unconstitutional.   Instead we got Patrick Leahy, witness, juror and now judge?  What a preposterous proposition.   Leahy Is NOT impartial in any way, shape or form.  He fell for the Trump-Russia hoax....

"On June 1, 2017, weeks after the firing of FBI Director James Comey, Leahy and Al Franken released a joint statement disclosing their prior request of Comey to investigate all contacts and communications Attorney General Sessions or his aides had with Russian government officials and raised the question of whether Sessions had committed perjury in his Senate testimony"

"In February 2018, Leahy was one of four senators to sign a letter to United States Secretary of Defense James Mattis requesting that the Pentagon estimate the cost of and time needed to assemble President Trump's requested military parade, calling the parade seemingly "inappropriate and wasteful" at a time of war."

You cry about keeping our Republic yet you agree with tearing it down by throwing Constitutional rules under the bus.  Nice going Skippy.









						Patrick Leahy - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Coyote said:


> I found Jamie Raskin compelling, and the video horrifying...and I can't get it out of my mind.



Raskin is horrifying by himself, and the reason you can't get it out of your mind is because there is nothing else there to crowd it!


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dogmaphobe said:
> 
> 
> 
> it says in the constitution that impeachment is to be considered as an action to remove a sitting president AND prevent them from further office. The second clause is dependant on the first.
> 
> It doesn't say OR prevent a person from further office.
> 
> This is all a fraudulent dog and pony show, as impeachment was never meant to be an action taken against a private citizen
> 
> 
> 
> Did you notice the "precedent" they used in the senate?
> William Belknap. Thats who. The guy that got impeached and the Senate voted they didnt have the jurisdiction to convict a removed public servant.
> You cant make this shit up
> William W. Belknap - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> From the very first paragraph of _you own_ link:
> 
> “Belknap's defense managers argued that the Senate had no jurisdiction; the Senate ruled by a vote of 37–29 that it did.”
> 
> You just “made your own shit up.” If you listened to the discussion you would perhaps have _learned_ something.
Click to expand...


First, Belknap was not the President.

Second, if it was Constitutional, why did Chief Justice Roberts refuse to try it?

Congress once said slaves were property, no matter if it was a free or slave state. Was that Constitutional.? They later changed their mind.  

Congress had no problem interring American citizens of Japanese ancestry in WWII. Was that Constitutional.? They later changed their mind.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I can call you names



But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.

Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost. 

Have they?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Borillar said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Schoen's argument boils down to "You should be indicting and convicting him in criminal court". He's not making any arguments about innocence.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. This impeachment trial is a waste of time. *The DOJ should be charging Trump with inciting an insurrection, sedition, and treason*. Let him face a jury not comprised of gutless Trumpublican fucktards.
Click to expand...


That is why you are a dumbass!


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

Dr Grump said:


> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just watched Representative Jamie Ruskin’s summary.
> 
> To me, his indictment is logical, powerful, and irrefutable.
> 
> He started slowly. I suppose Ruskin was exhausted. Many of us know his son died just a week or so ago. But the man, a Constitutional lawyer as well as a Congressman, rallied to the challenge. He became more and more eloquent. He spoke fluently and — to me — very movingly about what was at stake.
> 
> I haven’t yet seen a less “staged” or more competent attack on Trump’s criminal & treasonous conduct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that this impeachment trial is unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Senate already ruled in a bipartisan vote that the impeachment trial is Constitutional.
> 
> Both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have agreed on the procedures, witnesses and voting.
> 
> The ex-President was invited to appear at the very Capitol his violent supporters attacked, to defend himself before the Republican and Democratic Congressman they were hunting. The coward gave no reason for refusing to appear to face formal charges of inciting the mob that wished to prevent the peaceful transference of power to President Biden. Apparently Trump was afraid of being made a fool of, of breaking down into gibberish under cross examination, or of sounding maniacally irrational as he did in his first debate with Biden.
> 
> Perhaps one day you will be able to save up and buy a ticket to Mar-a-Largo,  where (for money) you will be able to hear Trump recite the “History Will Resolve Me” speech he didn’t have the courage to give today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dummy, try getting an education. The Senate can NOT declare anything constitutional. That would be be decided by SCOTUS. Trump a coward? Laughable. You assholes had no case. No reason for him to appear and lend any legitimacy to your clown show. Seems your side went full coward once the threat was made to put Pisslosi and other Dem riot encourager seems on the stand. Now go enjoy your cry at Trump’s full ACQUITTAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Full acquittal? 100 Senators voted against impeachment? Methinks you need to look up the word 'full'. I'm not even going to bring up the GOP Senators who voted FOR impeachment.
Click to expand...


There's conviction, or aquittal.  There's no "partial" applied to either.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
Click to expand...


Yes, they have...









						More than 200 arrested in D.C. protests on inauguration day
					

217 people were arrested and six police officers suffered minor injuries after some protesters set fires and smashed windows in the nation's capital.




					www.google.com


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

OldLady said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OldLady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like a show trial because it is a show trial.  The Congress has no authority to bar a private citizen from running for office.  This is most unconstitutional.  What's worse, is Plan B is to use the 14th Amendment, which would be even more unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th Amendment?  Are we going to take his citizenship away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They want to use Section 3 of the 14th Amendment:
> 
> "No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you, Bill!
> There's that 2/3 problem again, though.  Wonder if they can cut a backroom deal--okay, don't vote to convict, but agree to vote yes on the 14th.  We'll be friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It would still be unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's already been decided by the senate that the trial is constitutional.  Let's move on.  There are much more important matters to consider.
Click to expand...


The problem is and forever will be, they do NOT get to decide.  Roberts refusal to preside and the vote of not guilty saved the SCOTUS From having to smack down the Democrats in the Senate.


----------



## Staidhup

I imagine most Americans were thinking we elected this.......along with where’s the beef, and has anyone even read the Constitution?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

Correll said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since he's a private citizen and if someone thinks the evidence is strong enough, he should be brought before a grand jury.
> 
> 
> 
> *That is exactly what will happen AFTER his second impeachment "trial" finishes. *
> 
> Trump’s New Criminal Problem
> 
> "The federal criminal code (18 USC 373) makes it a crime to solicit, command, induce or 'endeavor to persuade' another person to commit a felony that includes the threat or use of physical force.
> 
> *"Simply put, it is a crime to persuade another person, or a mob of several thousand, to commit a violent felony."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good. I was worried you guys would wait until I was too old, before you kicked off the civil war.
> 
> Nice to see you are putting the pedal to the medal.
Click to expand...


The word is "metal", not "medal".


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Yes, they have...



That was random rioting in DC. I did not see where any of that violence was inside the US Capitol during Joint SESSION hell bent on stopping the certification of the States Electors.

“The worst fracas on Friday erupted in Franklin Square, about a mile-and-a-half from Capitol Hill, just before Trump's swearing-in ceremony got underway, police said​
And it was TrumpQ’s inauguration day. Two weeks after TumpQ was verified as President Elect.,

Neither Clinton nor Obama for her  claimed to have won because the electric was a fraud.

Police say rioters were anarchists.

Those are not Democrats.


Your post is a lie and you are a liar.


----------



## Dr Grump

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just watched Representative Jamie Ruskin’s summary.
> 
> To me, his indictment is logical, powerful, and irrefutable.
> 
> He started slowly. I suppose Ruskin was exhausted. Many of us know his son died just a week or so ago. But the man, a Constitutional lawyer as well as a Congressman, rallied to the challenge. He became more and more eloquent. He spoke fluently and — to me — very movingly about what was at stake.
> 
> I haven’t yet seen a less “staged” or more competent attack on Trump’s criminal & treasonous conduct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that this impeachment trial is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Which part is unconstitutional?


----------



## Dr Grump

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> There's conviction, or aquittal.  There's no "partial" applied to either.



M'eh. I think using the adjective 'full' is overstating the result. I'd go with acquittal.


----------



## Dr Grump

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
Click to expand...

And who says those rioters were even Dem voters. For a start Antifa is not even a true movement. There is no leader. No headquarters. No manifesto. Just a group of people calling themselves that, or in most cases, the media assigning them that nom de guerre. Several of these idiots have gone on record stating they hate the Dems just as much.

Also, I hear a lot of neocons talking about "40" people have died because of the rioting - ie alluding that these 40 people were victims of the rioters. Several of those dead - included in that number - have been rioters themselves or those taken out by righties. It's a two way street.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

The impeachment hearings are _*over*_. This thread of mine should be *closed*. There are plenty of other threads to carry on with the same old shit.

I have _*no intention*_ of responding further to petty apologists for ex-President Trump. I have made my opinions clear enough already. Frankly, I am sick of talking to apologists for this man.

That is a main reason _*I’m leaving USMB*_. I tried to put it in a more positive way in a separate OP here:





__





						I will take a break from USMB ...
					

It’s been almost a year I’ve been here and it’s time for me to move on ...  I miss reading books and feel I’ve gotten a bit addicted to prowling the threads here and reading how lunatics and wise men argue over American partisan politics. It’s really a boring subject to me and I’ve just had my...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
Click to expand...


If you listen to what the rioters are actually saying, their intent is at least that radical. 

Plenty of the antifa rioters have screamed about destroying America, or burning it all down. 

Plenty of blm rioters have screamed about killing all cops or killing all white people.

You are focusing on one facet of one riot, to give yourself an excuse to pretend that your side's violence is ok, while your enemies violence in not.


Me? I condemn all the political violence of the last 5 years.


----------



## Correll

Dr Grump said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who says those rioters were even Dem voters. For a start Antifa is not even a true movement. There is no leader. No headquarters. No manifesto. Just a group of people calling themselves that, or in most cases, the media assigning them that nom de guerre. Several of these idiots have gone on record stating they hate the Dems just as much.
> 
> Also, I hear a lot of neocons talking about "40" people have died because of the rioting - ie alluding that these 40 people were victims of the rioters. Several of those dead - included in that number - have been rioters themselves or those taken out by righties. It's a two way street.
Click to expand...



What a load of crap.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Me? I condemn all the political violence of the last 5 years.



As do I. However,  I specifically condemn political violence that is directly perpetuated by the President of the United States as explained by Mitch:
​"There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it. The people that stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president," McConnell said. "And having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole, which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on the Earth," McConnell added.”​
Face it liar. Their is no such conspirator as high as President of the United States of America on the Democratic Party side. Yet you falsely equate TrumpQ’s political violence unleashed on members of Congress  based on his lies about winning an election he lost and his attempts to undo it, to some crazed anarchists acting on their own with no ties whatsoever to any government official whatsoever.

You are an idiot and idiots make the best racists.



​


----------



## Dr Grump

Correll said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who says those rioters were even Dem voters. For a start Antifa is not even a true movement. There is no leader. No headquarters. No manifesto. Just a group of people calling themselves that, or in most cases, the media assigning them that nom de guerre. Several of these idiots have gone on record stating they hate the Dems just as much.
> 
> Also, I hear a lot of neocons talking about "40" people have died because of the rioting - ie alluding that these 40 people were victims of the rioters. Several of those dead - included in that number - have been rioters themselves or those taken out by righties. It's a two way street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of crap.
Click to expand...


Obviously a reply from somebody who has carried out zero research...


----------



## lantern2814

Dr Grump said:


> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just watched Representative Jamie Ruskin’s summary.
> 
> To me, his indictment is logical, powerful, and irrefutable.
> 
> He started slowly. I suppose Ruskin was exhausted. Many of us know his son died just a week or so ago. But the man, a Constitutional lawyer as well as a Congressman, rallied to the challenge. He became more and more eloquent. He spoke fluently and — to me — very movingly about what was at stake.
> 
> I haven’t yet seen a less “staged” or more competent attack on Trump’s criminal & treasonous conduct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that this impeachment trial is unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Senate already ruled in a bipartisan vote that the impeachment trial is Constitutional.
> 
> Both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have agreed on the procedures, witnesses and voting.
> 
> The ex-President was invited to appear at the very Capitol his violent supporters attacked, to defend himself before the Republican and Democratic Congressman they were hunting. The coward gave no reason for refusing to appear to face formal charges of inciting the mob that wished to prevent the peaceful transference of power to President Biden. Apparently Trump was afraid of being made a fool of, of breaking down into gibberish under cross examination, or of sounding maniacally irrational as he did in his first debate with Biden.
> 
> Perhaps one day you will be able to save up and buy a ticket to Mar-a-Largo,  where (for money) you will be able to hear Trump recite the “History Will Resolve Me” speech he didn’t have the courage to give today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dummy, try getting an education. The Senate can NOT declare anything constitutional. That would be be decided by SCOTUS. Trump a coward? Laughable. You assholes had no case. No reason for him to appear and lend any legitimacy to your clown show. Seems your side went full coward once the threat was made to put Pisslosi and other Dem riot encourager seems on the stand. Now go enjoy your cry at Trump’s full ACQUITTAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Full acquittal? 100 Senators voted against impeachment? Methinks you need to look up the word 'full'. I'm not even going to bring up the GOP Senators who voted FOR impeachment.
Click to expand...

He was found not guilty. That is full acquittal. No matter how much you cry about it.


----------



## Dr Grump

lantern2814 said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lantern2814 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just watched Representative Jamie Ruskin’s summary.
> 
> To me, his indictment is logical, powerful, and irrefutable.
> 
> He started slowly. I suppose Ruskin was exhausted. Many of us know his son died just a week or so ago. But the man, a Constitutional lawyer as well as a Congressman, rallied to the challenge. He became more and more eloquent. He spoke fluently and — to me — very movingly about what was at stake.
> 
> I haven’t yet seen a less “staged” or more competent attack on Trump’s criminal & treasonous conduct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that this impeachment trial is unconstitutional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Senate already ruled in a bipartisan vote that the impeachment trial is Constitutional.
> 
> Both Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have agreed on the procedures, witnesses and voting.
> 
> The ex-President was invited to appear at the very Capitol his violent supporters attacked, to defend himself before the Republican and Democratic Congressman they were hunting. The coward gave no reason for refusing to appear to face formal charges of inciting the mob that wished to prevent the peaceful transference of power to President Biden. Apparently Trump was afraid of being made a fool of, of breaking down into gibberish under cross examination, or of sounding maniacally irrational as he did in his first debate with Biden.
> 
> Perhaps one day you will be able to save up and buy a ticket to Mar-a-Largo,  where (for money) you will be able to hear Trump recite the “History Will Resolve Me” speech he didn’t have the courage to give today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey dummy, try getting an education. The Senate can NOT declare anything constitutional. That would be be decided by SCOTUS. Trump a coward? Laughable. You assholes had no case. No reason for him to appear and lend any legitimacy to your clown show. Seems your side went full coward once the threat was made to put Pisslosi and other Dem riot encourager seems on the stand. Now go enjoy your cry at Trump’s full ACQUITTAL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Full acquittal? 100 Senators voted against impeachment? Methinks you need to look up the word 'full'. I'm not even going to bring up the GOP Senators who voted FOR impeachment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was found not guilty. That is full acquittal. No matter how much you cry about it.
Click to expand...


ppffftt...you want to champion a scummy piece of shit, go for it...doesn't bother me one iota.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me? I condemn all the political violence of the last 5 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As do I. However,  I specifically condemn political violence that is directly perpetuated by the President of the United States as explained by Mitch:
> ​"There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it. The people that stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president," McConnell said. "And having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole, which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on the Earth," McConnell added.”​
> Face it liar. Their is no such conspirator as high as President of the United States of America on the Democratic Party side. Yet you falsely equate TrumpQ’s political violence unleashed on members of Congress  based on his lies about winning an election he lost and his attempts to undo it, to some crazed anarchists acting on their own with no ties whatsoever to any government official whatsoever.
> 
> You are an idiot and idiots make the best racists.
> 
> 
> 
> ​
Click to expand...



1. There is no evidence that Trump did any more than call for a demonstration to put political pressure on Congress. 

2. If you truly condemned all the political violence over the last 5 years, you would not be pretending that the one small riot in dc, is the worst of it. 

3. That you bring wace into it, is just you being a wace baiting assshole. Fuck you.


----------



## Correll

Dr Grump said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And who says those rioters were even Dem voters. For a start Antifa is not even a true movement. There is no leader. No headquarters. No manifesto. Just a group of people calling themselves that, or in most cases, the media assigning them that nom de guerre. Several of these idiots have gone on record stating they hate the Dems just as much.
> 
> Also, I hear a lot of neocons talking about "40" people have died because of the rioting - ie alluding that these 40 people were victims of the rioters. Several of those dead - included in that number - have been rioters themselves or those taken out by righties. It's a two way street.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What a load of crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously a reply from somebody who has carried out zero research...
Click to expand...



What do you want to know that you do not already know?

You know that Antifa is real. That it is cell organization. That it is a violent and criminal political organization. 

Do you want a list of the dead people? Ask the people who use that number. I'm sure the list has been composed.


Oh and  I am not a neocon. I am a paleoconservative.


----------



## wamose

Anyone who wasted their time watching that bullshit has my sympathy. Likewise for anyone who actually thought it was going to turn out differently than it did. Democrats and the media made total assholes of themselves. The only useful information that came out of the whole debacle was the Rs that voted for conviction. Those people have no place in the political world, especially as half assed ;lobbyists, which is what most of them are no doubt dreaming of becoming.


----------



## Faun

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 200 arrested in D.C. protests on inauguration day
> 
> 
> 217 people were arrested and six police officers suffered minor injuries after some protesters set fires and smashed windows in the nation's capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
Click to expand...

I got as far as... _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20."_

... what does protesting *after* he was sworn in have to do with storming the Capitol to prevent the election from being certified?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

Faun said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 200 arrested in D.C. protests on inauguration day
> 
> 
> 217 people were arrested and six police officers suffered minor injuries after some protesters set fires and smashed windows in the nation's capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got as far as... _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20."_
> 
> ... what does protesting *after* he was sworn in have to do with storming the Capitol to prevent the election from being certified?
Click to expand...


The riots took place (started?) on 20 Jan.  Don't you have a problem with that?


----------



## Faun

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 200 arrested in D.C. protests on inauguration day
> 
> 
> 217 people were arrested and six police officers suffered minor injuries after some protesters set fires and smashed windows in the nation's capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got as far as... _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20."_
> 
> ... what does protesting *after* he was sworn in have to do with storming the Capitol to prevent the election from being certified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The riots took place (started?) on 20 Jan.  Don't you have a problem with that?
Click to expand...

I condemn any riots but again, what you posted occurred after he was president. Whereas you claimed they tried to overthrow the election results. They didn't. Nor could they since he was already president.


----------



## Dr Grump

Correll said:


> What do you want to know that you do not already know?
> 
> You know that Antifa is real. That it is cell organization. That it is a violent and criminal political organization.
> 
> Do you want a list of the dead people? Ask the people who use that number. I'm sure the list has been composed.
> Oh and  I am not a neocon. I am a paleoconservative.


I have seen the list. A few rioters on there.
Who runs Antifa? Where are its headquarters? Who is its spokesperson? What is its goal?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 200 arrested in D.C. protests on inauguration day
> 
> 
> 217 people were arrested and six police officers suffered minor injuries after some protesters set fires and smashed windows in the nation's capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got as far as... _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20."_
> 
> ... what does protesting *after* he was sworn in have to do with storming the Capitol to prevent the election from being certified?
Click to expand...



Dumbass.


----------



## Correll

Dr Grump said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you want to know that you do not already know?
> 
> You know that Antifa is real. That it is cell organization. That it is a violent and criminal political organization.
> 
> Do you want a list of the dead people? Ask the people who use that number. I'm sure the list has been composed.
> Oh and  I am not a neocon. I am a paleoconservative.
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen the list. A few rioters on there.
> Who runs Antifa? Where are its headquarters? Who is its spokesperson? What is its goal?
Click to expand...


1 So? Some of the rioters died. What do you think that proves? 

2. Good questions. If the FBI was not riddled with democratic party partisans, maybe they would have investigated and found out.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

Faun said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 200 arrested in D.C. protests on inauguration day
> 
> 
> 217 people were arrested and six police officers suffered minor injuries after some protesters set fires and smashed windows in the nation's capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got as far as... _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20."_
> 
> ... what does protesting *after* he was sworn in have to do with storming the Capitol to prevent the election from being certified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The riots took place (started?) on 20 Jan.  Don't you have a problem with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I condemn any riots but again, what you posted occurred after he was president. Whereas you claimed they tried to overthrow the election results. They didn't. Nor could they since he was already president.
Click to expand...


It happened in inauguration day.  Why are you defending insurrection?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Why are you defending insurrection?



The only worthless Americans defending insurrection as political policy are those lawless hater types that still support the Insurrectionist in Chief.

MITCH made the case and explained it to his fellow conservatives. ... So I don’t have to.

"There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it. The people that stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president," McConnell said on the floor of the Senate ..

And TrumpQ is hiding in cold sweaty fear
of a real Conservative leader with some real policsl power in a real role in the real affairs of American government.

And you and Correll are going bonkers with a false equivalence diversion to some lowlife scum rioters a mile abd a half from the US CAPITOL with no connection to the Political Party members you hate.,


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you defending insurrection?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only worthless Americans defending insurrection as political policy are those lawless hater types that still support the Insurrectionist in Chief.
> 
> MITCH made the case and explained it to his fellow conservatives. ... So I don’t have to.
> 
> "There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it. The people that stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president," McConnell said on the floor of the Senate ..
> 
> And TrumpQ is hiding in cold sweaty fear
> of a real Conservative leader with some real policsl power in a real role in the real affairs of American government.
> 
> And you and Correll are going bonkers with a false equivalence diversion to some lowlife scum rioters a mile abd a half from the US CAPITOL with no connection to the Political Party members you hate.,
Click to expand...


Wild Bill kicked your ass and you know it.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 200 arrested in D.C. protests on inauguration day
> 
> 
> 217 people were arrested and six police officers suffered minor injuries after some protesters set fires and smashed windows in the nation's capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got as far as... _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20."_
> 
> ... what does protesting *after* he was sworn in have to do with storming the Capitol to prevent the election from being certified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
Click to expand...

Thanks for admitting it has nothing to do with it.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you want to know that you do not already know?
> 
> You know that Antifa is real. That it is cell organization. That it is a violent and criminal political organization.
> 
> Do you want a list of the dead people? Ask the people who use that number. I'm sure the list has been composed.
> Oh and  I am not a neocon. I am a paleoconservative.
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen the list. A few rioters on there.
> Who runs Antifa? Where are its headquarters? Who is its spokesperson? What is its goal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1 So? Some of the rioters died. What do you think that proves?
> 
> 2. Good questions. If the FBI was not riddled with democratic party partisans, maybe they would have investigated and found out.
Click to expand...

What a sad excuse. Who's been running the FBI since Trump fired Comey?


----------



## Faun

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 200 arrested in D.C. protests on inauguration day
> 
> 
> 217 people were arrested and six police officers suffered minor injuries after some protesters set fires and smashed windows in the nation's capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got as far as... _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20."_
> 
> ... what does protesting *after* he was sworn in have to do with storming the Capitol to prevent the election from being certified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The riots took place (started?) on 20 Jan.  Don't you have a problem with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I condemn any riots but again, what you posted occurred after he was president. Whereas you claimed they tried to overthrow the election results. They didn't. Nor could they since he was already president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It happened in inauguration day.  Why are you defending insurrection?
Click to expand...

He was already president and they didn't revolt against our government. Even worse for your argument, which even you have abandoned ....

You said, _"yes they have,"_ in response to...

_ Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost. _​
You said, _"yes they have,"_ but then cited an example where no, they didn't.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 200 arrested in D.C. protests on inauguration day
> 
> 
> 217 people were arrested and six police officers suffered minor injuries after some protesters set fires and smashed windows in the nation's capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got as far as... _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20."_
> 
> ... what does protesting *after* he was sworn in have to do with storming the Capitol to prevent the election from being certified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for admitting it has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...



The "protesting" was part of your "RESIST" movement, which was an massive attempt to prevent Trump from being able to be President.


You are a moron.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you want to know that you do not already know?
> 
> You know that Antifa is real. That it is cell organization. That it is a violent and criminal political organization.
> 
> Do you want a list of the dead people? Ask the people who use that number. I'm sure the list has been composed.
> Oh and  I am not a neocon. I am a paleoconservative.
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen the list. A few rioters on there.
> Who runs Antifa? Where are its headquarters? Who is its spokesperson? What is its goal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1 So? Some of the rioters died. What do you think that proves?
> 
> 2. Good questions. If the FBI was not riddled with democratic party partisans, maybe they would have investigated and found out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a sad excuse. Who's been running the FBI since Trump fired Comey?
Click to expand...



Excuse? I agreed that he asked some good questions. The FBI is the organization that should be investigating so those questions can be answered.

But they have not. That makes them incompetent. 


If you want to blame the most recent director, you make your case.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 200 arrested in D.C. protests on inauguration day
> 
> 
> 217 people were arrested and six police officers suffered minor injuries after some protesters set fires and smashed windows in the nation's capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got as far as... _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20."_
> 
> ... what does protesting *after* he was sworn in have to do with storming the Capitol to prevent the election from being certified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for admitting it has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "protesting" was part of your "RESIST" movement, which was an massive attempt to prevent Trump from being able to be President.
> 
> 
> You are a moron.
Click to expand...

The other person posted about people protesting after Trump's inauguration. Exactly how brain-dead are you to think those protests could prevent something which already occurred??


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you want to know that you do not already know?
> 
> You know that Antifa is real. That it is cell organization. That it is a violent and criminal political organization.
> 
> Do you want a list of the dead people? Ask the people who use that number. I'm sure the list has been composed.
> Oh and  I am not a neocon. I am a paleoconservative.
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen the list. A few rioters on there.
> Who runs Antifa? Where are its headquarters? Who is its spokesperson? What is its goal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1 So? Some of the rioters died. What do you think that proves?
> 
> 2. Good questions. If the FBI was not riddled with democratic party partisans, maybe they would have investigated and found out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a sad excuse. Who's been running the FBI since Trump fired Comey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse? I agreed that he asked some good questions. The FBI is the organization that should be investigating so those questions can be answered.
> 
> But they have not. That makes them incompetent.
> 
> 
> If you want to blame the most recent director, you make your case.
Click to expand...

Again, they were led by Trump's appointees since he fired Comey. That's on Trump yet here you are, moronically blaming Democrats.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 200 arrested in D.C. protests on inauguration day
> 
> 
> 217 people were arrested and six police officers suffered minor injuries after some protesters set fires and smashed windows in the nation's capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got as far as... _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20."_
> 
> ... what does protesting *after* he was sworn in have to do with storming the Capitol to prevent the election from being certified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for admitting it has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "protesting" was part of your "RESIST" movement, which was an massive attempt to prevent Trump from being able to be President.
> 
> 
> You are a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The other person posted about people protesting after Trump's inauguration. Exactly how brain-dead are you to think those protests could prevent something which already occurred??
Click to expand...




So, you pretending to not remember all that talk of a coup, or all the talk of "RESIST", or all that talk of not letting people think Trump being president was "normal" or that it all led to a political soft coup attempt based on known lies?


You have all the moral fiber of a crack whore.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you want to know that you do not already know?
> 
> You know that Antifa is real. That it is cell organization. That it is a violent and criminal political organization.
> 
> Do you want a list of the dead people? Ask the people who use that number. I'm sure the list has been composed.
> Oh and  I am not a neocon. I am a paleoconservative.
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen the list. A few rioters on there.
> Who runs Antifa? Where are its headquarters? Who is its spokesperson? What is its goal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1 So? Some of the rioters died. What do you think that proves?
> 
> 2. Good questions. If the FBI was not riddled with democratic party partisans, maybe they would have investigated and found out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a sad excuse. Who's been running the FBI since Trump fired Comey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse? I agreed that he asked some good questions. The FBI is the organization that should be investigating so those questions can be answered.
> 
> But they have not. That makes them incompetent.
> 
> 
> If you want to blame the most recent director, you make your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, they were led by Trump's appointees since he fired Comey. That's on Trump yet here you are, moronically blaming Democrats.
Click to expand...



Antifa has been a terrorist cell organization in this country, for decades. 


The FBI is an institution, leaders come and go, the vast majority of the people remain. Those are the  people that actually do shit. 


If the FBI does not already have antifa infiltrated, and that seems to be teh case, then it is because the FBI has been derelict of duty for decades, though dem and republican presidents.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 200 arrested in D.C. protests on inauguration day
> 
> 
> 217 people were arrested and six police officers suffered minor injuries after some protesters set fires and smashed windows in the nation's capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got as far as... _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20."_
> 
> ... what does protesting *after* he was sworn in have to do with storming the Capitol to prevent the election from being certified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for admitting it has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "protesting" was part of your "RESIST" movement, which was an massive attempt to prevent Trump from being able to be President.
> 
> 
> You are a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The other person posted about people protesting after Trump's inauguration. Exactly how brain-dead are you to think those protests could prevent something which already occurred??
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to not remember all that talk of a coup, or all the talk of "RESIST", or all that talk of not letting people think Trump being president was "normal" or that it all led to a political soft coup attempt based on known lies?
> 
> 
> You have all the moral fiber of a crack whore.
Click to expand...

Shitstain, what part of, _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20," _has rendered you utterly stupid?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dr Grump said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you want to know that you do not already know?
> 
> You know that Antifa is real. That it is cell organization. That it is a violent and criminal political organization.
> 
> Do you want a list of the dead people? Ask the people who use that number. I'm sure the list has been composed.
> Oh and  I am not a neocon. I am a paleoconservative.
> 
> 
> 
> I have seen the list. A few rioters on there.
> Who runs Antifa? Where are its headquarters? Who is its spokesperson? What is its goal?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1 So? Some of the rioters died. What do you think that proves?
> 
> 2. Good questions. If the FBI was not riddled with democratic party partisans, maybe they would have investigated and found out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What a sad excuse. Who's been running the FBI since Trump fired Comey?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse? I agreed that he asked some good questions. The FBI is the organization that should be investigating so those questions can be answered.
> 
> But they have not. That makes them incompetent.
> 
> 
> If you want to blame the most recent director, you make your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, they were led by Trump's appointees since he fired Comey. That's on Trump yet here you are, moronically blaming Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Antifa has been a terrorist cell organization in this country, for decades.
> 
> 
> The FBI is an institution, leaders come and go, the vast majority of the people remain. Those are the  people that actually do shit.
> 
> 
> If the FBI does not already have antifa infiltrated, and that seems to be teh case, then it is because the FBI has been derelict of duty for decades, though dem and republican presidents.
Click to expand...

Shitstain, according to you, the head of the FBI cannot have his own department investigate Antifa.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 200 arrested in D.C. protests on inauguration day
> 
> 
> 217 people were arrested and six police officers suffered minor injuries after some protesters set fires and smashed windows in the nation's capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got as far as... _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20."_
> 
> ... what does protesting *after* he was sworn in have to do with storming the Capitol to prevent the election from being certified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for admitting it has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "protesting" was part of your "RESIST" movement, which was an massive attempt to prevent Trump from being able to be President.
> 
> 
> You are a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The other person posted about people protesting after Trump's inauguration. Exactly how brain-dead are you to think those protests could prevent something which already occurred??
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to not remember all that talk of a coup, or all the talk of "RESIST", or all that talk of not letting people think Trump being president was "normal" or that it all led to a political soft coup attempt based on known lies?
> 
> 
> You have all the moral fiber of a crack whore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shitstain, what part of, _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20," _has rendered you utterly stupid?
Click to expand...



YOu said that. I addressed it. 


Now you are just being a troll. 


Like always.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 200 arrested in D.C. protests on inauguration day
> 
> 
> 217 people were arrested and six police officers suffered minor injuries after some protesters set fires and smashed windows in the nation's capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got as far as... _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20."_
> 
> ... what does protesting *after* he was sworn in have to do with storming the Capitol to prevent the election from being certified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for admitting it has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "protesting" was part of your "RESIST" movement, which was an massive attempt to prevent Trump from being able to be President.
> 
> 
> You are a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The other person posted about people protesting after Trump's inauguration. Exactly how brain-dead are you to think those protests could prevent something which already occurred??
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to not remember all that talk of a coup, or all the talk of "RESIST", or all that talk of not letting people think Trump being president was "normal" or that it all led to a political soft coup attempt based on known lies?
> 
> 
> You have all the moral fiber of a crack whore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shitstain, what part of, _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20," _has rendered you utterly stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu said that. I addressed it.
> 
> 
> Now you are just being a troll.
> 
> 
> Like always.
Click to expand...

No, shitstain, I didn't say that until another poster linked it as the pathetic excuse for trying to overthrow an election result. And of course it was a pathetic excuse since you can't overthrow an election result that's certified and completed with an inauguration.

Unlike the treasonous right who tried to prevent certification before it occurred.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe

Faun said:


> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 200 arrested in D.C. protests on inauguration day
> 
> 
> 217 people were arrested and six police officers suffered minor injuries after some protesters set fires and smashed windows in the nation's capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got as far as... _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20."_
> 
> ... what does protesting *after* he was sworn in have to do with storming the Capitol to prevent the election from being certified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The riots took place (started?) on 20 Jan.  Don't you have a problem with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I condemn any riots but again, what you posted occurred after he was president. Whereas you claimed they tried to overthrow the election results. They didn't. Nor could they since he was already president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It happened in inauguration day.  Why are you defending insurrection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was already president and they didn't revolt against our government. Even worse for your argument, which even you have abandoned ....
> 
> You said, _"yes they have,"_ in response to...
> 
> _ Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost. _​
> You said, _"yes they have,"_ but then cited an example where no, they didn't.
Click to expand...


They absolutely revolted against the government.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 200 arrested in D.C. protests on inauguration day
> 
> 
> 217 people were arrested and six police officers suffered minor injuries after some protesters set fires and smashed windows in the nation's capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got as far as... _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20."_
> 
> ... what does protesting *after* he was sworn in have to do with storming the Capitol to prevent the election from being certified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for admitting it has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "protesting" was part of your "RESIST" movement, which was an massive attempt to prevent Trump from being able to be President.
> 
> 
> You are a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The other person posted about people protesting after Trump's inauguration. Exactly how brain-dead are you to think those protests could prevent something which already occurred??
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to not remember all that talk of a coup, or all the talk of "RESIST", or all that talk of not letting people think Trump being president was "normal" or that it all led to a political soft coup attempt based on known lies?
> 
> 
> You have all the moral fiber of a crack whore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shitstain, what part of, _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20," _has rendered you utterly stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu said that. I addressed it.
> 
> 
> Now you are just being a troll.
> 
> 
> Like always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, shitstain, I didn't say that until another poster linked it as the pathetic excuse for trying to overthrow an election result. And of course it was a pathetic excuse since you can't overthrow an election result that's certified and completed with an inauguration.
> 
> Unlike the treasonous right who tried to prevent certification before it occurred.
Click to expand...




Your excuses for focusing on one little riot from our side, while ignoring the years of rioting from your side, 


is just you being a partisan hack.


----------



## Faun

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 200 arrested in D.C. protests on inauguration day
> 
> 
> 217 people were arrested and six police officers suffered minor injuries after some protesters set fires and smashed windows in the nation's capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got as far as... _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20."_
> 
> ... what does protesting *after* he was sworn in have to do with storming the Capitol to prevent the election from being certified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The riots took place (started?) on 20 Jan.  Don't you have a problem with that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I condemn any riots but again, what you posted occurred after he was president. Whereas you claimed they tried to overthrow the election results. They didn't. Nor could they since he was already president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It happened in inauguration day.  Why are you defending insurrection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was already president and they didn't revolt against our government. Even worse for your argument, which even you have abandoned ....
> 
> You said, _"yes they have,"_ in response to...
> 
> _ Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost. _​
> You said, _"yes they have,"_ but then cited an example where no, they didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They absolutely revolted against the government.
Click to expand...

No, they protested against Trump. Trump was not the government.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 200 arrested in D.C. protests on inauguration day
> 
> 
> 217 people were arrested and six police officers suffered minor injuries after some protesters set fires and smashed windows in the nation's capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got as far as... _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20."_
> 
> ... what does protesting *after* he was sworn in have to do with storming the Capitol to prevent the election from being certified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for admitting it has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "protesting" was part of your "RESIST" movement, which was an massive attempt to prevent Trump from being able to be President.
> 
> 
> You are a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The other person posted about people protesting after Trump's inauguration. Exactly how brain-dead are you to think those protests could prevent something which already occurred??
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to not remember all that talk of a coup, or all the talk of "RESIST", or all that talk of not letting people think Trump being president was "normal" or that it all led to a political soft coup attempt based on known lies?
> 
> 
> You have all the moral fiber of a crack whore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shitstain, what part of, _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20," _has rendered you utterly stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu said that. I addressed it.
> 
> 
> Now you are just being a troll.
> 
> 
> Like always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, shitstain, I didn't say that until another poster linked it as the pathetic excuse for trying to overthrow an election result. And of course it was a pathetic excuse since you can't overthrow an election result that's certified and completed with an inauguration.
> 
> Unlike the treasonous right who tried to prevent certification before it occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your excuses for focusing on one little riot from our side, while ignoring the years of rioting from your side,
> 
> 
> is just you being a partisan hack.
Click to expand...

LOLOLOL

What a traitorous piece of shit you are, shitstain. What you call a "little riot," was actually an insurrection against the seat of our government which threatened the lives of the vice president of the United States and the highest ranking official in the House of Representatives. With the intent to "stop the steal" by preventing the Constitutionally mandated certification of a presidential election so they could pull off a coup to install their own president who lost his election in a landslide.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 200 arrested in D.C. protests on inauguration day
> 
> 
> 217 people were arrested and six police officers suffered minor injuries after some protesters set fires and smashed windows in the nation's capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got as far as... _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20."_
> 
> ... what does protesting *after* he was sworn in have to do with storming the Capitol to prevent the election from being certified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for admitting it has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "protesting" was part of your "RESIST" movement, which was an massive attempt to prevent Trump from being able to be President.
> 
> 
> You are a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The other person posted about people protesting after Trump's inauguration. Exactly how brain-dead are you to think those protests could prevent something which already occurred??
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to not remember all that talk of a coup, or all the talk of "RESIST", or all that talk of not letting people think Trump being president was "normal" or that it all led to a political soft coup attempt based on known lies?
> 
> 
> You have all the moral fiber of a crack whore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shitstain, what part of, _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20," _has rendered you utterly stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu said that. I addressed it.
> 
> 
> Now you are just being a troll.
> 
> 
> Like always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, shitstain, I didn't say that until another poster linked it as the pathetic excuse for trying to overthrow an election result. And of course it was a pathetic excuse since you can't overthrow an election result that's certified and completed with an inauguration.
> 
> Unlike the treasonous right who tried to prevent certification before it occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your excuses for focusing on one little riot from our side, while ignoring the years of rioting from your side,
> 
> 
> is just you being a partisan hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> What a traitorous piece of shit you are, shitstain. What you call a "little riot," was actually an insurrection against the seat of our government which threatened the lives of the vice president of the United States and the highest ranking official in the House of Representatives. With the intent to "stop the steal" by preventing the Constitutionally mandated certification of a presidential election so they could pull off a coup to install their own president who lost his election in a landslide.
Click to expand...



I got your justifications and rationalizations for ignoring the years of rioting from your side. 


The point remains. YOu want to ignore years of violent rioting, looting, killing, from your side, and focus on a few hours from our side, and pretend that our side are teh bad guys.


Your dishonesty, is like a the vastness of space, beyond the capacity of the human mind to comprehend, in it's infinite depth and width and it's absolute darkness.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 200 arrested in D.C. protests on inauguration day
> 
> 
> 217 people were arrested and six police officers suffered minor injuries after some protesters set fires and smashed windows in the nation's capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got as far as... _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20."_
> 
> ... what does protesting *after* he was sworn in have to do with storming the Capitol to prevent the election from being certified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for admitting it has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "protesting" was part of your "RESIST" movement, which was an massive attempt to prevent Trump from being able to be President.
> 
> 
> You are a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The other person posted about people protesting after Trump's inauguration. Exactly how brain-dead are you to think those protests could prevent something which already occurred??
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to not remember all that talk of a coup, or all the talk of "RESIST", or all that talk of not letting people think Trump being president was "normal" or that it all led to a political soft coup attempt based on known lies?
> 
> 
> You have all the moral fiber of a crack whore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shitstain, what part of, _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20," _has rendered you utterly stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu said that. I addressed it.
> 
> 
> Now you are just being a troll.
> 
> 
> Like always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, shitstain, I didn't say that until another poster linked it as the pathetic excuse for trying to overthrow an election result. And of course it was a pathetic excuse since you can't overthrow an election result that's certified and completed with an inauguration.
> 
> Unlike the treasonous right who tried to prevent certification before it occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your excuses for focusing on one little riot from our side, while ignoring the years of rioting from your side,
> 
> 
> is just you being a partisan hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> What a traitorous piece of shit you are, shitstain. What you call a "little riot," was actually an insurrection against the seat of our government which threatened the lives of the vice president of the United States and the highest ranking official in the House of Representatives. With the intent to "stop the steal" by preventing the Constitutionally mandated certification of a presidential election so they could pull off a coup to install their own president who lost his election in a landslide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I got your justifications and rationalizations for ignoring the years of rioting from your side.
> 
> 
> The point remains. YOu want to ignore years of violent rioting, looting, killing, from your side, and focus on a few hours from our side, and pretend that our side are teh bad guys.
> 
> 
> Your dishonesty, is like a the vastness of space, beyond the capacity of the human mind to comprehend, in it's infinite depth and width and it's absolute darkness.
Click to expand...

And again, those riots have nothing to do with the attack on the Capitol which was only about the election, not any past riots. But according to you, the left is now justified for continuing to riot because you, and freaks like you, have given the left the whataboutism justification for committing any crime they want. That's the danger of relying on whataboutism defenses.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 200 arrested in D.C. protests on inauguration day
> 
> 
> 217 people were arrested and six police officers suffered minor injuries after some protesters set fires and smashed windows in the nation's capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got as far as... _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20."_
> 
> ... what does protesting *after* he was sworn in have to do with storming the Capitol to prevent the election from being certified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for admitting it has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "protesting" was part of your "RESIST" movement, which was an massive attempt to prevent Trump from being able to be President.
> 
> 
> You are a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The other person posted about people protesting after Trump's inauguration. Exactly how brain-dead are you to think those protests could prevent something which already occurred??
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to not remember all that talk of a coup, or all the talk of "RESIST", or all that talk of not letting people think Trump being president was "normal" or that it all led to a political soft coup attempt based on known lies?
> 
> 
> You have all the moral fiber of a crack whore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shitstain, what part of, _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20," _has rendered you utterly stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu said that. I addressed it.
> 
> 
> Now you are just being a troll.
> 
> 
> Like always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, shitstain, I didn't say that until another poster linked it as the pathetic excuse for trying to overthrow an election result. And of course it was a pathetic excuse since you can't overthrow an election result that's certified and completed with an inauguration.
> 
> Unlike the treasonous right who tried to prevent certification before it occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your excuses for focusing on one little riot from our side, while ignoring the years of rioting from your side,
> 
> 
> is just you being a partisan hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> What a traitorous piece of shit you are, shitstain. What you call a "little riot," was actually an insurrection against the seat of our government which threatened the lives of the vice president of the United States and the highest ranking official in the House of Representatives. With the intent to "stop the steal" by preventing the Constitutionally mandated certification of a presidential election so they could pull off a coup to install their own president who lost his election in a landslide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I got your justifications and rationalizations for ignoring the years of rioting from your side.
> 
> 
> The point remains. YOu want to ignore years of violent rioting, looting, killing, from your side, and focus on a few hours from our side, and pretend that our side are teh bad guys.
> 
> 
> Your dishonesty, is like a the vastness of space, beyond the capacity of the human mind to comprehend, in it's infinite depth and width and it's absolute darkness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again, those riots have nothing to do with the attack on the Capitol which was only about the election, not any past riots. But according to you, the left is now justified for continuing to riot because you, and freaks like you, have given the left the whataboutism justification for committing any crime they want. That's the danger of relying on whataboutism defenses.
Click to expand...



My point was not a claim of cause and effect. 

I was just pointing out the complete hypocrisy of you, pretending to be so outraged about the one small riot from our side, while ignoring YEARS of riots from your side.


This is not whataboutism. 


You are just being a dishonest partisan hack.


----------



## SassyIrishLass

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.



You had high hopes....that was it roflmao

Dunce


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 200 arrested in D.C. protests on inauguration day
> 
> 
> 217 people were arrested and six police officers suffered minor injuries after some protesters set fires and smashed windows in the nation's capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got as far as... _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20."_
> 
> ... what does protesting *after* he was sworn in have to do with storming the Capitol to prevent the election from being certified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for admitting it has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "protesting" was part of your "RESIST" movement, which was an massive attempt to prevent Trump from being able to be President.
> 
> 
> You are a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The other person posted about people protesting after Trump's inauguration. Exactly how brain-dead are you to think those protests could prevent something which already occurred??
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to not remember all that talk of a coup, or all the talk of "RESIST", or all that talk of not letting people think Trump being president was "normal" or that it all led to a political soft coup attempt based on known lies?
> 
> 
> You have all the moral fiber of a crack whore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shitstain, what part of, _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20," _has rendered you utterly stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu said that. I addressed it.
> 
> 
> Now you are just being a troll.
> 
> 
> Like always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, shitstain, I didn't say that until another poster linked it as the pathetic excuse for trying to overthrow an election result. And of course it was a pathetic excuse since you can't overthrow an election result that's certified and completed with an inauguration.
> 
> Unlike the treasonous right who tried to prevent certification before it occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your excuses for focusing on one little riot from our side, while ignoring the years of rioting from your side,
> 
> 
> is just you being a partisan hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> What a traitorous piece of shit you are, shitstain. What you call a "little riot," was actually an insurrection against the seat of our government which threatened the lives of the vice president of the United States and the highest ranking official in the House of Representatives. With the intent to "stop the steal" by preventing the Constitutionally mandated certification of a presidential election so they could pull off a coup to install their own president who lost his election in a landslide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I got your justifications and rationalizations for ignoring the years of rioting from your side.
> 
> 
> The point remains. YOu want to ignore years of violent rioting, looting, killing, from your side, and focus on a few hours from our side, and pretend that our side are teh bad guys.
> 
> 
> Your dishonesty, is like a the vastness of space, beyond the capacity of the human mind to comprehend, in it's infinite depth and width and it's absolute darkness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again, those riots have nothing to do with the attack on the Capitol which was only about the election, not any past riots. But according to you, the left is now justified for continuing to riot because you, and freaks like you, have given the left the whataboutism justification for committing any crime they want. That's the danger of relying on whataboutism defenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My point was not a claim of cause and effect.
> 
> I was just pointing out the complete hypocrisy of you, pretending to be so outraged about the one small riot from our side, while ignoring YEARS of riots from your side.
> 
> 
> This is not whataboutism.
> 
> 
> You are just being a dishonest partisan hack.
Click to expand...

Of course it's a whataboutism. All you've been doing are whataboutisms in regards to the Capitol siege.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Faun said:


> All you've been doing are whataboutisms in regards to the Capitol siege.



There is no other way than Whataboutism  for a paleoconservative Christian American nationalist with strong white grievance emotions to be able to accept that the Last Great White Hope POTUS lost an election to a Political Party that believes that Black Lives should Matter as much as White lives do in our “Christian” nation. And then that huge election rejection caused the Great White Hope to lie to all of Whitelandia that he won in a proverbial landslide and pleaded unto all white Patriots to ‘peacefully’ walk into the Senate Chamber in order to STOP  the BLM Party from STEALING the ELECTION. And then the BLM thugs started beating up the peaceful Steal Stoppers” ..... and then the fake news media began faking eyewitness video accounts to make the MAGA mob look violent when the whole time it was just a continuation of the BLM baby eating pedophile mob’s relentless  four years of constant rioting, Satan worship and hatred of TrumpQ that began on the day that the blessed white Hope was inaugurated.



Correll said:


> the one small riot from our side, while ignoring YEARS of riots from your side.




WHAT ABOUT THAT? Why is nobody talking about THAT?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 200 arrested in D.C. protests on inauguration day
> 
> 
> 217 people were arrested and six police officers suffered minor injuries after some protesters set fires and smashed windows in the nation's capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got as far as... _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20."_
> 
> ... what does protesting *after* he was sworn in have to do with storming the Capitol to prevent the election from being certified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for admitting it has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "protesting" was part of your "RESIST" movement, which was an massive attempt to prevent Trump from being able to be President.
> 
> 
> You are a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The other person posted about people protesting after Trump's inauguration. Exactly how brain-dead are you to think those protests could prevent something which already occurred??
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to not remember all that talk of a coup, or all the talk of "RESIST", or all that talk of not letting people think Trump being president was "normal" or that it all led to a political soft coup attempt based on known lies?
> 
> 
> You have all the moral fiber of a crack whore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shitstain, what part of, _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20," _has rendered you utterly stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu said that. I addressed it.
> 
> 
> Now you are just being a troll.
> 
> 
> Like always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, shitstain, I didn't say that until another poster linked it as the pathetic excuse for trying to overthrow an election result. And of course it was a pathetic excuse since you can't overthrow an election result that's certified and completed with an inauguration.
> 
> Unlike the treasonous right who tried to prevent certification before it occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your excuses for focusing on one little riot from our side, while ignoring the years of rioting from your side,
> 
> 
> is just you being a partisan hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> What a traitorous piece of shit you are, shitstain. What you call a "little riot," was actually an insurrection against the seat of our government which threatened the lives of the vice president of the United States and the highest ranking official in the House of Representatives. With the intent to "stop the steal" by preventing the Constitutionally mandated certification of a presidential election so they could pull off a coup to install their own president who lost his election in a landslide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I got your justifications and rationalizations for ignoring the years of rioting from your side.
> 
> 
> The point remains. YOu want to ignore years of violent rioting, looting, killing, from your side, and focus on a few hours from our side, and pretend that our side are teh bad guys.
> 
> 
> Your dishonesty, is like a the vastness of space, beyond the capacity of the human mind to comprehend, in it's infinite depth and width and it's absolute darkness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again, those riots have nothing to do with the attack on the Capitol which was only about the election, not any past riots. But according to you, the left is now justified for continuing to riot because you, and freaks like you, have given the left the whataboutism justification for committing any crime they want. That's the danger of relying on whataboutism defenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My point was not a claim of cause and effect.
> 
> I was just pointing out the complete hypocrisy of you, pretending to be so outraged about the one small riot from our side, while ignoring YEARS of riots from your side.
> 
> 
> This is not whataboutism.
> 
> 
> You are just being a dishonest partisan hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it's a whataboutism. All you've been doing are whataboutisms in regards to the Capitol siege.
Click to expand...



Nope. I'm pointing out that your pretend outrage is just pretense, created to rationalize your attacks on your enemies. 


Your inability to  refute what I say, is obvious. The way you bluster and talk shit, is just you trying to hide it, and failing.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 200 arrested in D.C. protests on inauguration day
> 
> 
> 217 people were arrested and six police officers suffered minor injuries after some protesters set fires and smashed windows in the nation's capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got as far as... _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20."_
> 
> ... what does protesting *after* he was sworn in have to do with storming the Capitol to prevent the election from being certified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for admitting it has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "protesting" was part of your "RESIST" movement, which was an massive attempt to prevent Trump from being able to be President.
> 
> 
> You are a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The other person posted about people protesting after Trump's inauguration. Exactly how brain-dead are you to think those protests could prevent something which already occurred??
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to not remember all that talk of a coup, or all the talk of "RESIST", or all that talk of not letting people think Trump being president was "normal" or that it all led to a political soft coup attempt based on known lies?
> 
> 
> You have all the moral fiber of a crack whore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shitstain, what part of, _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20," _has rendered you utterly stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu said that. I addressed it.
> 
> 
> Now you are just being a troll.
> 
> 
> Like always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, shitstain, I didn't say that until another poster linked it as the pathetic excuse for trying to overthrow an election result. And of course it was a pathetic excuse since you can't overthrow an election result that's certified and completed with an inauguration.
> 
> Unlike the treasonous right who tried to prevent certification before it occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your excuses for focusing on one little riot from our side, while ignoring the years of rioting from your side,
> 
> 
> is just you being a partisan hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> What a traitorous piece of shit you are, shitstain. What you call a "little riot," was actually an insurrection against the seat of our government which threatened the lives of the vice president of the United States and the highest ranking official in the House of Representatives. With the intent to "stop the steal" by preventing the Constitutionally mandated certification of a presidential election so they could pull off a coup to install their own president who lost his election in a landslide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I got your justifications and rationalizations for ignoring the years of rioting from your side.
> 
> 
> The point remains. YOu want to ignore years of violent rioting, looting, killing, from your side, and focus on a few hours from our side, and pretend that our side are teh bad guys.
> 
> 
> Your dishonesty, is like a the vastness of space, beyond the capacity of the human mind to comprehend, in it's infinite depth and width and it's absolute darkness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again, those riots have nothing to do with the attack on the Capitol which was only about the election, not any past riots. But according to you, the left is now justified for continuing to riot because you, and freaks like you, have given the left the whataboutism justification for committing any crime they want. That's the danger of relying on whataboutism defenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My point was not a claim of cause and effect.
> 
> I was just pointing out the complete hypocrisy of you, pretending to be so outraged about the one small riot from our side, while ignoring YEARS of riots from your side.
> 
> 
> This is not whataboutism.
> 
> 
> You are just being a dishonest partisan hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it's a whataboutism. All you've been doing are whataboutisms in regards to the Capitol siege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I'm pointing out that your pretend outrage is just pretense, created to rationalize your attacks on your enemies.
> 
> 
> Your inability to  refute what I say, is obvious. The way you bluster and talk shit, is just you trying to hide it, and failing.
Click to expand...

You're beyond brain-dead. I've lost count of how many of your posts I responded about how Trump's supporters storming the Capitol is just an extension of the summer riots by BLM and Antifa. That you deny that now merely exemplifies your senility.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 200 arrested in D.C. protests on inauguration day
> 
> 
> 217 people were arrested and six police officers suffered minor injuries after some protesters set fires and smashed windows in the nation's capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got as far as... _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20."_
> 
> ... what does protesting *after* he was sworn in have to do with storming the Capitol to prevent the election from being certified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for admitting it has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "protesting" was part of your "RESIST" movement, which was an massive attempt to prevent Trump from being able to be President.
> 
> 
> You are a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The other person posted about people protesting after Trump's inauguration. Exactly how brain-dead are you to think those protests could prevent something which already occurred??
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to not remember all that talk of a coup, or all the talk of "RESIST", or all that talk of not letting people think Trump being president was "normal" or that it all led to a political soft coup attempt based on known lies?
> 
> 
> You have all the moral fiber of a crack whore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shitstain, what part of, _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20," _has rendered you utterly stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu said that. I addressed it.
> 
> 
> Now you are just being a troll.
> 
> 
> Like always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, shitstain, I didn't say that until another poster linked it as the pathetic excuse for trying to overthrow an election result. And of course it was a pathetic excuse since you can't overthrow an election result that's certified and completed with an inauguration.
> 
> Unlike the treasonous right who tried to prevent certification before it occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your excuses for focusing on one little riot from our side, while ignoring the years of rioting from your side,
> 
> 
> is just you being a partisan hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> What a traitorous piece of shit you are, shitstain. What you call a "little riot," was actually an insurrection against the seat of our government which threatened the lives of the vice president of the United States and the highest ranking official in the House of Representatives. With the intent to "stop the steal" by preventing the Constitutionally mandated certification of a presidential election so they could pull off a coup to install their own president who lost his election in a landslide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I got your justifications and rationalizations for ignoring the years of rioting from your side.
> 
> 
> The point remains. YOu want to ignore years of violent rioting, looting, killing, from your side, and focus on a few hours from our side, and pretend that our side are teh bad guys.
> 
> 
> Your dishonesty, is like a the vastness of space, beyond the capacity of the human mind to comprehend, in it's infinite depth and width and it's absolute darkness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again, those riots have nothing to do with the attack on the Capitol which was only about the election, not any past riots. But according to you, the left is now justified for continuing to riot because you, and freaks like you, have given the left the whataboutism justification for committing any crime they want. That's the danger of relying on whataboutism defenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My point was not a claim of cause and effect.
> 
> I was just pointing out the complete hypocrisy of you, pretending to be so outraged about the one small riot from our side, while ignoring YEARS of riots from your side.
> 
> 
> This is not whataboutism.
> 
> 
> You are just being a dishonest partisan hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it's a whataboutism. All you've been doing are whataboutisms in regards to the Capitol siege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I'm pointing out that your pretend outrage is just pretense, created to rationalize your attacks on your enemies.
> 
> 
> Your inability to  refute what I say, is obvious. The way you bluster and talk shit, is just you trying to hide it, and failing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're beyond brain-dead. I've lost count of how many of your posts I responded about how Trump's supporters storming the Capitol is just an extension of the summer riots by BLM and Antifa. That you deny that now merely exemplifies your senility.
Click to expand...



Dude. There is a discussion to be had about what it means to start a period of civil unrest and how people respond differently once political violence becomes part of the new normal.

YOu of course are too dishonest to have a conversation about such a complex and nuanced topic. 

My point stands. 


My point was not a claim of cause and effect.

I was just pointing out the complete hypocrisy of you, pretending to be so outraged about the one small riot from our side, while ignoring YEARS of riots from your side.


This is not whataboutism.


You are just being a dishonest partisan hack.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 200 arrested in D.C. protests on inauguration day
> 
> 
> 217 people were arrested and six police officers suffered minor injuries after some protesters set fires and smashed windows in the nation's capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got as far as... _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20."_
> 
> ... what does protesting *after* he was sworn in have to do with storming the Capitol to prevent the election from being certified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for admitting it has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "protesting" was part of your "RESIST" movement, which was an massive attempt to prevent Trump from being able to be President.
> 
> 
> You are a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The other person posted about people protesting after Trump's inauguration. Exactly how brain-dead are you to think those protests could prevent something which already occurred??
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to not remember all that talk of a coup, or all the talk of "RESIST", or all that talk of not letting people think Trump being president was "normal" or that it all led to a political soft coup attempt based on known lies?
> 
> 
> You have all the moral fiber of a crack whore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shitstain, what part of, _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20," _has rendered you utterly stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu said that. I addressed it.
> 
> 
> Now you are just being a troll.
> 
> 
> Like always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, shitstain, I didn't say that until another poster linked it as the pathetic excuse for trying to overthrow an election result. And of course it was a pathetic excuse since you can't overthrow an election result that's certified and completed with an inauguration.
> 
> Unlike the treasonous right who tried to prevent certification before it occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your excuses for focusing on one little riot from our side, while ignoring the years of rioting from your side,
> 
> 
> is just you being a partisan hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> What a traitorous piece of shit you are, shitstain. What you call a "little riot," was actually an insurrection against the seat of our government which threatened the lives of the vice president of the United States and the highest ranking official in the House of Representatives. With the intent to "stop the steal" by preventing the Constitutionally mandated certification of a presidential election so they could pull off a coup to install their own president who lost his election in a landslide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I got your justifications and rationalizations for ignoring the years of rioting from your side.
> 
> 
> The point remains. YOu want to ignore years of violent rioting, looting, killing, from your side, and focus on a few hours from our side, and pretend that our side are teh bad guys.
> 
> 
> Your dishonesty, is like a the vastness of space, beyond the capacity of the human mind to comprehend, in it's infinite depth and width and it's absolute darkness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again, those riots have nothing to do with the attack on the Capitol which was only about the election, not any past riots. But according to you, the left is now justified for continuing to riot because you, and freaks like you, have given the left the whataboutism justification for committing any crime they want. That's the danger of relying on whataboutism defenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My point was not a claim of cause and effect.
> 
> I was just pointing out the complete hypocrisy of you, pretending to be so outraged about the one small riot from our side, while ignoring YEARS of riots from your side.
> 
> 
> This is not whataboutism.
> 
> 
> You are just being a dishonest partisan hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it's a whataboutism. All you've been doing are whataboutisms in regards to the Capitol siege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I'm pointing out that your pretend outrage is just pretense, created to rationalize your attacks on your enemies.
> 
> 
> Your inability to  refute what I say, is obvious. The way you bluster and talk shit, is just you trying to hide it, and failing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're beyond brain-dead. I've lost count of how many of your posts I responded about how Trump's supporters storming the Capitol is just an extension of the summer riots by BLM and Antifa. That you deny that now merely exemplifies your senility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. There is a discussion to be had about what it means to start a period of civil unrest and how people respond differently once political violence becomes part of the new normal.
> 
> YOu of course are too dishonest to have a conversation about such a complex and nuanced topic.
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> My point was not a claim of cause and effect.
> 
> I was just pointing out the complete hypocrisy of you, pretending to be so outraged about the one small riot from our side, while ignoring YEARS of riots from your side.
> 
> 
> This is not whataboutism.
> 
> 
> You are just being a dishonest partisan hack.
Click to expand...

Nope, you kept claiming a whataboutism how the left started this with the summer riots. You can't erase what you've been saying all along.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wild Bill Kelsoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can call you names
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that and whataboutism is as far as you get.
> 
> Random rioters and looters have never tried to overthrow an election result because their side lost.
> 
> Have they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, they have...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More than 200 arrested in D.C. protests on inauguration day
> 
> 
> 217 people were arrested and six police officers suffered minor injuries after some protesters set fires and smashed windows in the nation's capital.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got as far as... _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20."_
> 
> ... what does protesting *after* he was sworn in have to do with storming the Capitol to prevent the election from being certified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for admitting it has nothing to do with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The "protesting" was part of your "RESIST" movement, which was an massive attempt to prevent Trump from being able to be President.
> 
> 
> You are a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The other person posted about people protesting after Trump's inauguration. Exactly how brain-dead are you to think those protests could prevent something which already occurred??
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to not remember all that talk of a coup, or all the talk of "RESIST", or all that talk of not letting people think Trump being president was "normal" or that it all led to a political soft coup attempt based on known lies?
> 
> 
> You have all the moral fiber of a crack whore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shitstain, what part of, _"following the inauguration of President Donald Trump on Jan. 20," _has rendered you utterly stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu said that. I addressed it.
> 
> 
> Now you are just being a troll.
> 
> 
> Like always.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, shitstain, I didn't say that until another poster linked it as the pathetic excuse for trying to overthrow an election result. And of course it was a pathetic excuse since you can't overthrow an election result that's certified and completed with an inauguration.
> 
> Unlike the treasonous right who tried to prevent certification before it occurred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your excuses for focusing on one little riot from our side, while ignoring the years of rioting from your side,
> 
> 
> is just you being a partisan hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> What a traitorous piece of shit you are, shitstain. What you call a "little riot," was actually an insurrection against the seat of our government which threatened the lives of the vice president of the United States and the highest ranking official in the House of Representatives. With the intent to "stop the steal" by preventing the Constitutionally mandated certification of a presidential election so they could pull off a coup to install their own president who lost his election in a landslide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I got your justifications and rationalizations for ignoring the years of rioting from your side.
> 
> 
> The point remains. YOu want to ignore years of violent rioting, looting, killing, from your side, and focus on a few hours from our side, and pretend that our side are teh bad guys.
> 
> 
> Your dishonesty, is like a the vastness of space, beyond the capacity of the human mind to comprehend, in it's infinite depth and width and it's absolute darkness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again, those riots have nothing to do with the attack on the Capitol which was only about the election, not any past riots. But according to you, the left is now justified for continuing to riot because you, and freaks like you, have given the left the whataboutism justification for committing any crime they want. That's the danger of relying on whataboutism defenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My point was not a claim of cause and effect.
> 
> I was just pointing out the complete hypocrisy of you, pretending to be so outraged about the one small riot from our side, while ignoring YEARS of riots from your side.
> 
> 
> This is not whataboutism.
> 
> 
> You are just being a dishonest partisan hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it's a whataboutism. All you've been doing are whataboutisms in regards to the Capitol siege.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I'm pointing out that your pretend outrage is just pretense, created to rationalize your attacks on your enemies.
> 
> 
> Your inability to  refute what I say, is obvious. The way you bluster and talk shit, is just you trying to hide it, and failing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're beyond brain-dead. I've lost count of how many of your posts I responded about how Trump's supporters storming the Capitol is just an extension of the summer riots by BLM and Antifa. That you deny that now merely exemplifies your senility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. There is a discussion to be had about what it means to start a period of civil unrest and how people respond differently once political violence becomes part of the new normal.
> 
> YOu of course are too dishonest to have a conversation about such a complex and nuanced topic.
> 
> My point stands.
> 
> 
> My point was not a claim of cause and effect.
> 
> I was just pointing out the complete hypocrisy of you, pretending to be so outraged about the one small riot from our side, while ignoring YEARS of riots from your side.
> 
> 
> This is not whataboutism.
> 
> 
> You are just being a dishonest partisan hack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, you kept claiming a whataboutism how the left started this with the summer riots. You can't erase what you've been saying all along.
Click to expand...



There are many levels on which I have nothing but contempt for you people.

That I sometimes mention one, and at other times another, does not mean that I have stopped having contempt for you for the first one. 


I know that you are easily confused. I am trying to stay on one topic at a time. For your sake. Because you are stupid was well as a vile person.


Today, my purpose was to point out that your pretend outrage is just bullshit, to rationalize your attacks on your enemies.


Which it is. 


Your using your stupidity as a defense against facing my obviously true point, is a standard lib defense mechanism. 


BORING.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Your inability to refute what I say,



Just about everything you say is self-refuted  and not only by our side. Take your ‘little riot’ The current highest ranking Republican in the nation says the former highest ranking Republican and most powerful man in the world was ... “practically and morally responsible for provoking” (your little riot) “No question about it. The people that stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president," McConnell said. "And having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, (known as lies) conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole, which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on the Earth”

So you post a factual report about a BLM riot that occurred over a mile from the ceremony on TrumpQ’s Inauguration Day and dare us to refute that it happened. Wow! You have such a solid presentation of the Indisputable facts. Of course you lie when you say we dont condemn that brand of riot. But you need that lie to survive and you don’t have to pay attention when we do condemn all brands of violence.

So you miss the significance of the DJTQ RIOT on JANUARY 6th as defined by Mitch MCConnell. And the fact that lives were lost and injured in the riot inside the breached walls of the US Capitol under the TrumpQ flag on the day that a joint session was performing a sacred duty to enjoy another  AMERICAN  peaceful transfer of power from one party to another..

All for the lies that you continue to believe. as Mitch put it, the “crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole, which the defeated president kept shouting.”

Your BLM riots were not NOT A THOUSAND TIMES “*NOT*” the result of a Democratic Party Leader in any capacity that had a motive built a “crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole.” to cause it and make happen.




SassyIrishLass said:


> You had high hopes..



Despite the above,  I had high hopes that TrumpQ and his conspiracy theory laden national mob of nitwits would respect the election results and the PEACEFUL TRANSITION of POWER.

Too stupid, the entire lot of them,  to find the decency and the self respect to dump DJTQ.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

An “obviously true point” LIE 26575000



Correll said:


> against facing my obviously true point



what is your “obviously true point” again?


Is this “obviously true? 26574479


Correll said:


> I was just pointing out the complete hypocrisy of you, pretending to be so outraged about the one small riot from our side, while ignoring YEARS of riots from your side.



How have you scientifically and clinically  proven that Faun is “pretending” to be outraged at the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT involving a rightwing mob incited by DJTQ and 147 REPUBLICAN sitting US Congressmen and Congresswomen plus a handful of REPUBLICAN Senators who voted to overturn the election that DJTQ “obviously” truthfully and factually lost by seven million votes. while Faun is “ignoring” YEARS of riots attributed to unknown left leaning assholes and idiots of no significant rank in the Democratic Party or media?

what is obviously “true” about you point?

You are so deranged you lie about truth.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

The false equivalence lie regarding the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT 26576673 Reply to 26526911


Doc7505 said:


> Which was the insurrgency



Was it the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT involving a rightwing mob incited by DJTQ and 147 REPUBLICAN sitting US Congressmen and Congresswomen plus a handful of REPUBLICAN Senators who voted to overturn the election that DJTQ truthfully and factually lost by seven million votes? Was it the  DJTQ 1/6 RIOT that took place INSIDE the UNITED STATES CAPITOL BUILDING to stop the peaceful transfer of Power from DJTQ  to the legitimate President-elect. Was it the  DJTQ 1/6 RIOT that was premeditated and  incited in order to negate millions of minority votes cast in major cities in states where DJTQ lost to Joe Biden.

Or was it YEARS of riots that were always condemned by the BLM organizers and attributed to unknown left leaning or just plain criminal assholes and idiots of no significant rank in the Democratic Party or so-called left wing news media?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Just about everything you say is self-refuted and not only by our side. Take your ‘little riot’ The current highest ranking Republican in the nation says the former highest ranking Republican and most powerful man in the world was ... “practically and morally responsible for provoking” (your little riot)




Your sudden respect for the republican leadership would be heartwarming, if I thought it was sincere.


Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress. He did not call for a riot. He did not order the police to stand down so that the rioters could loot and kill. He did not order people that defended themselves arrested. He did not fire cops that arrested rioters.


Your dems have done all of those things over the last 5 years, of widespread and violent rioting.


You are ignoring years of rioting, from your side, and using one small riot from our side, to justify another round of escalation in your war on US.


When the counter escalation comes, try not to whine like a faggot next time.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> An “obviously true point” LIE 26575000
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> against facing my obviously true point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what is your “obviously true point” again?
> 
> 
> Is this “obviously true? 26574479
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just pointing out the complete hypocrisy of you, pretending to be so outraged about the one small riot from our side, while ignoring YEARS of riots from your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How have you scientifically and clinically  proven that Faun is “pretending” to be outraged at the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT involving a rightwing mob incited by DJTQ and 147 REPUBLICAN sitting US Congressmen and Congresswomen plus a handful of REPUBLICAN Senators who voted to overturn the election that DJTQ “obviously” truthfully and factually lost by seven million votes. while Faun is “ignoring” YEARS of riots attributed to unknown left leaning assholes and idiots of no significant rank in the Democratic Party or media?
> 
> what is obviously “true” about you point?
> 
> You are so deranged you lie about truth.
Click to expand...



When Faun exhibits so much fear and concern and horror over a single riot, because riots are soooo bad, yet, ignores the far more numerous and violent riots from his own side, 


then yes, it is obviously true that his pretense of outrage is just that, ie pretense 


Dumbass.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.



Yes. Pressure to do what?

Do not run away from that question. You need to finish your thought if it truly is a thought.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just about everything you say is self-refuted and not only by our side. Take your ‘little riot’ The current highest ranking Republican in the nation says the former highest ranking Republican and most powerful man in the world was ... “practically and morally responsible for provoking” (your little riot)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your sudden respect for the republican leadership would be heartwarming, if I thought it was sincere.
> 
> 
> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress. He did not call for a riot. He did not order the police to stand down so that the rioters could loot and kill. He did not order people that defended themselves arrested. He did not fire cops that arrested rioters.
> 
> 
> Your dems have done all of those things over the last 5 years, of widespread and violent rioting.
> 
> 
> You are ignoring years of rioting, from your side, and using one small riot from our side, to justify another round of escalation in your war on US.
> 
> 
> When the counter escalation comes, try not to whine like a faggot next time.
Click to expand...

WTF??

Congress was *inside* the Capitol, certifying the election.

Trump's mob was *outside* the Capitol.

So how were they supposed effectively exercise that pressure?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> An “obviously true point” LIE 26575000
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> against facing my obviously true point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what is your “obviously true point” again?
> 
> 
> Is this “obviously true? 26574479
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just pointing out the complete hypocrisy of you, pretending to be so outraged about the one small riot from our side, while ignoring YEARS of riots from your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How have you scientifically and clinically  proven that Faun is “pretending” to be outraged at the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT involving a rightwing mob incited by DJTQ and 147 REPUBLICAN sitting US Congressmen and Congresswomen plus a handful of REPUBLICAN Senators who voted to overturn the election that DJTQ “obviously” truthfully and factually lost by seven million votes. while Faun is “ignoring” YEARS of riots attributed to unknown left leaning assholes and idiots of no significant rank in the Democratic Party or media?
> 
> what is obviously “true” about you point?
> 
> You are so deranged you lie about truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When Faun exhibits so much fear and concern and horror over a single riot, because riots are soooo bad, yet, ignores the far more numerous and violent riots from his own side,
> 
> 
> then yes, it is obviously true that his pretense of outrage is just that, ie pretense
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
Click to expand...

You're fucking insane, con. It wasn't just a riot. It was an assault on the seat of our government with the intent of overturning an election. What it was, was a seditious insurrection and failed coup. At least call it what it was. That's why you appear to be out of your mind by comparing it with other riots; when in fact, there's never been anything like that in the history of this nation. It rocked the very foundation of this nation. I get you're desperate to trivialize that dark moment in America's history because it was carried out by people on your side of the aisle, but you fail miserably in that regard because it wasn't a trivial matter. It wasn't merely one little riot.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Ignoring “far more numerous and violent riots” 26577042


Correll said:


> ignores the far more numerous and violent riots from his own side


Please provide Faun and myself the name of the one leader and primary instigator of the “far more numerous and violent riots” of which you desire us to quit ignoring.

Are you ignoring Mitch, an eyewitness to the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT

"A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name. These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags, and screaming their loyalty to him.​
"It was obvious that only President Trump could end this.​
"Former aides publicly begged him to do so. Loyal allies frantically called the Administration.​
"But the President did not act swiftly. He did not do his job. He didn't take steps so federal law could be faithfully executed, and order restored.​
"Instead, according to public reports, he watched television happily as the chaos unfolded. He kept pressing his scheme to overturn the election!​
"Even after it was clear to any reasonable observer that Vice President Pence was in danger... even as the mob carrying Trump banners was beating cops and breaching perimeters... the President sent a further tweet attacking his Vice President.​
"Predictably and foreseeably under the circumstances, members of the mob seemed to interpret this as further inspiration to lawlessness and violence.​
"Later, even when the President did halfheartedly begin calling for peace, he did not call right away for the riot to end. He did not tell the mob to depart until even later.​
"And even then, with police officers bleeding and broken glass covering Capitol floors, he kept repeating election lies and praising the criminals.​
And what public official as high as Vice President Mike Pence and his wife and children were in danger in the “numerous riots” ?

DJTQ’s mob chanted “Hang Mike Pence” within seconds of a DJTQ rioter with a bullhorn who read TrumpQ’s active tweet advising the rioting mob that Pence failed to do his job to save America. Save America by canceling the votes of black Americans who live and vote in major cities only in the states that DJTQ lost.

The gallows was set and ready.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Pressure to do what?
> 
> Do not run away from that question. You need to finish your thought if it truly is a thought.
Click to expand...



"To stop the steal", obviously. As you knew. As everyone reading this knew. 


I wasn't trying to be dishonest. You are the dishonest one here.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just about everything you say is self-refuted and not only by our side. Take your ‘little riot’ The current highest ranking Republican in the nation says the former highest ranking Republican and most powerful man in the world was ... “practically and morally responsible for provoking” (your little riot)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your sudden respect for the republican leadership would be heartwarming, if I thought it was sincere.
> 
> 
> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress. He did not call for a riot. He did not order the police to stand down so that the rioters could loot and kill. He did not order people that defended themselves arrested. He did not fire cops that arrested rioters.
> 
> 
> Your dems have done all of those things over the last 5 years, of widespread and violent rioting.
> 
> 
> You are ignoring years of rioting, from your side, and using one small riot from our side, to justify another round of escalation in your war on US.
> 
> 
> When the counter escalation comes, try not to whine like a faggot next time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF??
> 
> Congress was *inside* the Capitol, certifying the election.
> 
> Trump's mob was *outside* the Capitol.
> 
> So how were they supposed effectively exercise that pressure?
Click to expand...



By being a demonstration of how America was not prepared to accept the "steal".


Obviously. Are you really this stupid?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> An “obviously true point” LIE 26575000
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> against facing my obviously true point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what is your “obviously true point” again?
> 
> 
> Is this “obviously true? 26574479
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just pointing out the complete hypocrisy of you, pretending to be so outraged about the one small riot from our side, while ignoring YEARS of riots from your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How have you scientifically and clinically  proven that Faun is “pretending” to be outraged at the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT involving a rightwing mob incited by DJTQ and 147 REPUBLICAN sitting US Congressmen and Congresswomen plus a handful of REPUBLICAN Senators who voted to overturn the election that DJTQ “obviously” truthfully and factually lost by seven million votes. while Faun is “ignoring” YEARS of riots attributed to unknown left leaning assholes and idiots of no significant rank in the Democratic Party or media?
> 
> what is obviously “true” about you point?
> 
> You are so deranged you lie about truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When Faun exhibits so much fear and concern and horror over a single riot, because riots are soooo bad, yet, ignores the far more numerous and violent riots from his own side,
> 
> 
> then yes, it is obviously true that his pretense of outrage is just that, ie pretense
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're fucking insane, con. It wasn't just a riot. It was an assault on the seat of our government with the intent of overturning an election. What it was, was a seditious insurrection and failed coup. At least call it what it was. That's why you appear to be out of your mind by comparing it with other riots; when in fact, there's never been anything like that in the history of this nation. It rocked the very foundation of this nation. I get you're desperate to trivialize that dark moment in America's history because it was carried out by people on your side of the aisle, but you fail miserably in that regard because it wasn't a trivial matter. It wasn't merely one little riot.
Click to expand...



If the supposed "intent" is what is making you hysterical, then stop mentioning the riot violence. 


Because EVERYTIME you do that, it opens you up to the question of, if that was so bad, why are you not even more upset with Antifa/BLM? 


And the obvious answer is, that your outrage is just a pretense, as it always is with you people.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Ignoring “far more numerous and violent riots” 26577042
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> ignores the far more numerous and violent riots from his own side
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide Faun and myself the name of the one leader and primary instigator of the “far more numerous and violent riots” of which you desire us to quit ignoring.
> 
> ......
Click to expand...



Why? HOw is that relevant to anything I said?


My point was that you are ignoring the far more numerous and violent riots from your own side. 


And you are.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Pressure to do what?
> 
> Do not run away from that question. You need to finish your thought if it truly is a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "To stop the steal", obviously. As you knew. As everyone reading this knew.
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to be dishonest. You are the dishonest one here.
Click to expand...

How were they going to be able to "stop the steal" from outside the Capitol while Congress was inside the Capitol certifying the election?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> An “obviously true point” LIE 26575000
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> against facing my obviously true point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what is your “obviously true point” again?
> 
> 
> Is this “obviously true? 26574479
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just pointing out the complete hypocrisy of you, pretending to be so outraged about the one small riot from our side, while ignoring YEARS of riots from your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How have you scientifically and clinically  proven that Faun is “pretending” to be outraged at the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT involving a rightwing mob incited by DJTQ and 147 REPUBLICAN sitting US Congressmen and Congresswomen plus a handful of REPUBLICAN Senators who voted to overturn the election that DJTQ “obviously” truthfully and factually lost by seven million votes. while Faun is “ignoring” YEARS of riots attributed to unknown left leaning assholes and idiots of no significant rank in the Democratic Party or media?
> 
> what is obviously “true” about you point?
> 
> You are so deranged you lie about truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When Faun exhibits so much fear and concern and horror over a single riot, because riots are soooo bad, yet, ignores the far more numerous and violent riots from his own side,
> 
> 
> then yes, it is obviously true that his pretense of outrage is just that, ie pretense
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're fucking insane, con. It wasn't just a riot. It was an assault on the seat of our government with the intent of overturning an election. What it was, was a seditious insurrection and failed coup. At least call it what it was. That's why you appear to be out of your mind by comparing it with other riots; when in fact, there's never been anything like that in the history of this nation. It rocked the very foundation of this nation. I get you're desperate to trivialize that dark moment in America's history because it was carried out by people on your side of the aisle, but you fail miserably in that regard because it wasn't a trivial matter. It wasn't merely one little riot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If the supposed "intent" is what is making you hysterical, then stop mentioning the riot violence.
> 
> 
> Because EVERYTIME you do that, it opens you up to the question of, if that was so bad, why are you not even more upset with Antifa/BLM?
> 
> 
> And the obvious answer is, that your outrage is just a pretense, as it always is with you people.
Click to expand...

Dumbfuck, I condemned the violence committed by Antifa, BLM & Trump's insurgents.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Pressure to do what?
> 
> Do not run away from that question. You need to finish your thought if it truly is a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "To stop the steal", obviously. As you knew. As everyone reading this knew.
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to be dishonest. You are the dishonest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How were they going to be able to "stop the steal" from outside the Capitol while Congress was inside the Capitol certifying the election?
Click to expand...



Though political pressure. Obviously. 


That is the way that protests, ACTUAL protests are supposed to work.


You have reached the point of "direct action" which is more a practice you see in civil unrest, or civil war. 


Until Jan 6th. We on teh right had NOT reached that point. It was reasonable of Trump to think that a crowd would gather, makes some noise and maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> An “obviously true point” LIE 26575000
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> against facing my obviously true point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what is your “obviously true point” again?
> 
> 
> Is this “obviously true? 26574479
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just pointing out the complete hypocrisy of you, pretending to be so outraged about the one small riot from our side, while ignoring YEARS of riots from your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How have you scientifically and clinically  proven that Faun is “pretending” to be outraged at the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT involving a rightwing mob incited by DJTQ and 147 REPUBLICAN sitting US Congressmen and Congresswomen plus a handful of REPUBLICAN Senators who voted to overturn the election that DJTQ “obviously” truthfully and factually lost by seven million votes. while Faun is “ignoring” YEARS of riots attributed to unknown left leaning assholes and idiots of no significant rank in the Democratic Party or media?
> 
> what is obviously “true” about you point?
> 
> You are so deranged you lie about truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When Faun exhibits so much fear and concern and horror over a single riot, because riots are soooo bad, yet, ignores the far more numerous and violent riots from his own side,
> 
> 
> then yes, it is obviously true that his pretense of outrage is just that, ie pretense
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're fucking insane, con. It wasn't just a riot. It was an assault on the seat of our government with the intent of overturning an election. What it was, was a seditious insurrection and failed coup. At least call it what it was. That's why you appear to be out of your mind by comparing it with other riots; when in fact, there's never been anything like that in the history of this nation. It rocked the very foundation of this nation. I get you're desperate to trivialize that dark moment in America's history because it was carried out by people on your side of the aisle, but you fail miserably in that regard because it wasn't a trivial matter. It wasn't merely one little riot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If the supposed "intent" is what is making you hysterical, then stop mentioning the riot violence.
> 
> 
> Because EVERYTIME you do that, it opens you up to the question of, if that was so bad, why are you not even more upset with Antifa/BLM?
> 
> 
> And the obvious answer is, that your outrage is just a pretense, as it always is with you people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, I condemned the violence committed by Antifa, BLM & Trump's insurgents.
Click to expand...



So you say. BUT, you are more upset about the violence from the few hours that the right was rioting, than from the years of riots from the left, 

so, your claim lacks a certain,... credibility.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Pressure to do what?
> 
> Do not run away from that question. You need to finish your thought if it truly is a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "To stop the steal", obviously. As you knew. As everyone reading this knew.
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to be dishonest. You are the dishonest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How were they going to be able to "stop the steal" from outside the Capitol while Congress was inside the Capitol certifying the election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. Obviously.
> 
> 
> That is the way that protests, ACTUAL protests are supposed to work.
> 
> 
> You have reached the point of "direct action" which is more a practice you see in civil unrest, or civil war.
> 
> 
> Until Jan 6th. We on teh right had NOT reached that point. It was reasonable of Trump to think that a crowd would gather, makes some noise and maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.
Click to expand...

You sound like a retard.

Making noise would not "stop the steal." Again, Congress was in the middle of certifying the election. Making noise outside the building would not stop that.

Thanks for admitting the only way to "stop the steal" was to break into the Capitol.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> An “obviously true point” LIE 26575000
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> against facing my obviously true point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what is your “obviously true point” again?
> 
> 
> Is this “obviously true? 26574479
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just pointing out the complete hypocrisy of you, pretending to be so outraged about the one small riot from our side, while ignoring YEARS of riots from your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How have you scientifically and clinically  proven that Faun is “pretending” to be outraged at the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT involving a rightwing mob incited by DJTQ and 147 REPUBLICAN sitting US Congressmen and Congresswomen plus a handful of REPUBLICAN Senators who voted to overturn the election that DJTQ “obviously” truthfully and factually lost by seven million votes. while Faun is “ignoring” YEARS of riots attributed to unknown left leaning assholes and idiots of no significant rank in the Democratic Party or media?
> 
> what is obviously “true” about you point?
> 
> You are so deranged you lie about truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When Faun exhibits so much fear and concern and horror over a single riot, because riots are soooo bad, yet, ignores the far more numerous and violent riots from his own side,
> 
> 
> then yes, it is obviously true that his pretense of outrage is just that, ie pretense
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're fucking insane, con. It wasn't just a riot. It was an assault on the seat of our government with the intent of overturning an election. What it was, was a seditious insurrection and failed coup. At least call it what it was. That's why you appear to be out of your mind by comparing it with other riots; when in fact, there's never been anything like that in the history of this nation. It rocked the very foundation of this nation. I get you're desperate to trivialize that dark moment in America's history because it was carried out by people on your side of the aisle, but you fail miserably in that regard because it wasn't a trivial matter. It wasn't merely one little riot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If the supposed "intent" is what is making you hysterical, then stop mentioning the riot violence.
> 
> 
> Because EVERYTIME you do that, it opens you up to the question of, if that was so bad, why are you not even more upset with Antifa/BLM?
> 
> 
> And the obvious answer is, that your outrage is just a pretense, as it always is with you people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, I condemned the violence committed by Antifa, BLM & Trump's insurgents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you say. BUT, you are more upset about the violence from the few hours that the right was rioting, than from the years of riots from the left,
> 
> so, your claim lacks a certain,... credibility.
Click to expand...

Because attacking the seat of our government was far worse.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Pressure to do what?
> 
> Do not run away from that question. You need to finish your thought if it truly is a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "To stop the steal", obviously. As you knew. As everyone reading this knew.
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to be dishonest. You are the dishonest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How were they going to be able to "stop the steal" from outside the Capitol while Congress was inside the Capitol certifying the election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. Obviously.
> 
> 
> That is the way that protests, ACTUAL protests are supposed to work.
> 
> 
> You have reached the point of "direct action" which is more a practice you see in civil unrest, or civil war.
> 
> 
> Until Jan 6th. We on teh right had NOT reached that point. It was reasonable of Trump to think that a crowd would gather, makes some noise and maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like a retard.
> 
> Making noise would not "stop the steal." Again, Congress was in the middle of certifying the election. Making noise outside the building would not stop that.
> 
> Thanks for admitting the only way to "stop the steal" was to break into the Capitol.
Click to expand...



You sound like an asshole. And you are a liar. The idea that political pressure could get political results, was unlikely but it was possible. 

Asking for a demonstration, and for political pressure to be brought to bear, was completely reasonable and legal.


YOur pretense otherwise is just you manufacturing pretend outrage to justify your next escalation in your war on US.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Pressure to do what?
> 
> Do not run away from that question. You need to finish your thought if it truly is a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "To stop the steal", obviously. As you knew. As everyone reading this knew.
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to be dishonest. You are the dishonest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How were they going to be able to "stop the steal" from outside the Capitol while Congress was inside the Capitol certifying the election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. Obviously.
> 
> 
> That is the way that protests, ACTUAL protests are supposed to work.
> 
> 
> You have reached the point of "direct action" which is more a practice you see in civil unrest, or civil war.
> 
> 
> Until Jan 6th. We on teh right had NOT reached that point. It was reasonable of Trump to think that a crowd would gather, makes some noise and maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like a retard.
> 
> Making noise would not "stop the steal." Again, Congress was in the middle of certifying the election. Making noise outside the building would not stop that.
> 
> Thanks for admitting the only way to "stop the steal" was to break into the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like an asshole. And you are a liar. The idea that political pressure could get political results, was unlikely but it was possible.
> 
> Asking for a demonstration, and for political pressure to be brought to bear, was completely reasonable and legal.
> 
> 
> YOur pretense otherwise is just you manufacturing pretend outrage to justify your next escalation in your war on US.
Click to expand...

You're not explaining how it was possible. Just saying it was possible doesn't mean it was.

Again...

Congress was *inside* the Capitol in the middle of certifying the election.

What kind of pressure *outside* the Capitol could have stopped that?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> An “obviously true point” LIE 26575000
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> against facing my obviously true point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what is your “obviously true point” again?
> 
> 
> Is this “obviously true? 26574479
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just pointing out the complete hypocrisy of you, pretending to be so outraged about the one small riot from our side, while ignoring YEARS of riots from your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How have you scientifically and clinically  proven that Faun is “pretending” to be outraged at the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT involving a rightwing mob incited by DJTQ and 147 REPUBLICAN sitting US Congressmen and Congresswomen plus a handful of REPUBLICAN Senators who voted to overturn the election that DJTQ “obviously” truthfully and factually lost by seven million votes. while Faun is “ignoring” YEARS of riots attributed to unknown left leaning assholes and idiots of no significant rank in the Democratic Party or media?
> 
> what is obviously “true” about you point?
> 
> You are so deranged you lie about truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When Faun exhibits so much fear and concern and horror over a single riot, because riots are soooo bad, yet, ignores the far more numerous and violent riots from his own side,
> 
> 
> then yes, it is obviously true that his pretense of outrage is just that, ie pretense
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're fucking insane, con. It wasn't just a riot. It was an assault on the seat of our government with the intent of overturning an election. What it was, was a seditious insurrection and failed coup. At least call it what it was. That's why you appear to be out of your mind by comparing it with other riots; when in fact, there's never been anything like that in the history of this nation. It rocked the very foundation of this nation. I get you're desperate to trivialize that dark moment in America's history because it was carried out by people on your side of the aisle, but you fail miserably in that regard because it wasn't a trivial matter. It wasn't merely one little riot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If the supposed "intent" is what is making you hysterical, then stop mentioning the riot violence.
> 
> 
> Because EVERYTIME you do that, it opens you up to the question of, if that was so bad, why are you not even more upset with Antifa/BLM?
> 
> 
> And the obvious answer is, that your outrage is just a pretense, as it always is with you people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, I condemned the violence committed by Antifa, BLM & Trump's insurgents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you say. BUT, you are more upset about the violence from the few hours that the right was rioting, than from the years of riots from the left,
> 
> so, your claim lacks a certain,... credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because attacking the seat of our government was far worse.
Click to expand...



Everytime you whine like a faggot about the violence of those few hours, while minimizing the violence of the left over the last 5 years, you are being a hypocrite and undermining your credibility to the point that you have NONE. 


You are having a hissy fit about the dc riot, because it gives you an excuse to smear your enemies and to justify  your sides next escalation of your war on US.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Until Jan 6th. We on teh right had NOT reached that point. It was reasonable of Trump to think that a crowd would gather, makes some noise and maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.



No. You are a liar. The reason the mob understood what they needed to do on January 6th 2021 at the US CAPITOL L at DJTQ!s direction was to to “Stop the Steal” of an unstolen election. There was no other direction by DJTQ to “maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.”

Take it from Mitch:

"The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things.​
"Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally.​
"This was different.​
"This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.​
"The unconscionable behavior did not end when the violence began.​
Trump endorsed the MAGA mob’s unlawful trespassing on Governnent restricted property when he tweeted his displeasure with Pence to the mob that had already violently entered the building.

 Now you sit there begging us not to believe our lying eyes that DJTQ A wanted a peaceful protest outside of the chamber that  would force Congress members and Ownce  to ignore their Constitutional Duty to verify certify the state’s elections and begin the peaceful transition of power to a new duly elected Administration.

The only way to stop that was by the MAGA mob entering the building. And they had to commit violent acts to do that.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> An “obviously true point” LIE 26575000
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> against facing my obviously true point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what is your “obviously true point” again?
> 
> 
> Is this “obviously true? 26574479
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just pointing out the complete hypocrisy of you, pretending to be so outraged about the one small riot from our side, while ignoring YEARS of riots from your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How have you scientifically and clinically  proven that Faun is “pretending” to be outraged at the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT involving a rightwing mob incited by DJTQ and 147 REPUBLICAN sitting US Congressmen and Congresswomen plus a handful of REPUBLICAN Senators who voted to overturn the election that DJTQ “obviously” truthfully and factually lost by seven million votes. while Faun is “ignoring” YEARS of riots attributed to unknown left leaning assholes and idiots of no significant rank in the Democratic Party or media?
> 
> what is obviously “true” about you point?
> 
> You are so deranged you lie about truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When Faun exhibits so much fear and concern and horror over a single riot, because riots are soooo bad, yet, ignores the far more numerous and violent riots from his own side,
> 
> 
> then yes, it is obviously true that his pretense of outrage is just that, ie pretense
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're fucking insane, con. It wasn't just a riot. It was an assault on the seat of our government with the intent of overturning an election. What it was, was a seditious insurrection and failed coup. At least call it what it was. That's why you appear to be out of your mind by comparing it with other riots; when in fact, there's never been anything like that in the history of this nation. It rocked the very foundation of this nation. I get you're desperate to trivialize that dark moment in America's history because it was carried out by people on your side of the aisle, but you fail miserably in that regard because it wasn't a trivial matter. It wasn't merely one little riot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If the supposed "intent" is what is making you hysterical, then stop mentioning the riot violence.
> 
> 
> Because EVERYTIME you do that, it opens you up to the question of, if that was so bad, why are you not even more upset with Antifa/BLM?
> 
> 
> And the obvious answer is, that your outrage is just a pretense, as it always is with you people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, I condemned the violence committed by Antifa, BLM & Trump's insurgents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you say. BUT, you are more upset about the violence from the few hours that the right was rioting, than from the years of riots from the left,
> 
> so, your claim lacks a certain,... credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because attacking the seat of our government was far worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Everytime you whine like a faggot about the violence of those few hours, while minimizing the violence of the left over the last 5 years, you are being a hypocrite and undermining your credibility to the point that you have NONE.
> 
> 
> You are having a hissy fit about the dc riot, because it gives you an excuse to smear your enemies and to justify  your sides next escalation of your war on US.
Click to expand...

LOL

You're a fucking nut, nut. They're not the same. Want proof? The FBI didn't go on a nation-wide hunt to apprehend rioters for any other attack except the attack on our goverment.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Pressure to do what?
> 
> Do not run away from that question. You need to finish your thought if it truly is a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "To stop the steal", obviously. As you knew. As everyone reading this knew.
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to be dishonest. You are the dishonest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How were they going to be able to "stop the steal" from outside the Capitol while Congress was inside the Capitol certifying the election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. Obviously.
> 
> 
> That is the way that protests, ACTUAL protests are supposed to work.
> 
> 
> You have reached the point of "direct action" which is more a practice you see in civil unrest, or civil war.
> 
> 
> Until Jan 6th. We on teh right had NOT reached that point. It was reasonable of Trump to think that a crowd would gather, makes some noise and maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like a retard.
> 
> Making noise would not "stop the steal." Again, Congress was in the middle of certifying the election. Making noise outside the building would not stop that.
> 
> Thanks for admitting the only way to "stop the steal" was to break into the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like an asshole. And you are a liar. The idea that political pressure could get political results, was unlikely but it was possible.
> 
> Asking for a demonstration, and for political pressure to be brought to bear, was completely reasonable and legal.
> 
> 
> YOur pretense otherwise is just you manufacturing pretend outrage to justify your next escalation in your war on US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not explaining how it was possible. Just saying it was possible doesn't mean it was.
> 
> Again...
> 
> Congress was *inside* the Capitol in the middle of certifying the election.
> 
> What kind of pressure *outside* the Capitol could have stopped that?
Click to expand...



I explained it clearly . YOu are playing stupid as part of your normal stonewalling.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Do you see what you do when you can’t deal with the facts and reason and even obvious moral observations?

I am just an observer to your conversation with Faun but why do you always run back to your your original asinine stupid set of lies when it gets uncomfortable for you to deal with facts, reason and all the moral failures of DJTQ and his violent mob.



Correll said:


> Everytime you whine like a faggot about the violence of those few hours, while minimizing the violence of the left over the last 5 years, you are being a hypocrite and undermining your credibility to the point that you have NONE.
> 
> You are having a hissy fit about the dc riot, because it gives you an excuse to smear your enemies and to justify your sides next escalation of your war on US.



That is not a logical reasonable defense of the indefensible. It is a cowardly liars way of running from the truth.

That is not a logical reasonable defense of the indefensible. It is a cowardly liars way of running from the truth.

The above was your reply to this question:




Faun said:


> What kind of pressure *outside* the Capitol could have stopped that?



Why don’t you answer that question?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until Jan 6th. We on teh right had NOT reached that point. It was reasonable of Trump to think that a crowd would gather, makes some noise and maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. You are a liar. The reason the mob understood what they needed to do on January 6th 2021 at the US CAPITOL L at DJTQ!s direction was to to “Stop the Steal” of an unstolen election. There was no other direction by DJTQ to “maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.”
> 
> Take it from Mitch:
> 
> "The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things.​
> "Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally.​
> "This was different.​
> "This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.​
> "The unconscionable behavior did not end when the violence began.​
> Trump endorsed the MAGA mob’s unlawful trespassing on Governnent restricted property when he tweeted his displeasure with Pence to the mob that had already violently entered the building.
> 
> Now you sit there begging us not to believe our lying eyes that DJTQ A wanted a peaceful protest outside of the chamber that  would force Congress members and Ownce  to ignore their Constitutional Duty to verify certify the state’s elections and begin the peaceful transition of power to a new duly elected Administration.
> 
> The only way to stop that was by the MAGA mob entering the building. And they had to commit violent acts to do that.
Click to expand...



If you have evidence that Trump criminally incited violence, than call up your dem representatives and demand they charge Trump in a court of law.


Until then, we can assume you are just talking shit, to smear your enemies.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> An “obviously true point” LIE 26575000
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> against facing my obviously true point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what is your “obviously true point” again?
> 
> 
> Is this “obviously true? 26574479
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just pointing out the complete hypocrisy of you, pretending to be so outraged about the one small riot from our side, while ignoring YEARS of riots from your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How have you scientifically and clinically  proven that Faun is “pretending” to be outraged at the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT involving a rightwing mob incited by DJTQ and 147 REPUBLICAN sitting US Congressmen and Congresswomen plus a handful of REPUBLICAN Senators who voted to overturn the election that DJTQ “obviously” truthfully and factually lost by seven million votes. while Faun is “ignoring” YEARS of riots attributed to unknown left leaning assholes and idiots of no significant rank in the Democratic Party or media?
> 
> what is obviously “true” about you point?
> 
> You are so deranged you lie about truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When Faun exhibits so much fear and concern and horror over a single riot, because riots are soooo bad, yet, ignores the far more numerous and violent riots from his own side,
> 
> 
> then yes, it is obviously true that his pretense of outrage is just that, ie pretense
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're fucking insane, con. It wasn't just a riot. It was an assault on the seat of our government with the intent of overturning an election. What it was, was a seditious insurrection and failed coup. At least call it what it was. That's why you appear to be out of your mind by comparing it with other riots; when in fact, there's never been anything like that in the history of this nation. It rocked the very foundation of this nation. I get you're desperate to trivialize that dark moment in America's history because it was carried out by people on your side of the aisle, but you fail miserably in that regard because it wasn't a trivial matter. It wasn't merely one little riot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If the supposed "intent" is what is making you hysterical, then stop mentioning the riot violence.
> 
> 
> Because EVERYTIME you do that, it opens you up to the question of, if that was so bad, why are you not even more upset with Antifa/BLM?
> 
> 
> And the obvious answer is, that your outrage is just a pretense, as it always is with you people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, I condemned the violence committed by Antifa, BLM & Trump's insurgents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you say. BUT, you are more upset about the violence from the few hours that the right was rioting, than from the years of riots from the left,
> 
> so, your claim lacks a certain,... credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because attacking the seat of our government was far worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Everytime you whine like a faggot about the violence of those few hours, while minimizing the violence of the left over the last 5 years, you are being a hypocrite and undermining your credibility to the point that you have NONE.
> 
> 
> You are having a hissy fit about the dc riot, because it gives you an excuse to smear your enemies and to justify  your sides next escalation of your war on US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You're a fucking nut, nut. They're not the same. Want proof? The FBI didn't go on a nation-wide hunt to apprehend rioters for any other attack except the attack on our goverment.
Click to expand...



You mean like when the Portland rioters attacked the ICE building and the federal courthouse?

Yes, the FBI did not react, as far as I know. 


It is almost as though the FBI has been politicized and in on the side of the dems, which is to say, the rioters.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you see what you do when you can’t deal with the facts and reason and even obvious moral observations?
> 
> I am just an observer to your conversation with Faun but why do you always run back to your your original asinine stupid set of lies when it gets uncomfortable for you to deal with facts, reason and all the moral failures of DJTQ and his violent mob.
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everytime you whine like a faggot about the violence of those few hours, while minimizing the violence of the left over the last 5 years, you are being a hypocrite and undermining your credibility to the point that you have NONE.
> 
> You are having a hissy fit about the dc riot, because it gives you an excuse to smear your enemies and to justify your sides next escalation of your war on US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a logical reasonable defense of the indefensible. It is a cowardly liars way of running from the truth.
> 
> That is not a logical reasonable defense of the indefensible. It is a cowardly liars way of running from the truth.
> 
> The above was your reply to this question:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of pressure *outside* the Capitol could have stopped that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don’t you answer that question?
Click to expand...




1. I did answer the question.

2. I keep going back to the fact that Faun's response to riot violence, is not credible because that is the crux of the matter.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Pressure to do what?
> 
> Do not run away from that question. You need to finish your thought if it truly is a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "To stop the steal", obviously. As you knew. As everyone reading this knew.
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to be dishonest. You are the dishonest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How were they going to be able to "stop the steal" from outside the Capitol while Congress was inside the Capitol certifying the election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. Obviously.
> 
> 
> That is the way that protests, ACTUAL protests are supposed to work.
> 
> 
> You have reached the point of "direct action" which is more a practice you see in civil unrest, or civil war.
> 
> 
> Until Jan 6th. We on teh right had NOT reached that point. It was reasonable of Trump to think that a crowd would gather, makes some noise and maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like a retard.
> 
> Making noise would not "stop the steal." Again, Congress was in the middle of certifying the election. Making noise outside the building would not stop that.
> 
> Thanks for admitting the only way to "stop the steal" was to break into the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like an asshole. And you are a liar. The idea that political pressure could get political results, was unlikely but it was possible.
> 
> Asking for a demonstration, and for political pressure to be brought to bear, was completely reasonable and legal.
> 
> 
> YOur pretense otherwise is just you manufacturing pretend outrage to justify your next escalation in your war on US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not explaining how it was possible. Just saying it was possible doesn't mean it was.
> 
> Again...
> 
> Congress was *inside* the Capitol in the middle of certifying the election.
> 
> What kind of pressure *outside* the Capitol could have stopped that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I explained it clearly . YOu are playing stupid as part of your normal stonewalling.
Click to expand...

Great, now you're hiding behind the lie that you explained it so you can avoid explaining it.

All you said was, they could apply  _"political pressure."_ That doesn't explain anything since they were *outside* the building. Just posting words, _"political pressure,"_ doesn't explain how that would "stop the steal." You can't even demonstrate the lawmakers *inside* the Capitol would hear the crowd outside or would even be interrupted in certifying the election.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> An “obviously true point” LIE 26575000
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> against facing my obviously true point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what is your “obviously true point” again?
> 
> 
> Is this “obviously true? 26574479
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just pointing out the complete hypocrisy of you, pretending to be so outraged about the one small riot from our side, while ignoring YEARS of riots from your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How have you scientifically and clinically  proven that Faun is “pretending” to be outraged at the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT involving a rightwing mob incited by DJTQ and 147 REPUBLICAN sitting US Congressmen and Congresswomen plus a handful of REPUBLICAN Senators who voted to overturn the election that DJTQ “obviously” truthfully and factually lost by seven million votes. while Faun is “ignoring” YEARS of riots attributed to unknown left leaning assholes and idiots of no significant rank in the Democratic Party or media?
> 
> what is obviously “true” about you point?
> 
> You are so deranged you lie about truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When Faun exhibits so much fear and concern and horror over a single riot, because riots are soooo bad, yet, ignores the far more numerous and violent riots from his own side,
> 
> 
> then yes, it is obviously true that his pretense of outrage is just that, ie pretense
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're fucking insane, con. It wasn't just a riot. It was an assault on the seat of our government with the intent of overturning an election. What it was, was a seditious insurrection and failed coup. At least call it what it was. That's why you appear to be out of your mind by comparing it with other riots; when in fact, there's never been anything like that in the history of this nation. It rocked the very foundation of this nation. I get you're desperate to trivialize that dark moment in America's history because it was carried out by people on your side of the aisle, but you fail miserably in that regard because it wasn't a trivial matter. It wasn't merely one little riot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If the supposed "intent" is what is making you hysterical, then stop mentioning the riot violence.
> 
> 
> Because EVERYTIME you do that, it opens you up to the question of, if that was so bad, why are you not even more upset with Antifa/BLM?
> 
> 
> And the obvious answer is, that your outrage is just a pretense, as it always is with you people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, I condemned the violence committed by Antifa, BLM & Trump's insurgents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you say. BUT, you are more upset about the violence from the few hours that the right was rioting, than from the years of riots from the left,
> 
> so, your claim lacks a certain,... credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because attacking the seat of our government was far worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Everytime you whine like a faggot about the violence of those few hours, while minimizing the violence of the left over the last 5 years, you are being a hypocrite and undermining your credibility to the point that you have NONE.
> 
> 
> You are having a hissy fit about the dc riot, because it gives you an excuse to smear your enemies and to justify  your sides next escalation of your war on US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You're a fucking nut, nut. They're not the same. Want proof? The FBI didn't go on a nation-wide hunt to apprehend rioters for any other attack except the attack on our goverment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like when the Portland rioters attacked the ICE building and the federal courthouse?
> 
> Yes, the FBI did not react, as far as I know.
> 
> 
> It is almost as though the FBI has been politicized and in on the side of the dems, which is to say, the rioters.
Click to expand...

The FBI was headed by Trump appointees since he fired Comey. You look like a moron trying to blame Democrats.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until Jan 6th. We on teh right had NOT reached that point. It was reasonable of Trump to think that a crowd would gather, makes some noise and maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. You are a liar. The reason the mob understood what they needed to do on January 6th 2021 at the US CAPITOL L at DJTQ!s direction was to to “Stop the Steal” of an unstolen election. There was no other direction by DJTQ to “maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.”
> 
> Take it from Mitch:
> 
> "The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things.​
> "Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally.​
> "This was different.​
> "This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.​
> "The unconscionable behavior did not end when the violence began.​
> Trump endorsed the MAGA mob’s unlawful trespassing on Governnent restricted property when he tweeted his displeasure with Pence to the mob that had already violently entered the building.
> 
> Now you sit there begging us not to believe our lying eyes that DJTQ A wanted a peaceful protest outside of the chamber that  would force Congress members and Ownce  to ignore their Constitutional Duty to verify certify the state’s elections and begin the peaceful transition of power to a new duly elected Administration.
> 
> The only way to stop that was by the MAGA mob entering the building. And they had to commit violent acts to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you have evidence that Trump criminally incited violence, than call up your dem representatives and demand they charge Trump in a court of law.
> 
> 
> Until then, we can assume you are just talking shit, to smear your enemies.
Click to expand...

He's already being sued for that.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Pressure to do what?
> 
> Do not run away from that question. You need to finish your thought if it truly is a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "To stop the steal", obviously. As you knew. As everyone reading this knew.
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to be dishonest. You are the dishonest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How were they going to be able to "stop the steal" from outside the Capitol while Congress was inside the Capitol certifying the election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. Obviously.
> 
> 
> That is the way that protests, ACTUAL protests are supposed to work.
> 
> 
> You have reached the point of "direct action" which is more a practice you see in civil unrest, or civil war.
> 
> 
> Until Jan 6th. We on teh right had NOT reached that point. It was reasonable of Trump to think that a crowd would gather, makes some noise and maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like a retard.
> 
> Making noise would not "stop the steal." Again, Congress was in the middle of certifying the election. Making noise outside the building would not stop that.
> 
> Thanks for admitting the only way to "stop the steal" was to break into the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like an asshole. And you are a liar. The idea that political pressure could get political results, was unlikely but it was possible.
> 
> Asking for a demonstration, and for political pressure to be brought to bear, was completely reasonable and legal.
> 
> 
> YOur pretense otherwise is just you manufacturing pretend outrage to justify your next escalation in your war on US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not explaining how it was possible. Just saying it was possible doesn't mean it was.
> 
> Again...
> 
> Congress was *inside* the Capitol in the middle of certifying the election.
> 
> What kind of pressure *outside* the Capitol could have stopped that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I explained it clearly . YOu are playing stupid as part of your normal stonewalling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, now you're hiding behind the lie that you explained it so you can avoid explaining it.
> 
> All you said was, they could apply  _"political pressure."_ That doesn't explain anything since they were *outside* the building. Just posting words, _"political pressure,"_ doesn't explain how that would "stop the steal." You can't even demonstrate the lawmakers *inside* the Capitol would hear the crowd outside or would even be interrupted in certifying the election.
Click to expand...



Political pressure does not require physical contact to work. 


Your pretense that you have to be in teh same room to apply political pressure is retarded.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Pressure to do what?
> 
> Do not run away from that question. You need to finish your thought if it truly is a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "To stop the steal", obviously. As you knew. As everyone reading this knew.
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to be dishonest. You are the dishonest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How were they going to be able to "stop the steal" from outside the Capitol while Congress was inside the Capitol certifying the election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. Obviously.
> 
> 
> That is the way that protests, ACTUAL protests are supposed to work.
> 
> 
> You have reached the point of "direct action" which is more a practice you see in civil unrest, or civil war.
> 
> 
> Until Jan 6th. We on teh right had NOT reached that point. It was reasonable of Trump to think that a crowd would gather, makes some noise and maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like a retard.
> 
> Making noise would not "stop the steal." Again, Congress was in the middle of certifying the election. Making noise outside the building would not stop that.
> 
> Thanks for admitting the only way to "stop the steal" was to break into the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like an asshole. And you are a liar. The idea that political pressure could get political results, was unlikely but it was possible.
> 
> Asking for a demonstration, and for political pressure to be brought to bear, was completely reasonable and legal.
> 
> 
> YOur pretense otherwise is just you manufacturing pretend outrage to justify your next escalation in your war on US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not explaining how it was possible. Just saying it was possible doesn't mean it was.
> 
> Again...
> 
> Congress was *inside* the Capitol in the middle of certifying the election.
> 
> What kind of pressure *outside* the Capitol could have stopped that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I explained it clearly . YOu are playing stupid as part of your normal stonewalling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, now you're hiding behind the lie that you explained it so you can avoid explaining it.
> 
> All you said was, they could apply  _"political pressure."_ That doesn't explain anything since they were *outside* the building. Just posting words, _"political pressure,"_ doesn't explain how that would "stop the steal." You can't even demonstrate the lawmakers *inside* the Capitol would hear the crowd outside or would even be interrupted in certifying the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Political pressure does not require physical contact to work.
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you have to be in teh same room to apply political pressure is retarded.
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

Dumbfuck, I didn't say same room -- I said same *"building."*





But you've not explained how they could apply pressure from outside the Capitol.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> An “obviously true point” LIE 26575000
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> against facing my obviously true point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what is your “obviously true point” again?
> 
> 
> Is this “obviously true? 26574479
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just pointing out the complete hypocrisy of you, pretending to be so outraged about the one small riot from our side, while ignoring YEARS of riots from your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How have you scientifically and clinically  proven that Faun is “pretending” to be outraged at the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT involving a rightwing mob incited by DJTQ and 147 REPUBLICAN sitting US Congressmen and Congresswomen plus a handful of REPUBLICAN Senators who voted to overturn the election that DJTQ “obviously” truthfully and factually lost by seven million votes. while Faun is “ignoring” YEARS of riots attributed to unknown left leaning assholes and idiots of no significant rank in the Democratic Party or media?
> 
> what is obviously “true” about you point?
> 
> You are so deranged you lie about truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When Faun exhibits so much fear and concern and horror over a single riot, because riots are soooo bad, yet, ignores the far more numerous and violent riots from his own side,
> 
> 
> then yes, it is obviously true that his pretense of outrage is just that, ie pretense
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're fucking insane, con. It wasn't just a riot. It was an assault on the seat of our government with the intent of overturning an election. What it was, was a seditious insurrection and failed coup. At least call it what it was. That's why you appear to be out of your mind by comparing it with other riots; when in fact, there's never been anything like that in the history of this nation. It rocked the very foundation of this nation. I get you're desperate to trivialize that dark moment in America's history because it was carried out by people on your side of the aisle, but you fail miserably in that regard because it wasn't a trivial matter. It wasn't merely one little riot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If the supposed "intent" is what is making you hysterical, then stop mentioning the riot violence.
> 
> 
> Because EVERYTIME you do that, it opens you up to the question of, if that was so bad, why are you not even more upset with Antifa/BLM?
> 
> 
> And the obvious answer is, that your outrage is just a pretense, as it always is with you people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, I condemned the violence committed by Antifa, BLM & Trump's insurgents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you say. BUT, you are more upset about the violence from the few hours that the right was rioting, than from the years of riots from the left,
> 
> so, your claim lacks a certain,... credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because attacking the seat of our government was far worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Everytime you whine like a faggot about the violence of those few hours, while minimizing the violence of the left over the last 5 years, you are being a hypocrite and undermining your credibility to the point that you have NONE.
> 
> 
> You are having a hissy fit about the dc riot, because it gives you an excuse to smear your enemies and to justify  your sides next escalation of your war on US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You're a fucking nut, nut. They're not the same. Want proof? The FBI didn't go on a nation-wide hunt to apprehend rioters for any other attack except the attack on our goverment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like when the Portland rioters attacked the ICE building and the federal courthouse?
> 
> Yes, the FBI did not react, as far as I know.
> 
> 
> It is almost as though the FBI has been politicized and in on the side of the dems, which is to say, the rioters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The FBI was headed by Trump appointees since he fired Comey. You look like a moron trying to blame Democrats.
Click to expand...



People like Peter Strzok, showed that the FBI is deeply corrupted by people like you.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until Jan 6th. We on teh right had NOT reached that point. It was reasonable of Trump to think that a crowd would gather, makes some noise and maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. You are a liar. The reason the mob understood what they needed to do on January 6th 2021 at the US CAPITOL L at DJTQ!s direction was to to “Stop the Steal” of an unstolen election. There was no other direction by DJTQ to “maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.”
> 
> Take it from Mitch:
> 
> "The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things.​
> "Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally.​
> "This was different.​
> "This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.​
> "The unconscionable behavior did not end when the violence began.​
> Trump endorsed the MAGA mob’s unlawful trespassing on Governnent restricted property when he tweeted his displeasure with Pence to the mob that had already violently entered the building.
> 
> Now you sit there begging us not to believe our lying eyes that DJTQ A wanted a peaceful protest outside of the chamber that  would force Congress members and Ownce  to ignore their Constitutional Duty to verify certify the state’s elections and begin the peaceful transition of power to a new duly elected Administration.
> 
> The only way to stop that was by the MAGA mob entering the building. And they had to commit violent acts to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you have evidence that Trump criminally incited violence, than call up your dem representatives and demand they charge Trump in a court of law.
> 
> 
> Until then, we can assume you are just talking shit, to smear your enemies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's already being sued for that.
Click to expand...



In a civil court where the rules of evidence are laxer. 

AND, he will win that. It is not about winning for those suing him, but about getting street cred for trying.


You have nothing. 


If you people had evidence to back up the shit you spew from your face anuses, you would have already filed charges in a criminal court.


You got nothing but shit.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> An “obviously true point” LIE 26575000
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> against facing my obviously true point
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what is your “obviously true point” again?
> 
> 
> Is this “obviously true? 26574479
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just pointing out the complete hypocrisy of you, pretending to be so outraged about the one small riot from our side, while ignoring YEARS of riots from your side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How have you scientifically and clinically  proven that Faun is “pretending” to be outraged at the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT involving a rightwing mob incited by DJTQ and 147 REPUBLICAN sitting US Congressmen and Congresswomen plus a handful of REPUBLICAN Senators who voted to overturn the election that DJTQ “obviously” truthfully and factually lost by seven million votes. while Faun is “ignoring” YEARS of riots attributed to unknown left leaning assholes and idiots of no significant rank in the Democratic Party or media?
> 
> what is obviously “true” about you point?
> 
> You are so deranged you lie about truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When Faun exhibits so much fear and concern and horror over a single riot, because riots are soooo bad, yet, ignores the far more numerous and violent riots from his own side,
> 
> 
> then yes, it is obviously true that his pretense of outrage is just that, ie pretense
> 
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're fucking insane, con. It wasn't just a riot. It was an assault on the seat of our government with the intent of overturning an election. What it was, was a seditious insurrection and failed coup. At least call it what it was. That's why you appear to be out of your mind by comparing it with other riots; when in fact, there's never been anything like that in the history of this nation. It rocked the very foundation of this nation. I get you're desperate to trivialize that dark moment in America's history because it was carried out by people on your side of the aisle, but you fail miserably in that regard because it wasn't a trivial matter. It wasn't merely one little riot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If the supposed "intent" is what is making you hysterical, then stop mentioning the riot violence.
> 
> 
> Because EVERYTIME you do that, it opens you up to the question of, if that was so bad, why are you not even more upset with Antifa/BLM?
> 
> 
> And the obvious answer is, that your outrage is just a pretense, as it always is with you people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, I condemned the violence committed by Antifa, BLM & Trump's insurgents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So you say. BUT, you are more upset about the violence from the few hours that the right was rioting, than from the years of riots from the left,
> 
> so, your claim lacks a certain,... credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because attacking the seat of our government was far worse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Everytime you whine like a faggot about the violence of those few hours, while minimizing the violence of the left over the last 5 years, you are being a hypocrite and undermining your credibility to the point that you have NONE.
> 
> 
> You are having a hissy fit about the dc riot, because it gives you an excuse to smear your enemies and to justify  your sides next escalation of your war on US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You're a fucking nut, nut. They're not the same. Want proof? The FBI didn't go on a nation-wide hunt to apprehend rioters for any other attack except the attack on our goverment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like when the Portland rioters attacked the ICE building and the federal courthouse?
> 
> Yes, the FBI did not react, as far as I know.
> 
> 
> It is almost as though the FBI has been politicized and in on the side of the dems, which is to say, the rioters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The FBI was headed by Trump appointees since he fired Comey. You look like a moron trying to blame Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> People like Peter Strzok, showed that the FBI is deeply corrupted by people like you.
Click to expand...

Dumbfuck, Strzok didn't run the FBI. Trump's appointee did. And he felt it was important to hunt members of the 1/6 coup down no matter where they were hiding in the nation. He didn't feel the need to do that for any other riot. Clearly, they're not the same as you pretend they are.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until Jan 6th. We on teh right had NOT reached that point. It was reasonable of Trump to think that a crowd would gather, makes some noise and maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. You are a liar. The reason the mob understood what they needed to do on January 6th 2021 at the US CAPITOL L at DJTQ!s direction was to to “Stop the Steal” of an unstolen election. There was no other direction by DJTQ to “maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.”
> 
> Take it from Mitch:
> 
> "The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things.​
> "Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally.​
> "This was different.​
> "This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.​
> "The unconscionable behavior did not end when the violence began.​
> Trump endorsed the MAGA mob’s unlawful trespassing on Governnent restricted property when he tweeted his displeasure with Pence to the mob that had already violently entered the building.
> 
> Now you sit there begging us not to believe our lying eyes that DJTQ A wanted a peaceful protest outside of the chamber that  would force Congress members and Ownce  to ignore their Constitutional Duty to verify certify the state’s elections and begin the peaceful transition of power to a new duly elected Administration.
> 
> The only way to stop that was by the MAGA mob entering the building. And they had to commit violent acts to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you have evidence that Trump criminally incited violence, than call up your dem representatives and demand they charge Trump in a court of law.
> 
> 
> Until then, we can assume you are just talking shit, to smear your enemies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's already being sued for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a civil court where the rules of evidence are laxer.
> 
> AND, he will win that. It is not about winning for those suing him, but about getting street cred for trying.
> 
> 
> You have nothing.
> 
> 
> If you people had evidence to back up the shit you spew from your face anuses, you would have already filed charges in a criminal court.
> 
> 
> You got nothing but shit.
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

It's been just a few days since his impeachment trial ended. Give them time to investigate.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Pressure to do what?
> 
> Do not run away from that question. You need to finish your thought if it truly is a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "To stop the steal", obviously. As you knew. As everyone reading this knew.
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to be dishonest. You are the dishonest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How were they going to be able to "stop the steal" from outside the Capitol while Congress was inside the Capitol certifying the election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. Obviously.
> 
> 
> That is the way that protests, ACTUAL protests are supposed to work.
> 
> 
> You have reached the point of "direct action" which is more a practice you see in civil unrest, or civil war.
> 
> 
> Until Jan 6th. We on teh right had NOT reached that point. It was reasonable of Trump to think that a crowd would gather, makes some noise and maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like a retard.
> 
> Making noise would not "stop the steal." Again, Congress was in the middle of certifying the election. Making noise outside the building would not stop that.
> 
> Thanks for admitting the only way to "stop the steal" was to break into the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like an asshole. And you are a liar. The idea that political pressure could get political results, was unlikely but it was possible.
> 
> Asking for a demonstration, and for political pressure to be brought to bear, was completely reasonable and legal.
> 
> 
> YOur pretense otherwise is just you manufacturing pretend outrage to justify your next escalation in your war on US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not explaining how it was possible. Just saying it was possible doesn't mean it was.
> 
> Again...
> 
> Congress was *inside* the Capitol in the middle of certifying the election.
> 
> What kind of pressure *outside* the Capitol could have stopped that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I explained it clearly . YOu are playing stupid as part of your normal stonewalling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, now you're hiding behind the lie that you explained it so you can avoid explaining it.
> 
> All you said was, they could apply  _"political pressure."_ That doesn't explain anything since they were *outside* the building. Just posting words, _"political pressure,"_ doesn't explain how that would "stop the steal." You can't even demonstrate the lawmakers *inside* the Capitol would hear the crowd outside or would even be interrupted in certifying the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Political pressure does not require physical contact to work.
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you have to be in teh same room to apply political pressure is retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, I didn't say same room -- I said same *"building."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you've not explained how they could apply pressure from outside the Capitol.
Click to expand...



LOL!!!

Room, building, you are pretending to be retarded as part of your stonewalling. Dismissed.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Political pressure does not require physical contact to work. /QUOTE]
> 
> In this specific case it does. As you know the proceedings in the Senate chamber had already begun before the MAGA mob ENTERED the Senate Chamber. The only pressure that stopped the proceeding that day (keyword being stopped) was the threat of violence against the members who are carrying out their constitutional duty to certify the election that Trump list.
> 
> Standing around outside was not going to accomplish DJTQ goal to stop the steal of the election that was being certified in real time as the riot began.
> 
> The mob did temporarily stop the steal through physical violence so your premises are wrong.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until Jan 6th. We on teh right had NOT reached that point. It was reasonable of Trump to think that a crowd would gather, makes some noise and maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. You are a liar. The reason the mob understood what they needed to do on January 6th 2021 at the US CAPITOL L at DJTQ!s direction was to to “Stop the Steal” of an unstolen election. There was no other direction by DJTQ to “maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.”
> 
> Take it from Mitch:
> 
> "The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things.​
> "Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally.​
> "This was different.​
> "This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.​
> "The unconscionable behavior did not end when the violence began.​
> Trump endorsed the MAGA mob’s unlawful trespassing on Governnent restricted property when he tweeted his displeasure with Pence to the mob that had already violently entered the building.
> 
> Now you sit there begging us not to believe our lying eyes that DJTQ A wanted a peaceful protest outside of the chamber that  would force Congress members and Ownce  to ignore their Constitutional Duty to verify certify the state’s elections and begin the peaceful transition of power to a new duly elected Administration.
> 
> The only way to stop that was by the MAGA mob entering the building. And they had to commit violent acts to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you have evidence that Trump criminally incited violence, than call up your dem representatives and demand they charge Trump in a court of law.
> 
> 
> Until then, we can assume you are just talking shit, to smear your enemies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's already being sued for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a civil court where the rules of evidence are laxer.
> 
> AND, he will win that. It is not about winning for those suing him, but about getting street cred for trying.
> 
> 
> You have nothing.
> 
> 
> If you people had evidence to back up the shit you spew from your face anuses, you would have already filed charges in a criminal court.
> 
> 
> You got nothing but shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> It's been just a few days since his impeachment trial ended. Give them time to investigate.
Click to expand...



They did the investigation for the impeachment. Should only take a couple of minutes to hand over the files. 


YOu got shit.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Pressure to do what?
> 
> Do not run away from that question. You need to finish your thought if it truly is a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "To stop the steal", obviously. As you knew. As everyone reading this knew.
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to be dishonest. You are the dishonest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How were they going to be able to "stop the steal" from outside the Capitol while Congress was inside the Capitol certifying the election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. Obviously.
> 
> 
> That is the way that protests, ACTUAL protests are supposed to work.
> 
> 
> You have reached the point of "direct action" which is more a practice you see in civil unrest, or civil war.
> 
> 
> Until Jan 6th. We on teh right had NOT reached that point. It was reasonable of Trump to think that a crowd would gather, makes some noise and maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like a retard.
> 
> Making noise would not "stop the steal." Again, Congress was in the middle of certifying the election. Making noise outside the building would not stop that.
> 
> Thanks for admitting the only way to "stop the steal" was to break into the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like an asshole. And you are a liar. The idea that political pressure could get political results, was unlikely but it was possible.
> 
> Asking for a demonstration, and for political pressure to be brought to bear, was completely reasonable and legal.
> 
> 
> YOur pretense otherwise is just you manufacturing pretend outrage to justify your next escalation in your war on US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not explaining how it was possible. Just saying it was possible doesn't mean it was.
> 
> Again...
> 
> Congress was *inside* the Capitol in the middle of certifying the election.
> 
> What kind of pressure *outside* the Capitol could have stopped that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I explained it clearly . YOu are playing stupid as part of your normal stonewalling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, now you're hiding behind the lie that you explained it so you can avoid explaining it.
> 
> All you said was, they could apply  _"political pressure."_ That doesn't explain anything since they were *outside* the building. Just posting words, _"political pressure,"_ doesn't explain how that would "stop the steal." You can't even demonstrate the lawmakers *inside* the Capitol would hear the crowd outside or would even be interrupted in certifying the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Political pressure does not require physical contact to work.
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you have to be in teh same room to apply political pressure is retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, I didn't say same room -- I said same *"building."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you've not explained how they could apply pressure from outside the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> Room, building, you are pretending to be retarded as part of your stonewalling. Dismissed.
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

So now you don't even know the difference between a room and a building??






The lengths you'll  go to just to avoid answering a question everyone here knows you can't answer is hysterical.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Political pressure does not require physical contact to work. /QUOTE]
> 
> In this specific case it does. As you know the proceedings in the Senate chamber had already begun before the MAGA mob ENTERED the Senate Chamber. The only pressure that stopped the proceeding that day (keyword being stopped) was the threat of violence against the members who are carrying out their constitutional duty to certify the election that Trump list.
> 
> Standing around outside was not going to accomplish DJTQ goal to stop the steal of the election that was being certified in real time as the riot began.
> 
> The mob did temporarily stop the steal through physical violence so your premises are wrong.
Click to expand...




Actual violence is not political pressure. 

That you think Trump's plan was not going to work, is irrelevant. 

Unless your position is that Trump is so brilliant that he would never even try a plan that was not guaranteed to work.


Is that your position? That Trump plans ALWAYS work so, political pressure could not have been the plan?

Cause I would have to disagree.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Room, building, you are pretending to be retarded as part of your stonewalling. Dismissed.



Answer the question.

How does the protest stop the proceedings inside the Senate Chamber scheduled for that day by lawfully staying behind barricades set up outside to protect that crucial process from being disrupted?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Pressure to do what?
> 
> Do not run away from that question. You need to finish your thought if it truly is a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "To stop the steal", obviously. As you knew. As everyone reading this knew.
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to be dishonest. You are the dishonest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How were they going to be able to "stop the steal" from outside the Capitol while Congress was inside the Capitol certifying the election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. Obviously.
> 
> 
> That is the way that protests, ACTUAL protests are supposed to work.
> 
> 
> You have reached the point of "direct action" which is more a practice you see in civil unrest, or civil war.
> 
> 
> Until Jan 6th. We on teh right had NOT reached that point. It was reasonable of Trump to think that a crowd would gather, makes some noise and maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like a retard.
> 
> Making noise would not "stop the steal." Again, Congress was in the middle of certifying the election. Making noise outside the building would not stop that.
> 
> Thanks for admitting the only way to "stop the steal" was to break into the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like an asshole. And you are a liar. The idea that political pressure could get political results, was unlikely but it was possible.
> 
> Asking for a demonstration, and for political pressure to be brought to bear, was completely reasonable and legal.
> 
> 
> YOur pretense otherwise is just you manufacturing pretend outrage to justify your next escalation in your war on US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not explaining how it was possible. Just saying it was possible doesn't mean it was.
> 
> Again...
> 
> Congress was *inside* the Capitol in the middle of certifying the election.
> 
> What kind of pressure *outside* the Capitol could have stopped that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I explained it clearly . YOu are playing stupid as part of your normal stonewalling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, now you're hiding behind the lie that you explained it so you can avoid explaining it.
> 
> All you said was, they could apply  _"political pressure."_ That doesn't explain anything since they were *outside* the building. Just posting words, _"political pressure,"_ doesn't explain how that would "stop the steal." You can't even demonstrate the lawmakers *inside* the Capitol would hear the crowd outside or would even be interrupted in certifying the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Political pressure does not require physical contact to work.
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you have to be in teh same room to apply political pressure is retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, I didn't say same room -- I said same *"building."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you've not explained how they could apply pressure from outside the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> Room, building, you are pretending to be retarded as part of your stonewalling. Dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> So now you don't even know the difference between a room and a building??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lengths you'll  go to just to avoid answering a question everyone here knows you can't answer is hysterical.
Click to expand...



You are the one who does not understand how a group outside of a building can put political pressure on those inside the building.


YOu are teh retard here, not me.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Room, building, you are pretending to be retarded as part of your stonewalling. Dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question.
> 
> How does the protest stop the proceedings insudec the Senate Chamber scheduled for that day by lawfully staying behind barricades set up to protect that crucial process from being disrupted?
Click to expand...



Though political pressure. D'uh.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Pressure to do what?
> 
> Do not run away from that question. You need to finish your thought if it truly is a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "To stop the steal", obviously. As you knew. As everyone reading this knew.
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to be dishonest. You are the dishonest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How were they going to be able to "stop the steal" from outside the Capitol while Congress was inside the Capitol certifying the election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. Obviously.
> 
> 
> That is the way that protests, ACTUAL protests are supposed to work.
> 
> 
> You have reached the point of "direct action" which is more a practice you see in civil unrest, or civil war.
> 
> 
> Until Jan 6th. We on teh right had NOT reached that point. It was reasonable of Trump to think that a crowd would gather, makes some noise and maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like a retard.
> 
> Making noise would not "stop the steal." Again, Congress was in the middle of certifying the election. Making noise outside the building would not stop that.
> 
> Thanks for admitting the only way to "stop the steal" was to break into the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like an asshole. And you are a liar. The idea that political pressure could get political results, was unlikely but it was possible.
> 
> Asking for a demonstration, and for political pressure to be brought to bear, was completely reasonable and legal.
> 
> 
> YOur pretense otherwise is just you manufacturing pretend outrage to justify your next escalation in your war on US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not explaining how it was possible. Just saying it was possible doesn't mean it was.
> 
> Again...
> 
> Congress was *inside* the Capitol in the middle of certifying the election.
> 
> What kind of pressure *outside* the Capitol could have stopped that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I explained it clearly . YOu are playing stupid as part of your normal stonewalling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, now you're hiding behind the lie that you explained it so you can avoid explaining it.
> 
> All you said was, they could apply  _"political pressure."_ That doesn't explain anything since they were *outside* the building. Just posting words, _"political pressure,"_ doesn't explain how that would "stop the steal." You can't even demonstrate the lawmakers *inside* the Capitol would hear the crowd outside or would even be interrupted in certifying the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Political pressure does not require physical contact to work.
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you have to be in teh same room to apply political pressure is retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, I didn't say same room -- I said same *"building."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you've not explained how they could apply pressure from outside the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> Room, building, you are pretending to be retarded as part of your stonewalling. Dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> So now you don't even know the difference between a room and a building??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lengths you'll  go to just to avoid answering a question everyone here knows you can't answer is hysterical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who does not understand how a group outside of a building can put political pressure on those inside the building.
> 
> 
> YOu are teh retard here, not me.
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

How could they do that, ya moron? They were gonna send _vibes_ to Congressmen?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Room, building, you are pretending to be retarded as part of your stonewalling. Dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question.
> 
> How does the protest stop the proceedings insudec the Senate Chamber scheduled for that day by lawfully staying behind barricades set up to protect that crucial process from being disrupted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. D'uh.
Click to expand...

What kind of political pressure? Can't you say?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Pressure to do what?
> 
> Do not run away from that question. You need to finish your thought if it truly is a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "To stop the steal", obviously. As you knew. As everyone reading this knew.
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to be dishonest. You are the dishonest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How were they going to be able to "stop the steal" from outside the Capitol while Congress was inside the Capitol certifying the election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. Obviously.
> 
> 
> That is the way that protests, ACTUAL protests are supposed to work.
> 
> 
> You have reached the point of "direct action" which is more a practice you see in civil unrest, or civil war.
> 
> 
> Until Jan 6th. We on teh right had NOT reached that point. It was reasonable of Trump to think that a crowd would gather, makes some noise and maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like a retard.
> 
> Making noise would not "stop the steal." Again, Congress was in the middle of certifying the election. Making noise outside the building would not stop that.
> 
> Thanks for admitting the only way to "stop the steal" was to break into the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like an asshole. And you are a liar. The idea that political pressure could get political results, was unlikely but it was possible.
> 
> Asking for a demonstration, and for political pressure to be brought to bear, was completely reasonable and legal.
> 
> 
> YOur pretense otherwise is just you manufacturing pretend outrage to justify your next escalation in your war on US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not explaining how it was possible. Just saying it was possible doesn't mean it was.
> 
> Again...
> 
> Congress was *inside* the Capitol in the middle of certifying the election.
> 
> What kind of pressure *outside* the Capitol could have stopped that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I explained it clearly . YOu are playing stupid as part of your normal stonewalling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, now you're hiding behind the lie that you explained it so you can avoid explaining it.
> 
> All you said was, they could apply  _"political pressure."_ That doesn't explain anything since they were *outside* the building. Just posting words, _"political pressure,"_ doesn't explain how that would "stop the steal." You can't even demonstrate the lawmakers *inside* the Capitol would hear the crowd outside or would even be interrupted in certifying the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Political pressure does not require physical contact to work.
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you have to be in teh same room to apply political pressure is retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, I didn't say same room -- I said same *"building."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you've not explained how they could apply pressure from outside the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> Room, building, you are pretending to be retarded as part of your stonewalling. Dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> So now you don't even know the difference between a room and a building??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lengths you'll  go to just to avoid answering a question everyone here knows you can't answer is hysterical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who does not understand how a group outside of a building can put political pressure on those inside the building.
> 
> 
> YOu are teh retard here, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> How could they do that, ya moron? They were gonna send _vibes_ to Congressmen?
Click to expand...



Spin it however you like.

Such behavior is the normal goal of protests. 

YOur pretense otherwise is just you using your retarded-ness as an tool to stonewall.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Room, building, you are pretending to be retarded as part of your stonewalling. Dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question.
> 
> How does the protest stop the proceedings insudec the Senate Chamber scheduled for that day by lawfully staying behind barricades set up to protect that crucial process from being disrupted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What kind of political pressure? Can't you say?
Click to expand...



The political pressure of a large demonstration. 


There. I said it. Now you look like a fucking retard. Who is stonewalling. Because you are also an asshole.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Pressure to do what?
> 
> Do not run away from that question. You need to finish your thought if it truly is a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "To stop the steal", obviously. As you knew. As everyone reading this knew.
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to be dishonest. You are the dishonest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How were they going to be able to "stop the steal" from outside the Capitol while Congress was inside the Capitol certifying the election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. Obviously.
> 
> 
> That is the way that protests, ACTUAL protests are supposed to work.
> 
> 
> You have reached the point of "direct action" which is more a practice you see in civil unrest, or civil war.
> 
> 
> Until Jan 6th. We on teh right had NOT reached that point. It was reasonable of Trump to think that a crowd would gather, makes some noise and maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like a retard.
> 
> Making noise would not "stop the steal." Again, Congress was in the middle of certifying the election. Making noise outside the building would not stop that.
> 
> Thanks for admitting the only way to "stop the steal" was to break into the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like an asshole. And you are a liar. The idea that political pressure could get political results, was unlikely but it was possible.
> 
> Asking for a demonstration, and for political pressure to be brought to bear, was completely reasonable and legal.
> 
> 
> YOur pretense otherwise is just you manufacturing pretend outrage to justify your next escalation in your war on US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not explaining how it was possible. Just saying it was possible doesn't mean it was.
> 
> Again...
> 
> Congress was *inside* the Capitol in the middle of certifying the election.
> 
> What kind of pressure *outside* the Capitol could have stopped that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I explained it clearly . YOu are playing stupid as part of your normal stonewalling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, now you're hiding behind the lie that you explained it so you can avoid explaining it.
> 
> All you said was, they could apply  _"political pressure."_ That doesn't explain anything since they were *outside* the building. Just posting words, _"political pressure,"_ doesn't explain how that would "stop the steal." You can't even demonstrate the lawmakers *inside* the Capitol would hear the crowd outside or would even be interrupted in certifying the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Political pressure does not require physical contact to work.
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you have to be in teh same room to apply political pressure is retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, I didn't say same room -- I said same *"building."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you've not explained how they could apply pressure from outside the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> Room, building, you are pretending to be retarded as part of your stonewalling. Dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> So now you don't even know the difference between a room and a building??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lengths you'll  go to just to avoid answering a question everyone here knows you can't answer is hysterical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who does not understand how a group outside of a building can put political pressure on those inside the building.
> 
> 
> YOu are teh retard here, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> How could they do that, ya moron? They were gonna send _vibes_ to Congressmen?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spin it however you like.
> 
> Such behavior is the normal goal of protests.
> 
> YOur pretense otherwise is just you using your retarded-ness as an tool to stonewall.
Click to expand...

The behavior of protests is to be noticed to effect change.

You prove you're incapable of describing how that would have worked in this case.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Actual violence is not political pressure.
> 
> That you think Trump's plan was not going to work, is irrelevant.



“Political pressure”  is your phrase, not DJTQ!s. The unified phrase between Trump and his mob was “stop the steal”

As you know DJ TQ did not incite his mob to put pressure on Congress to investigate the election fraud for years to come. He incited his mob to “stop the steal” on the last possible day that it was possible to stop it.

Political pressure backed by a large loud but peaceful protest on the Mall on the day of the certification was not going to stop the certification.

If DJ TQ has no clue that inciting his mob to do whatever was necessary in order to stop the Constitutional procedure taking place on that one particular and significant date would lead to the necessity of the mob entering that chamber in order to achieve his goal which of course could only be done by unlawful entry and violence if the mob refused to be turned back. IF DJTQ did not know that then  DJTQ is so stupid he has never deserved to be president in the first place.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Room, building, you are pretending to be retarded as part of your stonewalling. Dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question.
> 
> How does the protest stop the proceedings insudec the Senate Chamber scheduled for that day by lawfully staying behind barricades set up to protect that crucial process from being disrupted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What kind of political pressure? Can't you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The political pressure of a large demonstration.
> 
> 
> There. I said it. Now you look like a fucking retard. Who is stonewalling. Because you are also an asshole.
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

You're not saying anything. A lawful protest *outside* the building puts zero pressure on those *inside* the building because they can't hear them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> The political pressure of a large demonstration.



The large demonstration was already present outside when members of congress and vice president Pence already started the procedure to certify the stolen election.

Therefore the facts are the political pressure of a large demonstration was not working that day to achieve TrumpQ’s objective.  Do you agree with that?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Pressure to do what?
> 
> Do not run away from that question. You need to finish your thought if it truly is a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "To stop the steal", obviously. As you knew. As everyone reading this knew.
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to be dishonest. You are the dishonest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How were they going to be able to "stop the steal" from outside the Capitol while Congress was inside the Capitol certifying the election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. Obviously.
> 
> 
> That is the way that protests, ACTUAL protests are supposed to work.
> 
> 
> You have reached the point of "direct action" which is more a practice you see in civil unrest, or civil war.
> 
> 
> Until Jan 6th. We on teh right had NOT reached that point. It was reasonable of Trump to think that a crowd would gather, makes some noise and maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like a retard.
> 
> Making noise would not "stop the steal." Again, Congress was in the middle of certifying the election. Making noise outside the building would not stop that.
> 
> Thanks for admitting the only way to "stop the steal" was to break into the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like an asshole. And you are a liar. The idea that political pressure could get political results, was unlikely but it was possible.
> 
> Asking for a demonstration, and for political pressure to be brought to bear, was completely reasonable and legal.
> 
> 
> YOur pretense otherwise is just you manufacturing pretend outrage to justify your next escalation in your war on US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not explaining how it was possible. Just saying it was possible doesn't mean it was.
> 
> Again...
> 
> Congress was *inside* the Capitol in the middle of certifying the election.
> 
> What kind of pressure *outside* the Capitol could have stopped that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I explained it clearly . YOu are playing stupid as part of your normal stonewalling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, now you're hiding behind the lie that you explained it so you can avoid explaining it.
> 
> All you said was, they could apply  _"political pressure."_ That doesn't explain anything since they were *outside* the building. Just posting words, _"political pressure,"_ doesn't explain how that would "stop the steal." You can't even demonstrate the lawmakers *inside* the Capitol would hear the crowd outside or would even be interrupted in certifying the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Political pressure does not require physical contact to work.
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you have to be in teh same room to apply political pressure is retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, I didn't say same room -- I said same *"building."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you've not explained how they could apply pressure from outside the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> Room, building, you are pretending to be retarded as part of your stonewalling. Dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> So now you don't even know the difference between a room and a building??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lengths you'll  go to just to avoid answering a question everyone here knows you can't answer is hysterical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who does not understand how a group outside of a building can put political pressure on those inside the building.
> 
> 
> YOu are teh retard here, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> How could they do that, ya moron? They were gonna send _vibes_ to Congressmen?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spin it however you like.
> 
> Such behavior is the normal goal of protests.
> 
> YOur pretense otherwise is just you using your retarded-ness as an tool to stonewall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The behavior of protests is to be noticed to effect change.
> 
> You prove you're incapable of describing how that would have worked in this case.
Click to expand...



Your pretense that you need me to explain how people inside of a building can be aware of a protest outside of the building is dismissed.

I believe that you are very stupid. BUT, you are not so stupid as to not know the various ways that a person can be aware of events outside of a building.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actual violence is not political pressure.
> 
> That you think Trump's plan was not going to work, is irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Political pressure”  is your phrase, not DJTQ!s. The unified phrase between Trump and his mob was “stop the steal”
> 
> ....
Click to expand...



Correct. Based on Trump's previous history and the long history of right wing protests during his administration, to me his meaning seems clear.


You read the same things and based on your desire to smear your enemies and your desire to justify your next round of escalation in the civil unrest, you pretend it was an incitement to violence.


YOu are unable to support this of course.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Room, building, you are pretending to be retarded as part of your stonewalling. Dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question.
> 
> How does the protest stop the proceedings insudec the Senate Chamber scheduled for that day by lawfully staying behind barricades set up to protect that crucial process from being disrupted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What kind of political pressure? Can't you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The political pressure of a large demonstration.
> 
> 
> There. I said it. Now you look like a fucking retard. Who is stonewalling. Because you are also an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're not saying anything. A lawful protest *outside* the building puts zero pressure on those *inside* the building because they can't hear them.
Click to expand...



Wow. YOu are pretending that politicians inside of a building would not be told that there is a large demonstration outside the building?


Helpful hint. iF you pretending to be profoundly retarded, try adjusting your vocabulary downward. Because right now, your performance is not credible. 


Instead of coming across as profoundly retarded, you are coming across as a filthy liar.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The political pressure of a large demonstration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The large demonstration was already present outside when members of congress and vice president Pence already started the procedure to certify the stolen election.
> 
> Therefore the facts are the political pressure of a large demonstration was not working that day to achieve TrumpQ’s objective.  Do you agree with that?
Click to expand...



Yes.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Pressure to do what?
> 
> Do not run away from that question. You need to finish your thought if it truly is a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "To stop the steal", obviously. As you knew. As everyone reading this knew.
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to be dishonest. You are the dishonest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How were they going to be able to "stop the steal" from outside the Capitol while Congress was inside the Capitol certifying the election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. Obviously.
> 
> 
> That is the way that protests, ACTUAL protests are supposed to work.
> 
> 
> You have reached the point of "direct action" which is more a practice you see in civil unrest, or civil war.
> 
> 
> Until Jan 6th. We on teh right had NOT reached that point. It was reasonable of Trump to think that a crowd would gather, makes some noise and maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like a retard.
> 
> Making noise would not "stop the steal." Again, Congress was in the middle of certifying the election. Making noise outside the building would not stop that.
> 
> Thanks for admitting the only way to "stop the steal" was to break into the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like an asshole. And you are a liar. The idea that political pressure could get political results, was unlikely but it was possible.
> 
> Asking for a demonstration, and for political pressure to be brought to bear, was completely reasonable and legal.
> 
> 
> YOur pretense otherwise is just you manufacturing pretend outrage to justify your next escalation in your war on US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not explaining how it was possible. Just saying it was possible doesn't mean it was.
> 
> Again...
> 
> Congress was *inside* the Capitol in the middle of certifying the election.
> 
> What kind of pressure *outside* the Capitol could have stopped that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I explained it clearly . YOu are playing stupid as part of your normal stonewalling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, now you're hiding behind the lie that you explained it so you can avoid explaining it.
> 
> All you said was, they could apply  _"political pressure."_ That doesn't explain anything since they were *outside* the building. Just posting words, _"political pressure,"_ doesn't explain how that would "stop the steal." You can't even demonstrate the lawmakers *inside* the Capitol would hear the crowd outside or would even be interrupted in certifying the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Political pressure does not require physical contact to work.
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you have to be in teh same room to apply political pressure is retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, I didn't say same room -- I said same *"building."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you've not explained how they could apply pressure from outside the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> Room, building, you are pretending to be retarded as part of your stonewalling. Dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> So now you don't even know the difference between a room and a building??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lengths you'll  go to just to avoid answering a question everyone here knows you can't answer is hysterical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who does not understand how a group outside of a building can put political pressure on those inside the building.
> 
> 
> YOu are teh retard here, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> How could they do that, ya moron? They were gonna send _vibes_ to Congressmen?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spin it however you like.
> 
> Such behavior is the normal goal of protests.
> 
> YOur pretense otherwise is just you using your retarded-ness as an tool to stonewall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The behavior of protests is to be noticed to effect change.
> 
> You prove you're incapable of describing how that would have worked in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you need me to explain how people inside of a building can be aware of a protest outside of the building is dismissed.
> 
> I believe that you are very stupid. BUT, you are not so stupid as to not know the various ways that a person can be aware of events outside of a building.
Click to expand...

Imbecile, the members of Congress didn't even know the insurgents were storming the Capitol. People had to rush into the respective chambers to warn them.

There was no political pressure put upon any of them until that point. Until then, Congress was moving forward with certifying the election.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Room, building, you are pretending to be retarded as part of your stonewalling. Dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question.
> 
> How does the protest stop the proceedings insudec the Senate Chamber scheduled for that day by lawfully staying behind barricades set up to protect that crucial process from being disrupted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What kind of political pressure? Can't you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The political pressure of a large demonstration.
> 
> 
> There. I said it. Now you look like a fucking retard. Who is stonewalling. Because you are also an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're not saying anything. A lawful protest *outside* the building puts zero pressure on those *inside* the building because they can't hear them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. YOu are pretending that politicians inside of a building would not be told that there is a large demonstration outside the building?
> 
> 
> Helpful hint. iF you pretending to be profoundly retarded, try adjusting your vocabulary downward. Because right now, your performance is not credible.
> 
> 
> Instead of coming across as profoundly retarded, you are coming across as a filthy liar.
Click to expand...

LOLOLOLOL 

You yourself admitted the protest was not putting any political pressure on them. That means you're agreeing with me; which means you just called yourself a profoundly retarded filthy liar.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Pressure to do what?
> 
> Do not run away from that question. You need to finish your thought if it truly is a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "To stop the steal", obviously. As you knew. As everyone reading this knew.
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to be dishonest. You are the dishonest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How were they going to be able to "stop the steal" from outside the Capitol while Congress was inside the Capitol certifying the election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. Obviously.
> 
> 
> That is the way that protests, ACTUAL protests are supposed to work.
> 
> 
> You have reached the point of "direct action" which is more a practice you see in civil unrest, or civil war.
> 
> 
> Until Jan 6th. We on teh right had NOT reached that point. It was reasonable of Trump to think that a crowd would gather, makes some noise and maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like a retard.
> 
> Making noise would not "stop the steal." Again, Congress was in the middle of certifying the election. Making noise outside the building would not stop that.
> 
> Thanks for admitting the only way to "stop the steal" was to break into the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like an asshole. And you are a liar. The idea that political pressure could get political results, was unlikely but it was possible.
> 
> Asking for a demonstration, and for political pressure to be brought to bear, was completely reasonable and legal.
> 
> 
> YOur pretense otherwise is just you manufacturing pretend outrage to justify your next escalation in your war on US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not explaining how it was possible. Just saying it was possible doesn't mean it was.
> 
> Again...
> 
> Congress was *inside* the Capitol in the middle of certifying the election.
> 
> What kind of pressure *outside* the Capitol could have stopped that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I explained it clearly . YOu are playing stupid as part of your normal stonewalling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, now you're hiding behind the lie that you explained it so you can avoid explaining it.
> 
> All you said was, they could apply  _"political pressure."_ That doesn't explain anything since they were *outside* the building. Just posting words, _"political pressure,"_ doesn't explain how that would "stop the steal." You can't even demonstrate the lawmakers *inside* the Capitol would hear the crowd outside or would even be interrupted in certifying the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Political pressure does not require physical contact to work.
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you have to be in teh same room to apply political pressure is retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, I didn't say same room -- I said same *"building."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you've not explained how they could apply pressure from outside the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> Room, building, you are pretending to be retarded as part of your stonewalling. Dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> So now you don't even know the difference between a room and a building??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lengths you'll  go to just to avoid answering a question everyone here knows you can't answer is hysterical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who does not understand how a group outside of a building can put political pressure on those inside the building.
> 
> 
> YOu are teh retard here, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> How could they do that, ya moron? They were gonna send _vibes_ to Congressmen?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spin it however you like.
> 
> Such behavior is the normal goal of protests.
> 
> YOur pretense otherwise is just you using your retarded-ness as an tool to stonewall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The behavior of protests is to be noticed to effect change.
> 
> You prove you're incapable of describing how that would have worked in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you need me to explain how people inside of a building can be aware of a protest outside of the building is dismissed.
> 
> I believe that you are very stupid. BUT, you are not so stupid as to not know the various ways that a person can be aware of events outside of a building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imbecile, the members of Congress didn't even know the insurgents were storming the Capitol. People had to rush into the respective chambers to warn them.
> 
> There was no political pressure put upon any of them until that point. Until then, Congress was moving forward with certifying the election.
Click to expand...



I did not say that the people in the building had to be aware of the crowd storming the building. 


They had to be aware that the crowd was there.  


Good pretending to be retarded though. That was a really stupid mistake on your part.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Room, building, you are pretending to be retarded as part of your stonewalling. Dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question.
> 
> How does the protest stop the proceedings insudec the Senate Chamber scheduled for that day by lawfully staying behind barricades set up to protect that crucial process from being disrupted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What kind of political pressure? Can't you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The political pressure of a large demonstration.
> 
> 
> There. I said it. Now you look like a fucking retard. Who is stonewalling. Because you are also an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're not saying anything. A lawful protest *outside* the building puts zero pressure on those *inside* the building because they can't hear them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. YOu are pretending that politicians inside of a building would not be told that there is a large demonstration outside the building?
> 
> 
> Helpful hint. iF you pretending to be profoundly retarded, try adjusting your vocabulary downward. Because right now, your performance is not credible.
> 
> 
> Instead of coming across as profoundly retarded, you are coming across as a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOLOL
> 
> You yourself admitted the protest was not putting any political pressure on them. That means you're agreeing with me; which means you just called yourself a profoundly retarded filthy liar.
Click to expand...



I did not admit that. Are you moving from pretending to be retarded to pretending to be delusional?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Your pretense that you need me to explain how people inside of a building can be aware of a protest outside of the building is dismissed.



actually you need to explain why the people inside ignored the large demonstration outside and began the proceeding to endorse the election that was stolen from DJTQ and his mob. The reason the proceeding stopped was the threat of physical violence from the mob that DJTQ incited to stop the members in that body from certifying the election that dumbasses like you think was stolen.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Pressure to do what?
> 
> Do not run away from that question. You need to finish your thought if it truly is a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "To stop the steal", obviously. As you knew. As everyone reading this knew.
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to be dishonest. You are the dishonest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How were they going to be able to "stop the steal" from outside the Capitol while Congress was inside the Capitol certifying the election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. Obviously.
> 
> 
> That is the way that protests, ACTUAL protests are supposed to work.
> 
> 
> You have reached the point of "direct action" which is more a practice you see in civil unrest, or civil war.
> 
> 
> Until Jan 6th. We on teh right had NOT reached that point. It was reasonable of Trump to think that a crowd would gather, makes some noise and maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like a retard.
> 
> Making noise would not "stop the steal." Again, Congress was in the middle of certifying the election. Making noise outside the building would not stop that.
> 
> Thanks for admitting the only way to "stop the steal" was to break into the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like an asshole. And you are a liar. The idea that political pressure could get political results, was unlikely but it was possible.
> 
> Asking for a demonstration, and for political pressure to be brought to bear, was completely reasonable and legal.
> 
> 
> YOur pretense otherwise is just you manufacturing pretend outrage to justify your next escalation in your war on US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not explaining how it was possible. Just saying it was possible doesn't mean it was.
> 
> Again...
> 
> Congress was *inside* the Capitol in the middle of certifying the election.
> 
> What kind of pressure *outside* the Capitol could have stopped that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I explained it clearly . YOu are playing stupid as part of your normal stonewalling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, now you're hiding behind the lie that you explained it so you can avoid explaining it.
> 
> All you said was, they could apply  _"political pressure."_ That doesn't explain anything since they were *outside* the building. Just posting words, _"political pressure,"_ doesn't explain how that would "stop the steal." You can't even demonstrate the lawmakers *inside* the Capitol would hear the crowd outside or would even be interrupted in certifying the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Political pressure does not require physical contact to work.
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you have to be in teh same room to apply political pressure is retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, I didn't say same room -- I said same *"building."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you've not explained how they could apply pressure from outside the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> Room, building, you are pretending to be retarded as part of your stonewalling. Dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> So now you don't even know the difference between a room and a building??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lengths you'll  go to just to avoid answering a question everyone here knows you can't answer is hysterical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who does not understand how a group outside of a building can put political pressure on those inside the building.
> 
> 
> YOu are teh retard here, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> How could they do that, ya moron? They were gonna send _vibes_ to Congressmen?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spin it however you like.
> 
> Such behavior is the normal goal of protests.
> 
> YOur pretense otherwise is just you using your retarded-ness as an tool to stonewall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The behavior of protests is to be noticed to effect change.
> 
> You prove you're incapable of describing how that would have worked in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you need me to explain how people inside of a building can be aware of a protest outside of the building is dismissed.
> 
> I believe that you are very stupid. BUT, you are not so stupid as to not know the various ways that a person can be aware of events outside of a building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imbecile, the members of Congress didn't even know the insurgents were storming the Capitol. People had to rush into the respective chambers to warn them.
> 
> There was no political pressure put upon any of them until that point. Until then, Congress was moving forward with certifying the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say that the people in the building had to be aware of the crowd storming the building.
> 
> 
> They had to be aware that the crowd was there.
> 
> 
> Good pretending to be retarded though. That was a really stupid mistake on your part.
Click to expand...

I pointed out they didn't even know the mob was storming the building to show they didn't know what was going on outside.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you need me to explain how people inside of a building can be aware of a protest outside of the building is dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> actually you need to explain why the people inside ignored the large demonstration outside and began the proceeding to endorse the election that was stolen from DJTQ and his mob. The reason the proceeding stopped was the threat of physical violence from the mob that DJTQ incited to stop the members in that body from certifying the election that dumbasses like you think was stolen.
Click to expand...



Why do I need to explain that?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Pressure to do what?
> 
> Do not run away from that question. You need to finish your thought if it truly is a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "To stop the steal", obviously. As you knew. As everyone reading this knew.
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to be dishonest. You are the dishonest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How were they going to be able to "stop the steal" from outside the Capitol while Congress was inside the Capitol certifying the election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. Obviously.
> 
> 
> That is the way that protests, ACTUAL protests are supposed to work.
> 
> 
> You have reached the point of "direct action" which is more a practice you see in civil unrest, or civil war.
> 
> 
> Until Jan 6th. We on teh right had NOT reached that point. It was reasonable of Trump to think that a crowd would gather, makes some noise and maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like a retard.
> 
> Making noise would not "stop the steal." Again, Congress was in the middle of certifying the election. Making noise outside the building would not stop that.
> 
> Thanks for admitting the only way to "stop the steal" was to break into the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like an asshole. And you are a liar. The idea that political pressure could get political results, was unlikely but it was possible.
> 
> Asking for a demonstration, and for political pressure to be brought to bear, was completely reasonable and legal.
> 
> 
> YOur pretense otherwise is just you manufacturing pretend outrage to justify your next escalation in your war on US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not explaining how it was possible. Just saying it was possible doesn't mean it was.
> 
> Again...
> 
> Congress was *inside* the Capitol in the middle of certifying the election.
> 
> What kind of pressure *outside* the Capitol could have stopped that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I explained it clearly . YOu are playing stupid as part of your normal stonewalling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, now you're hiding behind the lie that you explained it so you can avoid explaining it.
> 
> All you said was, they could apply  _"political pressure."_ That doesn't explain anything since they were *outside* the building. Just posting words, _"political pressure,"_ doesn't explain how that would "stop the steal." You can't even demonstrate the lawmakers *inside* the Capitol would hear the crowd outside or would even be interrupted in certifying the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Political pressure does not require physical contact to work.
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you have to be in teh same room to apply political pressure is retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, I didn't say same room -- I said same *"building."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you've not explained how they could apply pressure from outside the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> Room, building, you are pretending to be retarded as part of your stonewalling. Dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> So now you don't even know the difference between a room and a building??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lengths you'll  go to just to avoid answering a question everyone here knows you can't answer is hysterical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who does not understand how a group outside of a building can put political pressure on those inside the building.
> 
> 
> YOu are teh retard here, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> How could they do that, ya moron? They were gonna send _vibes_ to Congressmen?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spin it however you like.
> 
> Such behavior is the normal goal of protests.
> 
> YOur pretense otherwise is just you using your retarded-ness as an tool to stonewall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The behavior of protests is to be noticed to effect change.
> 
> You prove you're incapable of describing how that would have worked in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you need me to explain how people inside of a building can be aware of a protest outside of the building is dismissed.
> 
> I believe that you are very stupid. BUT, you are not so stupid as to not know the various ways that a person can be aware of events outside of a building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imbecile, the members of Congress didn't even know the insurgents were storming the Capitol. People had to rush into the respective chambers to warn them.
> 
> There was no political pressure put upon any of them until that point. Until then, Congress was moving forward with certifying the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say that the people in the building had to be aware of the crowd storming the building.
> 
> 
> They had to be aware that the crowd was there.
> 
> 
> Good pretending to be retarded though. That was a really stupid mistake on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. Pressure to do what?
> 
> Do not run away from that question. You need to finish your thought if it truly is a thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "To stop the steal", obviously. As you knew. As everyone reading this knew.
> 
> 
> I wasn't trying to be dishonest. You are the dishonest one here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How were they going to be able to "stop the steal" from outside the Capitol while Congress was inside the Capitol certifying the election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. Obviously.
> 
> 
> That is the way that protests, ACTUAL protests are supposed to work.
> 
> 
> You have reached the point of "direct action" which is more a practice you see in civil unrest, or civil war.
> 
> 
> Until Jan 6th. We on teh right had NOT reached that point. It was reasonable of Trump to think that a crowd would gather, makes some noise and maybe embarrass Congress into looking into the accusations of cheating.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sound like a retard.
> 
> Making noise would not "stop the steal." Again, Congress was in the middle of certifying the election. Making noise outside the building would not stop that.
> 
> Thanks for admitting the only way to "stop the steal" was to break into the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You sound like an asshole. And you are a liar. The idea that political pressure could get political results, was unlikely but it was possible.
> 
> Asking for a demonstration, and for political pressure to be brought to bear, was completely reasonable and legal.
> 
> 
> YOur pretense otherwise is just you manufacturing pretend outrage to justify your next escalation in your war on US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not explaining how it was possible. Just saying it was possible doesn't mean it was.
> 
> Again...
> 
> Congress was *inside* the Capitol in the middle of certifying the election.
> 
> What kind of pressure *outside* the Capitol could have stopped that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I explained it clearly . YOu are playing stupid as part of your normal stonewalling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, now you're hiding behind the lie that you explained it so you can avoid explaining it.
> 
> All you said was, they could apply  _"political pressure."_ That doesn't explain anything since they were *outside* the building. Just posting words, _"political pressure,"_ doesn't explain how that would "stop the steal." You can't even demonstrate the lawmakers *inside* the Capitol would hear the crowd outside or would even be interrupted in certifying the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Political pressure does not require physical contact to work.
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you have to be in teh same room to apply political pressure is retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, I didn't say same room -- I said same *"building."*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you've not explained how they could apply pressure from outside the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> Room, building, you are pretending to be retarded as part of your stonewalling. Dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> So now you don't even know the difference between a room and a building??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The lengths you'll  go to just to avoid answering a question everyone here knows you can't answer is hysterical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one who does not understand how a group outside of a building can put political pressure on those inside the building.
> 
> 
> YOu are teh retard here, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> How could they do that, ya moron? They were gonna send _vibes_ to Congressmen?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spin it however you like.
> 
> Such behavior is the normal goal of protests.
> 
> YOur pretense otherwise is just you using your retarded-ness as an tool to stonewall.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The behavior of protests is to be noticed to effect change.
> 
> You prove you're incapable of describing how that would have worked in this case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you need me to explain how people inside of a building can be aware of a protest outside of the building is dismissed.
> 
> I believe that you are very stupid. BUT, you are not so stupid as to not know the various ways that a person can be aware of events outside of a building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imbecile, the members of Congress didn't even know the insurgents were storming the Capitol. People had to rush into the respective chambers to warn them.
> 
> There was no political pressure put upon any of them until that point. Until then, Congress was moving forward with certifying the election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say that the people in the building had to be aware of the crowd storming the building.
> 
> 
> They had to be aware that the crowd was there.
> 
> 
> Good pretending to be retarded though. That was a really stupid mistake on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I pointed out they didn't even know the mob was storming the building to show they didn't know what was going on outside.
Click to expand...



Because, in your retarded mind, if one knows that a crowd is outside, one knows what the crowd is doing as soon as they do it, even if you are involved in doing something else?


Mmm, no, that is just you pretending to be retarded.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Room, building, you are pretending to be retarded as part of your stonewalling. Dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question.
> 
> How does the protest stop the proceedings insudec the Senate Chamber scheduled for that day by lawfully staying behind barricades set up to protect that crucial process from being disrupted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What kind of political pressure? Can't you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The political pressure of a large demonstration.
> 
> 
> There. I said it. Now you look like a fucking retard. Who is stonewalling. Because you are also an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're not saying anything. A lawful protest *outside* the building puts zero pressure on those *inside* the building because they can't hear them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. YOu are pretending that politicians inside of a building would not be told that there is a large demonstration outside the building?
> 
> 
> Helpful hint. iF you pretending to be profoundly retarded, try adjusting your vocabulary downward. Because right now, your performance is not credible.
> 
> 
> Instead of coming across as profoundly retarded, you are coming across as a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOLOL
> 
> You yourself admitted the protest was not putting any political pressure on them. That means you're agreeing with me; which means you just called yourself a profoundly retarded filthy liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did not admit that. Are you moving from pretending to be retarded to pretending to be delusional?
Click to expand...

Sure you did...

NotFooledByW: Therefore the facts are the political pressure of a large demonstration was not working that day to achieve TrumpQ’s objective. Do you agree with that?

Correll: Yes.​


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Room, building, you are pretending to be retarded as part of your stonewalling. Dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question.
> 
> How does the protest stop the proceedings insudec the Senate Chamber scheduled for that day by lawfully staying behind barricades set up to protect that crucial process from being disrupted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What kind of political pressure? Can't you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The political pressure of a large demonstration.
> 
> 
> There. I said it. Now you look like a fucking retard. Who is stonewalling. Because you are also an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're not saying anything. A lawful protest *outside* the building puts zero pressure on those *inside* the building because they can't hear them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. YOu are pretending that politicians inside of a building would not be told that there is a large demonstration outside the building?
> 
> 
> Helpful hint. iF you pretending to be profoundly retarded, try adjusting your vocabulary downward. Because right now, your performance is not credible.
> 
> 
> Instead of coming across as profoundly retarded, you are coming across as a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOLOL
> 
> You yourself admitted the protest was not putting any political pressure on them. That means you're agreeing with me; which means you just called yourself a profoundly retarded filthy liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did not admit that. Are you moving from pretending to be retarded to pretending to be delusional?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you did...
> 
> NotFooledByW: Therefore the facts are the political pressure of a large demonstration was not working that day to achieve TrumpQ’s objective. Do you agree with that?​​Correll: Yes.​
Click to expand...



Your playing the retard is really improving. I want to take credit for that. By putting pressure on you, I am forcing your to up your retard game.


Anyways.


Here is the definitions of "putting' and "working". You read up on them and think about it for a couple of hours. And after your brain stops hurting, go have your mommy explain it to you.






__





						definition putting - Google Search
					





					www.google.com
				













						Definition of WORK
					

to perform work or fulfill duties regularly for wages or salary; to perform or carry through a task requiring sustained effort or continuous repeated operations… See the full definition




					www.merriam-webster.com


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Room, building, you are pretending to be retarded as part of your stonewalling. Dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question.
> 
> How does the protest stop the proceedings insudec the Senate Chamber scheduled for that day by lawfully staying behind barricades set up to protect that crucial process from being disrupted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What kind of political pressure? Can't you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The political pressure of a large demonstration.
> 
> 
> There. I said it. Now you look like a fucking retard. Who is stonewalling. Because you are also an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're not saying anything. A lawful protest *outside* the building puts zero pressure on those *inside* the building because they can't hear them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. YOu are pretending that politicians inside of a building would not be told that there is a large demonstration outside the building?
> 
> 
> Helpful hint. iF you pretending to be profoundly retarded, try adjusting your vocabulary downward. Because right now, your performance is not credible.
> 
> 
> Instead of coming across as profoundly retarded, you are coming across as a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOLOL
> 
> You yourself admitted the protest was not putting any political pressure on them. That means you're agreeing with me; which means you just called yourself a profoundly retarded filthy liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did not admit that. Are you moving from pretending to be retarded to pretending to be delusional?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you did...
> 
> NotFooledByW: Therefore the facts are the political pressure of a large demonstration was not working that day to achieve TrumpQ’s objective. Do you agree with that?​​Correll: Yes.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your playing the retard is really improving. I want to take credit for that. By putting pressure on you, I am forcing your to up your retard game.
> 
> 
> Anyways.
> 
> 
> Here is the definitions of "putting' and "working". You read up on them and think about it for a couple of hours. And after your brain stops hurting, go have your mommy explain it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> definition putting - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of WORK
> 
> 
> to perform work or fulfill duties regularly for wages or salary; to perform or carry through a task requiring sustained effort or continuous repeated operations… See the full definition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.merriam-webster.com
Click to expand...

LOL 

Moron, I too pointed out political pressure wasn't working. You literally agreed with too.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Room, building, you are pretending to be retarded as part of your stonewalling. Dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Answer the question.
> 
> How does the protest stop the proceedings insudec the Senate Chamber scheduled for that day by lawfully staying behind barricades set up to protect that crucial process from being disrupted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Though political pressure. D'uh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What kind of political pressure? Can't you say?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The political pressure of a large demonstration.
> 
> 
> There. I said it. Now you look like a fucking retard. Who is stonewalling. Because you are also an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're not saying anything. A lawful protest *outside* the building puts zero pressure on those *inside* the building because they can't hear them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. YOu are pretending that politicians inside of a building would not be told that there is a large demonstration outside the building?
> 
> 
> Helpful hint. iF you pretending to be profoundly retarded, try adjusting your vocabulary downward. Because right now, your performance is not credible.
> 
> 
> Instead of coming across as profoundly retarded, you are coming across as a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOLOL
> 
> You yourself admitted the protest was not putting any political pressure on them. That means you're agreeing with me; which means you just called yourself a profoundly retarded filthy liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did not admit that. Are you moving from pretending to be retarded to pretending to be delusional?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you did...
> 
> NotFooledByW: Therefore the facts are the political pressure of a large demonstration was not working that day to achieve TrumpQ’s objective. Do you agree with that?​​Correll: Yes.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your playing the retard is really improving. I want to take credit for that. By putting pressure on you, I am forcing your to up your retard game.
> 
> 
> Anyways.
> 
> 
> Here is the definitions of "putting' and "working". You read up on them and think about it for a couple of hours. And after your brain stops hurting, go have your mommy explain it to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> definition putting - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of WORK
> 
> 
> to perform work or fulfill duties regularly for wages or salary; to perform or carry through a task requiring sustained effort or continuous repeated operations… See the full definition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.merriam-webster.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Moron, I too pointed out political pressure wasn't working. You literally agreed with too.
Click to expand...



No, you claimed that it was being put on them. 

You did not claim it was not working. 


Like I said, your pretense of being retarded, is getting really good, and I want the credit for that. 


Just remember,


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Faun said:


> NotFooledByW: Therefore the facts are the political pressure of a large demonstration was not working that day to achieve TrumpQ’s objective. Do you agree with that?
> 
> Correll: Yes



Therefore TrumpQ incited his MAGA mob to converge on the Capitol on January 6 2021 to stop the electoral proceeding (Stop the Steal) taking place that day as stipulated in the Constitution. The mob made unlawful violent entry into the Capitol to comply with DJTQ’s direction as the only way for white patriots to save their country.

Hey just heard that I outlived Rush Limbaugh - Do you need time to grieve the loss of one of the all time American hate mongers?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> NotFooledByW: Therefore the facts are the political pressure of a large demonstration was not working that day to achieve TrumpQ’s objective. Do you agree with that?
> 
> Correll: Yes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore TrumpQ incited his MAGA mob to converge on the Capitol on January 6 2021 to stop the electoral proceeding (Stop the Steal) taking place that day as stipulated in the Constitution. The mob made unlawful violent entry into the Capitol to comply with DJTQ’s direction as the only way for white patriots to save their country.
> 
> .....
Click to expand...



Your leap from, "the political pressure was not working" to "thus Trump incited" is not supported.


Plenty of attempts to put political pressure on people fail. It happens all the time. You cant' assume that because such an attempt did not work that there was a secret additional plan of violence. 


That makes  absolutely no sense.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Your leap from, "the political pressure was not working" to "thus Trump incited" is not supported.



DJTQ did not request political pressure to get Congress moving on investigations into his huge pack of lies about election  fraud.
​Per Mitch:​_"The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things. ....."Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally......"This was different......"This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out._​
DJTQ told his supporters that they had to _overturn the (fraudulent) voters' decision _on January 6 or lose their country. The only patriotic way to do that on January 6 was to stop Mike Pence and the rest of the deep state immediately by going in unlawfully to stop it.,

How can you claim that entering the Capitol was not what Trump intended his deliberately assemble mob to do?

DJTQ did not order the mob out of the Capitol via tweet after seeing them go in
​Again Mitch: "The unconscionable behavior did not end when the violence began. .....   "Whatever our ex-President claims he thought might happen that day... whatever reaction he says he meant to produce... by that afternoon, he was watching the same live television as the rest of the world.  .......  "A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name. These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags, and screaming their loyalty to him.........."It was obvious that only President Trump could end this........."Former aides publicly begged him to do so. Loyal allies frantically called the Administration. ......."But the President did not act swiftly. He did not do his job. He didn't take steps so federal law could be faithfully executed, and order restored........"Instead, according to public reports, he watched television happily as the chaos unfolded. He kept pressing his scheme to overturn the election!  ........."Even after it was clear to any reasonable observer that Vice President Pence was in danger... even as the mob carrying Trump banners was beating cops and breaching perimeters... the President sent a further tweet attacking his Vice President. ...... "Predictably and foreseeably under the circumstances, members of the mob seemed to interpret this as further inspiration to lawlessness and violence.  .....   "Later, even when the President did halfheartedly begin calling for peace, he did not call right away for the riot to end. He did not tell the mob to depart until even later. ..... "And even then, with police officers bleeding and broken glass covering Capitol floors, he kept repeating election lies and praising the criminals.​​


----------



## Concerned American

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Grampa Murked U said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time
> 
> 
> 
> Naw, it won't. The violence of the preceeding 11 months and that of the unhinged left that is sure to follow is the real issue.
> While the dumb shit the tards did on the 6th was out of bounds it is done and over. Meanwhile the sickness that is the progressive mentality is still crippling our nation and there are no signs of it letting up.
> 
> Your kind is blind to your political cult. Trump was but a blip on the radar while the shit you guys are infecting our nation with has been ongoing for near a decade and shows no signs of receding.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> “Your kind” ? —  *My* kind ?
> “You guys” ? — *My* guys ?
> “Your political cult” ? — *My* political cult ?
> 
> I’m glad and recognize you at least characterized the violence in D.C. as ... “the dumb shit the tards did on the 6th was out of bounds.”
> 
> I don’t lump you in with those lunatics and thugs by saying they are ... “your kind.”
> 
> Please extend me a similar courtesy in regard to whatever violence or looting or “unhinged shit” you are objecting to.
> 
> But the funny thing is Trump *does* proudly talk about “his people,” and plays on the grievances of “ignorant people” whom he “loves.” He flatters them and feeds them “big lies” about the “big steal” of an election he won “in a landslide” ... and then purposely unleashed them on the Capitol Building.
> 
> The months of “unhinged” “dumb shit” Trump personally encouraged and articulated ineluctably led to Jan. 6th, when _*his people*_ carrying *his banners *and shouting _*his slogans*_ tried to keep _*him*_ in power illegally.
> 
> That is the “dark shadow” of political mob rule that will remain hovering over U.S. politics as long as ex-President Trump goes unpunished.
Click to expand...

But you support these slime.


----------



## Concerned American

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your leap from, "the political pressure was not working" to "thus Trump incited" is not supported.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJTQ did not request political pressure to get Congress moving on investigations into his huge pack of lies about election  fraud.
> ​Per Mitch:​_"The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things. ....."Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally......"This was different......"This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out._​
> DJTQ told his supporters that they had to _overturn the (fraudulent) voters' decision _on January 6 or lose their country. The only patriotic way to do that on January 6 was to stop Mike Pence and the rest of the deep state immediately by going in unlawfully to stop it.,
> 
> How can you claim that entering the Capitol was not what Trump intended his deliberately assemble mob to do?
> 
> DJTQ did not order the mob out of the Capitol via tweet after seeing them go in
> ​Again Mitch: "The unconscionable behavior did not end when the violence began. .....   "Whatever our ex-President claims he thought might happen that day... whatever reaction he says he meant to produce... by that afternoon, he was watching the same live television as the rest of the world.  .......  "A mob was assaulting the Capitol in his name. These criminals were carrying his banners, hanging his flags, and screaming their loyalty to him.........."It was obvious that only President Trump could end this........."Former aides publicly begged him to do so. Loyal allies frantically called the Administration. ......."But the President did not act swiftly. He did not do his job. He didn't take steps so federal law could be faithfully executed, and order restored........"Instead, according to public reports, he watched television happily as the chaos unfolded. He kept pressing his scheme to overturn the election!  ........."Even after it was clear to any reasonable observer that Vice President Pence was in danger... even as the mob carrying Trump banners was beating cops and breaching perimeters... the President sent a further tweet attacking his Vice President. ...... "Predictably and foreseeably under the circumstances, members of the mob seemed to interpret this as further inspiration to lawlessness and violence.  .....   "Later, even when the President did halfheartedly begin calling for peace, he did not call right away for the riot to end. He did not tell the mob to depart until even later. ..... "And even then, with police officers bleeding and broken glass covering Capitol floors, he kept repeating election lies and praising the criminals.​​
Click to expand...

I find it quite interesting that the election commissions in GA, PA, MI and WI are all investigating multiple cases of voter fraud RIGHT NOW.  So much for unsubstantiated.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> DJTQ told his supporters that they had to _overturn the (fraudulent) voters' decision _on January 6 or lose their country. The only patriotic way to do that on January 6 was to stop Mike Pence and the rest of the deep state immediately by going in unlawfully to stop it.,




Right here, you are assuming that the pro-Trump demonstrators think just like you on the matter. 


That is an unsupported assumption, and if your assumption is false, then the rest of your logic falls apart.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Concerned American said:


> I find it quite interesting that the election commissions in GA, PA, MI and WI are all investigating multiple cases of voter fraud RIGHT NOW. So much for unsubstantiated.



Link please?  Nobody says there is zero fraud. It!s a crime and should be investigated. No evidence that any of those  results can be overturned.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it quite interesting that the election commissions in GA, PA, MI and WI are all investigating multiple cases of voter fraud RIGHT NOW. So much for unsubstantiated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link please?  Nobody says there is zero fraud. It!s a crime and should be investigated. No evidence that any of those  results can be overturned.
Click to expand...



Actually, the conclusion I mostly heard was, something along the lines  of " there is not enough fraud to swing the election so we should not bother having an investigation".


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Right here, you are assuming that the pro-Trump demonstrators think just like you on the matter.



You ignorant DJTQ goon. The rioters that went in tell us that’s what they thought they were invited to DC to stop the steal.

Some insurrectionist were surprised that DJTQ DIDN’T HAVE A PLAN when they got into the building. 

AND Trump didn’t react against violence and disorder when the mob started scaling walls and breaking windows and beating up cops for the first couple of hours.

DJTQ’s early response was overt non-action that proves DJTQ expected the mob to get in and interfere with the Constitutional process.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> there is not enough fraud to swing the election so we should not bother having an investigation".



You are a liar so why do we care what you think you heard. Another one of your irrelevant detours away from facts and intelligent discourse.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right here, you are assuming that the pro-Trump demonstrators think just like you on the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ignorant DJTQ goon. The rioters that went in tell us that’s what they thought they were invited to DC to stop the steal.
> 
> Some insurrectionist were surprised that DJTQ DIDN’T HAVE A PLAN when they got into the building.
> 
> AND Trump didn’t react against violence and disorder when the mob started scaling walls and breaking windows and beating up cops for the first couple of hours.
> 
> DJTQ’s early response was overt non-action that proves DJTQ expected the mob to get in and interfere with the Constitutional process.
Click to expand...




You keep using that term, "stop the steal" as though it means, "storm the capitol".


Trump didn't have a plan for what to do if "his forces" seized the capitol?

You know, if I was a dishonest partisan hack, I would pretend that that "proves" he did not mean for them to storm the capitol because the only thing I can imagine, is "blah, blah, blah", and 


then we could spend a couple days were you point out other things it could mean, but I pretend to be retarded and stonewall. 


Aren't you glad I'm not an asshole like that?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is not enough fraud to swing the election so we should not bother having an investigation".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar so why do we care what you think you heard. Another one of your irrelevant detours away from facts and intelligent discourse.
Click to expand...



I'm not the one that brought it up, I was responding to YOUR point on it. And I'm not the liar here, you are.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> You keep using that term, "stop the steal" as though it means, "storm the capitol".



You are a liar. I use the term ‘Stop the Steal’ to mean exactly what DJTQ and the insurrectionists who went to carry it out believed it meant.

You are the one telling us that “stop the steal” meant peacefully demonstrate for more investigations but stand by and watch black lives inside that Capitol Building steal our country right from under our white patriotic Jesus luvv’n nose.

Mitch knows:”"The leader of the free world cannot spend weeks thundering that shadowy forces are stealing our country and then feign surprise when people believe him and do reckless things.””

Stop the Steal meant STOP what was going in inside the Capitol on that specific day.

You  are flat out lying when you tell us it meant stand around and watch the election be stolen


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I'm not the one that brought it up, I was responding to YOUR point on it.



You did not respond to my point other than to say your heard something about it. Who cares what you claim you he hear. If what I said was not correct / tell us why.,


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> You know, if I was a dishonest partisan hack, I would pretend that that "proves" he did not mean for them to storm the capitol



No it proves TrumpQ did not have a plan that went beyond gathering a mob to  “stop” what was going on with Pence presiding in the Senate Chamber..

He didnt need a plan. He was gonna watch it all on tv. And that precisely what he did. Watch the rioters carry out their own plans to stop the steal for him..


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> And I'm not the liar here, you are.



I cite your lies and explain why they are lies.

If you can do that give it a shot..


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Concerned American said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Concerned American said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find it quite interesting that the election commissions in GA, PA, MI and WI are all investigating multiple cases of voter fraud RIGHT NOW. So much for unsubstantiated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link please?  Nobody says there is zero fraud. It!s a crime and should be investigated. No evidence that any of those  results can be overturned.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Georgia prosecutors investigate election fraud, conspiracy after Trump's pressure campaign as part of 'high-priority' criminal probe
Click to expand...


Do you know that you posted a report about the *criminal investigation* into DJTQ’s attempts to interfere in the state of Georgia’s election to tilt the state vote count in his favor.

Yes, I hope Trump goes to prison for attempting to commit election fraud


from your link:
Local prosecutors in Georgia have requested that state election officials preserve records as part of a criminal investigation into attempts to interfere in the state election after former President Donald Trump's efforts to tilt the state vote count in his favor.

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger said Thursday that he intends to cooperate with the inquiry led by the Fulton County District Attorney's Office.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Concerned American said:


> I find it quite interesting that the election commissions in GA, PA, MI and WI are all investigating multiple cases of voter fraud RIGHT NOW. So much for unsubstantiated.



I knew about the criminal case against TrumpQ that’s going on in GA.  Is DJTQ in criminal trouble in those other states as well.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar. I use the term ‘Stop the Steal’ to mean exactly what DJTQ and the insurrectionists who went to carry it out believed it meant.



So far, your argument to support that that is what Trump meant, boils down to you explaining why you think that and insisting that  there no other way of thinking. 

And that  is the crux of your argument, which you have utterly failed to make a convincing argument.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not the one that brought it up, I was responding to YOUR point on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did not respond to my point other than to say your heard something about it. Who cares what you claim you he hear. If what I said was not correct / tell us why.,
Click to expand...



I made my point. The conclusion I heard about it  most was that "there was not enough cheating  to swing the election, so why bother to investigate".

That seems like an unsupportable position, but that is what the nation as a whole decided and we are just moving on.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, if I was a dishonest partisan hack, I would pretend that that "proves" he did not mean for them to storm the capitol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it proves TrumpQ did not have a plan that went beyond gathering a mob to  “stop” what was going on with Pence presiding in the Senate Chamber..
> 
> He didnt need a plan. He was gonna watch it all on tv. And that precisely what he did. Watch the rioters carry out their own plans to stop the steal for him..
Click to expand...



Correct. Event though it seemed to ME, that it is evidence that he did not plan for the storming of hte capitol, I am not pretending that my conclusion is the only possible conclusion AND I am not taking the additional step of telling you that it now a fact, because I thought it. 


Also, I am not attacking  you for not immediately agreeing with my conclusion.


See how someone who is not a partisan hack, can think something and present as an opinion, not as a fact?


Unlike, you. 


Trump did not have a plan for what happened next. THat  COULD mean that he did not think that he would need a plan, because all that was going to happen was a big demonstration to put political pressure on them inside.

OR, it could mean that he just failed to have a plan.

OR, it could mean that he had a plan, but events did not unfold in such a way as to let him implement it. 


OR, it could mean that something else, based on information we do not have.


I am not a dishonest hack who is going to pretend that my opinion is fact. 


LIKE YOU HAVE BEEN DOING.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Correct. Event though it seemed to ME, that it is evidence that he did not plan for the storming of hte capitol, I am not pretending that my conclusion is the only possible conclusion AND I am not taking the additional step of telling you that it now a fact, because I thought it.



It is a fact we know from evidence and  statements from DJTQ and many of his followers that DJTQ has revealed no public indication or suggestion that he had a plan that went beyond gathering his mob in DC on January 6 2021 in order to somehow as a last resort STOP the proceeding scheduled to take place INSIDE the Capitol on that day. And DJTQ told them to cone because it’s gonna be wild.  

The purpose for the gathering and ‘wild’ rally according to the facts was to stop (on that specific day ) Congress and VP Pence from certifying the election that was stolen from him and them. 


Do you agree all the above is factual and true.,


----------



## Dale Smith

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.


 That ship sailed a long time ago....we live in a banana republic.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. Event though it seemed to ME, that it is evidence that he did not plan for the storming of hte capitol, I am not pretending that my conclusion is the only possible conclusion AND I am not taking the additional step of telling you that it now a fact, because I thought it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a fact we know from evidence and  statements from DJTQ and many of his followers that DJTQ has revealed no public indication or suggestion that he had a plan that went beyond gathering his mob in DC on January 6 2021 in order to somehow as a last resort STOP the proceeding scheduled to take place INSIDE the Capitol on that day. And DJTQ told them to cone because it’s gonna be wild.
> 
> The purpose for the gathering and ‘wild’ rally according to the facts was to stop (on that specific day ) Congress and VP Pence from certifying the election that was stolen from him and them.
> 
> 
> Do you agree all the above is factual and true.,
Click to expand...



Yes. Very good. Note that "stop" does not translate to "storm building".


You seemed to have learned. Good for you. 


Ask me if I thought it was a good plan.


----------



## Dale Smith

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. Event though it seemed to ME, that it is evidence that he did not plan for the storming of hte capitol, I am not pretending that my conclusion is the only possible conclusion AND I am not taking the additional step of telling you that it now a fact, because I thought it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a fact we know from evidence and  statements from DJTQ and many of his followers that DJTQ has revealed no public indication or suggestion that he had a plan that went beyond gathering his mob in DC on January 6 2021 in order to somehow as a last resort STOP the proceeding scheduled to take place INSIDE the Capitol on that day. And DJTQ told them to cone because it’s gonna be wild.
> 
> The purpose for the gathering and ‘wild’ rally according to the facts was to stop (on that specific day ) Congress and VP Pence from certifying the election that was stolen from him and them.
> 
> 
> Do you agree all the above is factual and true.,
Click to expand...

  Fantasy Island was cancelled a few decades ago.....get with the times.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Yes. Very good. Note that "stop" does not translate to "storm building".



I never said it did, liar. DJTQ’s request that the Congress must be stopped from certifying the stolen election on that day was all that was needed for his riotous mob to figure out and plan exactly how to stop it. 

If not for that request from DJTQ, the fucking, lying, self centered, ignorant asshole President of the United States of America, that was loudly and angrily given to his gathered mob to be there on that specific date (based on a huge bombastic lie that the election was stolen,) there is no storming of the Capitol. Just the peaceful transition of power. 

The only reason the capital was ‘stormed’ on January 6 was because Trump told all those people to be there. The mob was motivated was to do what Trump specifically asked them to do on that date. It was stop the steal. 

You are the one who thinks ‘stop the steal’ meant to ‘protest peacefully and watch the election be stolen’ ..... And that is only one of your self deluded lies.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Very good. Note that "stop" does not translate to "storm building".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it did, liar. DJTQ’s request that the Congress must be stopped from certifying the stolen election on that day was all that was needed for his riotous mob to figure out and plan exactly how to stop it.
> ....
Click to expand...


And now you finally drop the claim that Trump told them to do "storm the capital".

Thank you. 

It was the individuals who decided to storm the capital, that are responsible for their actions. 


They are the ones that "figured out" that that was "how" they were going to do that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

"Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are," 26586291 reply to  26585970


Correll said:


> And now you finally drop the claim that Trump told them to do "storm the capital".



You are a liar. I have never made the claim that DJTQ told his mob to storm the Capitol.

He incited them to ‘stop the steal. And that is why the ones that were “most upset” knew they had to unlawfully get inside the Capitol to stop the steal in order to please their supreme leader by obeying his request


*New details about Trump-McCarthy shouting match show Trump refused to call off the rioters*​By Jamie Gangel, Kevin Liptak, Michael Warren and Marshall Cohen, CNN​Updated 10:29 PM EST, Fri February 12, 2021​
Washington(CNN)In an expletive-laced phone call with House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy while the US Capitol was under attack, then-President Donald Trump said the rioters cared more about the election results than McCarthy did.​
"Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are," Trump said, according to lawmakers who were briefed on the call afterward by McCarthy.​
McCarthy insisted that the rioters were Trump's supporters and begged Trump to call them off.​

So why did DJTQ  refuse to call off the rioters that breached the barricades and walls and succeeded in stopping the steal  from inside the capital,  if he never really intended them to be in there?
​


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar. I have never made the claim that DJTQ told his mob to storm the Capitol.
> 
> He incited them to ‘stop the steal. And that is why the ones that were “most upset” knew they had to unlawfully get inside the Capitol to stop the steal in order to please their supreme leader by obeying his request




You are playing games with semantics now.

Trump called for a demonstration. That it got out of hand is primarily the fault of those that choose to take violent action.


That is the truth. You could argue that considering the rise is political violence that TRump should have seen that possibility coming.

But that is another discussion. YOu are trying to hold him DIRECTLY responsible for inciting violence.


Which you cannot support.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

"Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are," 26586291 reply to  26585970

When TrumpQ said that, the DJTQ 1/6 RIOTERS  were on the verge of breaking into Rep McCarthy’s office. 

So Correll in light of the above,  what is DJTQ’s opinion of his ‘stop the steal’ crowd that remained outside the Capitol, who were not fighting with cops, who were not ransacking the place, who were not looking for Pence to be hung on the gallows, or Pelosi to shoot? 

Was that not Trump indicating that he thought the peaceful outside protesters didn’t care about stopping the steal “as much” the violent mob that stormed the Capitol did on that crucial day? 

Does that undermine your notion that TrumpQ expected all of his loyal goobers to stand outside in the cold and watch the deep state and radical left players steal the election that everybody knows he won in a landslide?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> You are playing games with semantics now.



Knew you had to go there as you always do when the facts let you down.

 You are a liar because you are the only one changing the meaning of ‘stop the steal’ to ‘demand an investigation’

Stop the steal means stop the steal. Always did and always will.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> YOu are trying to hold him DIRECTLY responsible for inciting violence.



He claimed that honor himself:

"Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are," 26586291 reply to 26585970


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> "Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are," 26586291 reply to  26585970
> 
> When TrumpQ said that, the DJTQ 1/6 RIOTERS  were on the verge of breaking into Rep McCarthy’s office.
> 
> So Correll ...
> 
> Was that not Trump indicating that he thought the peaceful outside protesters didn’t care about stopping the steal “as much” the violent mob that stormed the Capitol did on that crucial day?
> ...





I doubt Trump would be saying something like that, about people who cared enough about him to come out and protest in his favor. 


More likely, in my opinion, he was just commenting that that group as as whole, those outside and those inside, were more "upset than...you are". 


You know, like he said. 


MMM, do you always imagine that everyone has all these secret levels of meanings?

Do you imagine that women are talking to you like that? 


Does "Hello Notfooled" ever sound to you like, "take me right here on the sidewalk, you delicious eye candy you"?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are trying to hold him DIRECTLY responsible for inciting violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He claimed that honor himself:
> 
> "Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are," 26586291 reply to 26585970
Click to expand...



Yeah, um, that does not support your case. At all.


YOur sentence structure is such that it seems you think it does.


But, it doesn't.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> It was the individuals who decided to storm the capital, that are responsible for their actions.



IF TrumpQ yells  in a crowded theater when there is no Fire and dozens are injured and die in the panic stampede for the exits; it appears you are saying that DJTQ is not responsible at all because those idiots decided to panic all on their own

DJTQ never told them to panic.

Yiu are a dumbass if you believe inb that?

TrumpQ yelled ‘stolen election” when it was not.

Then he gathered a mob to stop that steal at a specific time and place or lose their country. That was like yelling fire. Some in his gathered mob is panicked - innocent people were injured and killed and property was destroyed. 

And you hold DJTQ responsible for nothing at all.

Get your nose out if his ass before you suffocate.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was the individuals who decided to storm the capital, that are responsible for their actions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IF TrumpQ yells  in a crowded theater when there is no Fire and dozens are injured and die in the panic stampede for the exits; it appears you are saying that DJTQ is not responsible at all because those idiots decided to panic all on their own
> 
> DJTQ never told them to panic.
> 
> Yiu are a dumbass if you believe inb that?
> 
> TrumpQ yelled ‘stolen election” when it was not.
> 
> Then he gathered a mob to stop that steal at a specific time and place or lose their country. That was like yelling fire. Some in his gathered mob is panicked - innocent people were injured and killed and property was destroyed.
> 
> And you hold DJTQ responsible for nothing at all.
> 
> Get your nose out if his ass before you suffocate.
Click to expand...



You want people to have faith in voting, have an election DAY, not an election MONTH.


Also, reports of shit like changing the laws so to NOT require signature lines? 

This is not yelling fire with no fire. This is a reasonable opinion to hold, considering your side's actions and hysterical "resist".


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I doubt Trump would be saying something like that, about people who cared enough about him to come out and protest in his favor.



He was saying those that stormed the capital cared more about the stolen election than Kevin McCarthy.

deal with that part of it for now - sticking with facts.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt Trump would be saying something like that, about people who cared enough about him to come out and protest in his favor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was saying those that stormed the capital cared more about the stolen election than Kevin McCarthy.
> 
> deal with that part of it for now - sticking with facts.
Click to expand...



It was not clear from his statement that he was only referring to those storming the building. He might have been referring to them as part of the whole demonstration, and still lumping them together, implying that their actions indicated "upset" in the group as a whole.



You are the one making guesses and pretending they are facts.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> You want people to have faith in voting, have an election DAY, not an election MONTH.



First. The 2020 election was not stolen.

Second. Most Americans have faith that it was not stolen with early voting and all the other changes that you are all worked up about.

It is not what I want. It is what is a reality.

Trump is a liar. He’s been lying about the election being stolen even before the election. And he still lying about it yesterday.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want people to have faith in voting, have an election DAY, not an election MONTH.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First. The 2020 election was not stolen.
> 
> Second. Most Americans have faith that it was not stolen with early voting and all the other changes that you are all worked up about.
> 
> It is not what I want. It is what is a reality.
> 
> Trump is a liar. He’s been lying about the election being stolen even before the election. And he still lying about it yesterday.
Click to expand...



Got it. YOu don't care if it looks suspicious. You feel fine about it. 


So, don't whine if others are suspicious then.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> It was not clear from his statement that he was only referring to those storming the building.



It is clear however from the conversation that Rep.R McCarthy was referring to those who are inside the building.

Is it your contention that Kevin McCarthy would  have that conversation for Trump to call his rioters off if they were all standing outside protesting peacefully?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> You are the one making guesses and pretending they are facts.



No, you are in denial of the facts.

There is no conversation on that day between McCarthy and Trump if none of the protesters stormed the capital. That is a fact based on the conversation.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> YOu don't care if it looks suspicious. You feel fine about it.



There you go. Derived of having benefits of the facts you must claim your opponents don’t care about some ill perceived suspected injustices against the multitude of rightwing victims in this country. Fuckin snowflakes the entire bunch of them. They stole my election. They stole my election. I want my Trump. I can’t live without my TrumpQ. 

The election was not stolen. That is a fact.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

"Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are," 26586291 reply to  26585970



Correll said:


> More likely, in my opinion, he was just commenting that that group as as whole, those outside and those inside, were more "upset than...you are".



What are “those outside and those inside” Trump Stop-the-Steal Rally Attendees as a whole  so upset about?

In the conversation with McCarthy do you hear any remorse  or concern or shock that some of his ‘’upset’ mob have entered the Capitol and for the moment have managed through violence and lawlessness to have stopped the steal? TrumpQ appears to be more on the side of the attackers (his mob) than on the side of the attacked (Rep McCarthy).

This is not coming from commie hate driven TDS it’s Mitch, Mitt, a freaking Cheney and Herrera Beutler
​"You have to look at what he did during the insurrection to confirm where his mind was at," Herrera Beutler, one of 10 House Republicans who voted last month to impeach Trump, told CNN. "That line was right there demonstrates to me that either he didn't care, which is impeachable, because *you cannot allow an attack on your soil, or he wanted it to happen and was OK with it,* which makes me so angry."​







						New details about Trump-McCarthy shouting match show Trump refused to call off the rioters
					

In an expletive-laced phone call with House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy while the US Capitol was under attack, then-President Donald Trump said the rioters cared more about the election results than McCarthy did.




					www.google.com
				


​So tell us Correll - A US Congressman in the Capitol under siege; a loyal kiss ass Trump Republican, frantically tells Trump that the rioters were getting close. They are beating down the doors. The Congressman,  informs DJTQ  The rioters were indeed Trump supporters as he begged Trump to call them off -

The POTUS, safe and secure at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, had this reponse to a call for help:

"Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,"


----------



## NotfooledbyW

“stopping the certification of the election pursuant to the instructions of the then President”   reply to 26586821



Correll said:


> Yeah, um, that does not support your case. At all.



McCarthy Tells DJTQ that the rioters were TRUMP’s supporters and begged Trump to call them off.

Trump does not call them off. That is a fact.,

The rioters are there because they care about the election being stolen and that stolen election is still of primary concern of the President.

They care about the stolen election and are there to stop a stolen election from being validated by Congress.

Trump explained it to Kevin in the heat of the battle.

“Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,

DJTQ did not attempt  to stop the violent mob  from achieving DJTQ!s publicly stated objective.

The knew what DJTQ’s objective was.

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000177-b80e-d644-a377-fe9f756e0000

(Proud Boy )Pezzola is just seen as one of the crowd walking through the building. *There is a selfie video where he lights a “victory cigar” and mugs for the camera. The implication was he stopped for a cigar because he considered the objective achieved, *There is no indication that he sought to seek or harm anyone in the Capitol.

On January 6, 2021, he gained instant infamy when he was photographed using a police shield to break a window at the Capitol. That window was one of the numerous doors and windows used by protesters to gain access into the Capitol.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> MMM, do you always imagine that everyone has all these secret levels of  We must stop the steal and then we must ensure that such outrageous election fraud never happens again, can never be allowed to happen again, but we’re going forward. We’ll take care of going forward.* We got to take care of going back. *Don’t let them talk, “Okay, well we promise,” I’ve had a lot of people, “Sir, you’re at 96% for four years.” I said, “I’m not interested right now. I’m interested in right there.”meanings?




But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.

Donald Trump: (01:13:19)
So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not clear from his statement that he was only referring to those storming the building.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is clear however from the conversation that Rep.R McCarthy was referring to those who are inside the building.
> 
> Is it your contention that Kevin McCarthy would  have that conversation for Trump to call his rioters off if they were all standing outside protesting peacefully?
Click to expand...



Nope. Nothing I said indicated that.  Why would you even ask that?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one making guesses and pretending they are facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you are in denial of the facts.
> 
> There is no conversation on that day between McCarthy and Trump if none of the protesters stormed the capital. That is a fact based on the conversation.
Click to expand...



Which does nothing to support your claim that Trump was inciting violence. 

YOu fear him. You fear that he might return to power some day. And not be the warm and cuddly President he was his first term.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu don't care if it looks suspicious. You feel fine about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go. Derived of having benefits of the facts you must claim your opponents don’t care about some ill perceived suspected injustices against the multitude of rightwing victims in this country. Fuckin snowflakes the entire bunch of them. They stole my election. They stole my election. I want my Trump. I can’t live without my TrumpQ.
> 
> The election was not stolen. That is a fact.
Click to expand...



How do you know? Most of the complaints where thrown out without an investigation. The most common conclusion I heard was, "there was not enough cheating to swing the election, so we don't need an investigation".

You want people to have confidence in the election, stop acting like you are trying to steal them.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

post: 26591388


Correll said:


> Nope. Nothing I said indicated that. Why would you even ask that?



Actually, prior  to the above, you did very much contend in post: 26586794


Correll said:


> More likely, in my opinion, he was just commenting that that group as as whole, those outside and those inside, were more "upset than...you are".



You were saying that DJTQ was “just commenting that that group “as as whole, those outside and those inside, were more "upset than” you, Keven McCarthy.,

You are putting the words “*as as whole, those outside and those inside,” *into that mid-riot conversation between DJTQ and Kevin McCarthy.

That is very stupid speculation on your part because you say “It was *not clear* from (DJTQ’s statement” ... as if it is not possible and correct to determine that i*t is very clear * (from the conversation) that Rep.R McCarthy was referring  ONLY to those who are *inside the building.*

As I said in post: 26586979


NotfooledbyW said:


> It is clear however from the conversation that Rep.R McCarthy was referring to those who are inside the building.



That for the record was in response to your post: 26586942,


Correll said:


> It was not clear from his statement that he was only referring to those storming the building. He might have been referring to them as part of the whole demonstration, and still lumping them together, implying that their actions indicated "upset" in the group as a whole.



And your snide remark in the same post: 26586942 





Correll said:


> You are the one making guesses and pretending they are facts.



.....actually led me to ask in post: 26586979


NotfooledbyW said:


> Is it your contention that Kevin McCarthy would have that conversation for Trump to call his rioters off if they were all standing outside protesting peacefully?



And I explained why that question was asked in post: 26586995


NotfooledbyW said:


> There is no conversation on that day between McCarthy and Trump if none of the protesters stormed the capital. That is a fact based on the conversation.



DO YOU GET IT YET or do you need more help when you are confronted with dealing all in with the facts.

THE FACT Is KEVIN McCARTHY  DOES NOT CALL TRUMPQ DURING A RIOT FROM INSIDE THE US CAPITOL WHILE BEING UNDER ATTACK FROM DJTQ SUPPORTERS TO ASK DJTQ TO CALL THEM OFF IF ALL THE DJTQ SUPPORTERS ARE PEACEULLY  AND RESPECTFULLY PROTESTING AND MINDING THE POLICE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING.

There is no conversation because the is no reason to have it because there’s no DJTQ supporters assaulting police and the building to shut down the proceeding that DJTQ told his mob that they needed to do to stop the BROWN invasion from Mexico.

At the very end of the incitement rally prior to sending his mob to the Capitol to Stop the STEAL DJTQ Reminded his mob that if they fail on that day the threat of the BROWN PEOPLE’s invasion will start all over again:

“*They (Brown People) want to come in again and rip off our country. Can’t let it happen.* As this enormous crowd shows, we have truth and justice on our side. We have a deep and enduring love for America in our hearts. We love our country. We have overwhelming pride in this great country, and we have it deep in our souls. Together we are determined to defend and preserve government of the people, by the people and for the people.” DJTQ 1/6 RIOT Washington DC​

the white people for sure

NOW GO FIGHT for TRUMP STOP the STEAL FIGHT for TRUMP STOP the STEAL FIGHT for TRUMP STOP the STEAL FIGHT for TRUMP STOP the STEAL 

It’s different rules now - trial by combat

Whispered at the end
I am Donald J TRUMP and I approve this message  but bear no responsibility if any of you  white grievance hatefilled whackos get out of hand in any way.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> The most common conclusion I heard was, "there was not enough cheating to swing the election, so we don't need an investigation".



Who What WHY AND WHERE. you are making  a charge that could replace our democracy with TrumpQocracy. And all you can come up with you heard something about something by somebody somewhere.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Trump did not have a plan for what happened next. THat COULD mean that he did not think that he would need a plan, because all that was going to happen was a big demonstration to put political pressure on them inside.



The huge problem for your supine, intellectually indolent, self-blindered sloppy defense of DJTQ is that {FACT>} he already was aware* that the DJTQ rioters had entered the hallowed halls of the Capitol building violently and lawlessly{<FACT} when DJTQ sent them the loving tweet in the middle of the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT that Mike Pence has cowardly failed to do his duty to STOP THE STEAL.  (* The Pence tweet followed DJTQ telling MCCarthy that the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT mob was inside the Building because they were upset)

Yes Correll DJTQ already knew some of his mob were committing violence against the United States of America under Trump flags, Q flags; Confederate Flags, JESUS Flags .All loyal to Trump.

Anyway here is a worthwhile depiction of probably the most shameful hour of any US President ever:

“But don't just blame Donald Trump. Admittedly, we've just passed through the Senate trial and acquittal of the largest political cockroach around. I'm talking about the president who, upon discovering that his vice president was in danger of being "executed" ("Hang Mike Pence!") and was being rushed out of the Senate as a mob bore down on him, promptly tweeted: "Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution."​​







						The United States is visibly in an early stage of disintegration
					

Like Gregor Samsa, the never-to-be-forgotten character in Franz Kafka's story "The Metamorphosis," we awoke on January 7th to discover that we, too, were "a giant insect" with "a domelike brown belly divided into stiff arched segments" and numerous "pitifully thin" legs that "waved helplessly"...




					www.rawstory.com
				


​


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> "Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are," 26586291 reply to  26585970
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> More likely, in my opinion, he was just commenting that that group as as whole, those outside and those inside, were more "upset than...you are".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are “those outside and those inside” Trump Stop-the-Steal Rally Attendees as a whole  so upset about?
> 
> In the conversation with McCarthy do you hear any remorse  or concern or shock that some of his ‘’upset’ mob have entered the Capitol and for the moment have managed through violence and lawlessness to have stopped the steal? TrumpQ appears to be more on the side of the attackers (his mob) than on the side of the attacked (Rep McCarthy).
> 
> This is not coming from commie hate driven TDS it’s Mitch, Mitt, a freaking Cheney and Herrera Beutler
> ​"You have to look at what he did during the insurrection to confirm where his mind was at," Herrera Beutler, one of 10 House Republicans who voted last month to impeach Trump, told CNN. "That line was right there demonstrates to me that either he didn't care, which is impeachable, because *you cannot allow an attack on your soil, or he wanted it to happen and was OK with it,* which makes me so angry."​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New details about Trump-McCarthy shouting match show Trump refused to call off the rioters
> 
> 
> In an expletive-laced phone call with House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy while the US Capitol was under attack, then-President Donald Trump said the rioters cared more about the election results than McCarthy did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> ​So tell us Correll - A US Congressman in the Capitol under siege; a loyal kiss ass Trump Republican, frantically tells Trump that the rioters were getting close. They are beating down the doors. The Congressman,  informs DJTQ  The rioters were indeed Trump supporters as he begged Trump to call them off -
> 
> The POTUS, safe and secure at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, had this reponse to a call for help:
> 
> "Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,"
Click to expand...



Nice opinion from Beutler. I've never heard of her before this, and doubt I ever will again. 


So, the opinion of random republicans, that is the best "evidence" you have to support your claims?


Then it is time to drop your claims.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> “stopping the certification of the election pursuant to the instructions of the then President”   reply to 26586821
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, um, that does not support your case. At all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McCarthy Tells DJTQ that the rioters were TRUMP’s supporters and begged Trump to call them off.
> 
> Trump does not call them off. That is a fact.,
> 
> The rioters are there because they care about the election being stolen and that stolen election is still of primary concern of the President.
> 
> They care about the stolen election and are there to stop a stolen election from being validated by Congress.
> 
> Trump explained it to Kevin in the heat of the battle.
> 
> “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,
> 
> DJTQ did not attempt  to stop the violent mob  from achieving DJTQ!s publicly stated objective.
> 
> The knew what DJTQ’s objective was.
> 
> https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000177-b80e-d644-a377-fe9f756e0000
> 
> (Proud Boy )Pezzola is just seen as one of the crowd walking through the building. *There is a selfie video where he lights a “victory cigar” and mugs for the camera. The implication was he stopped for a cigar because he considered the objective achieved, *There is no indication that he sought to seek or harm anyone in the Capitol.
> 
> On January 6, 2021, he gained instant infamy when he was photographed using a police shield to break a window at the Capitol. That window was one of the numerous doors and windows used by protesters to gain access into the Capitol.
Click to expand...






The "Fact" that Trump did not attempt to "call them off" proves one thing. That TRump did not attempt to "Call them off".


That is all it shows. It does not show that Trump was in control of the crowd, or really anything.


You are grasping at straws.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> MMM, do you always imagine that everyone has all these secret levels of  We must stop the steal and then we must ensure that such outrageous election fraud never happens again, can never be allowed to happen again, but we’re going forward. We’ll take care of going forward.* We got to take care of going back. *Don’t let them talk, “Okay, well we promise,” I’ve had a lot of people, “Sir, you’re at 96% for four years.” I said, “I’m not interested right now. I’m interested in right there.”meanings?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.
> 
> Donald Trump: (01:13:19)
> So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue
Click to expand...




Just teh type of talk that you would expect, if he was trying to put political pressure on congress, to stop the count, because of all the evidence of cheating. 


YOur belief that your view of these words and events can be the only possible view, is just you being a closed minded lib.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> post: 26591388
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. Nothing I said indicated that. Why would you even ask that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, prior  to the above, you did very much contend in post: 26586794
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> More likely, in my opinion, he was just commenting that that group as as whole, those outside and those inside, were more "upset than...you are".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were saying that DJTQ was “just commenting that that group “as as whole, those outside and those inside, were more "upset than” you, Keven McCarthy.,
> 
> You are putting the words “*as as whole, those outside and those inside,” *into that mid-riot conversation between DJTQ and Kevin McCarthy.
> 
> That is very stupid speculation on your part because you say “It was *not clear* from (DJTQ’s statement” ... as if it is not possible and correct to determine that i*t is very clear * (from the conversation) that Rep.R McCarthy was referring  ONLY to those who are *inside the building.*
> 
> As I said in post: 26586979
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is clear however from the conversation that Rep.R McCarthy was referring to those who are inside the building.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That for the record was in response to your post: 26586942,
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not clear from his statement that he was only referring to those storming the building. He might have been referring to them as part of the whole demonstration, and still lumping them together, implying that their actions indicated "upset" in the group as a whole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And your snide remark in the same post: 26586942
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one making guesses and pretending they are facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .....actually led me to ask in post: 26586979
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it your contention that Kevin McCarthy would have that conversation for Trump to call his rioters off if they were all standing outside protesting peacefully?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I explained why that question was asked in post: 26586995
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no conversation on that day between McCarthy and Trump if none of the protesters stormed the capital. That is a fact based on the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DO YOU GET IT YET or do you need more help when you are confronted with dealing all in with the facts.
> 
> THE FACT Is KEVIN McCARTHY  DOES NOT CALL TRUMPQ DURING A RIOT FROM INSIDE THE US CAPITOL WHILE BEING UNDER ATTACK FROM DJTQ SUPPORTERS TO ASK DJTQ TO CALL THEM OFF IF ALL THE DJTQ SUPPORTERS ARE PEACEULLY  AND RESPECTFULLY PROTESTING AND MINDING THE POLICE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING.
> 
> There is no conversation because the is no reason to have it because there’s no DJTQ supporters assaulting police and the building to shut down the proceeding that DJTQ told his mob that they needed to do to stop the BROWN invasion from Mexico.
> 
> At the very end of the incitement rally prior to sending his mob to the Capitol to Stop the STEAL DJTQ Reminded his mob that if they fail on that day the threat of the BROWN PEOPLE’s invasion will start all over again:
> 
> “*They (Brown People) want to come in again and rip off our country. Can’t let it happen.* As this enormous crowd shows, we have truth and justice on our side. We have a deep and enduring love for America in our hearts. We love our country. We have overwhelming pride in this great country, and we have it deep in our souls. Together we are determined to defend and preserve government of the people, by the people and for the people.” DJTQ 1/6 RIOT Washington DC​
> 
> the white people for sure
> 
> NOW GO FIGHT for TRUMP STOP the STEAL FIGHT for TRUMP STOP the STEAL FIGHT for TRUMP STOP the STEAL FIGHT for TRUMP STOP the STEAL
> 
> It’s different rules now - trial by combat
> 
> Whispered at the end
> I am Donald J TRUMP and I approve this message  but bear no responsibility if any of you  white grievance hatefilled whackos get out of hand in any way.
Click to expand...



You seem to be raving now. Oh, and a race card play? I am surprised it took this long. 


You  lose.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump did not have a plan for what happened next. THat COULD mean that he did not think that he would need a plan, because all that was going to happen was a big demonstration to put political pressure on them inside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The huge problem for your supine, intellectually indolent, self-blindered sloppy defense of DJTQ is that {FACT>} he already was aware* that the DJTQ rioters had entered the hallowed halls of the Capitol building violently and lawlessly{<FACT} when DJTQ sent them the loving tweet in the middle of the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT that Mike Pence has cowardly failed to do his duty to STOP THE STEAL.  (* The Pence tweet followed DJTQ telling MCCarthy that the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT mob was inside the Building because they wer
> ​
Click to expand...


That does not undermine my "assumption".  IF he was planing an "insurrection", as you claim, he would have have a plan to DO something once that stage was reached, instead, he just tweets something and did nothing.


That he did not take action to take advantage of the "supposedly his mob"  taking the Capitol, "proves" by your usage of the word, that he had no plan, and thus is innocent of all your accusations.


You owe him an apology.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> IF he was planing an "insurrection", as you claim,



Not so fast Bozo! You are a liar. I have never claimed that DJTQ planned an insurrection.  You are a liar. You need a new response. That one is based on a lie.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> You seem to be raving now.



When you can’t counter an argument based on the facts within a very well detailed chronology of the conversation based on facts what do you normally do? {FACT}>You start emoting and accusing others of such a thing.<{FACT}.


There is no reason for McCarthy to call Trump if there are no rioters inside the capital building. That is correct, right?

I think the Bambi’s mother rule applies here. If you can’t say something factual, don’t say anything at all.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> That he did not take action to take advantage of the "supposedly his mob" taking the Capitol,



it proves DJTQ was not surprised or bothered by the FACT the some from his herd of goons that he incited and riled up for an hour before violently attacked the US CAPITOL.

Your are ok with it.  Most Americans; REAL
AMERICANS are not. Suit Yourself. Your standards for a President are non-existent.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Just teh type of talk that you would expect, if he was trying to put political pressure on congress, to stop the count, because of all the evidence of cheating.




Three of those named in the new indictment were arrested last month. Six new defendants were arrested this week.
Private text and audio messages show that multiple members of the group claimed to be acting on then-President Donald Trump’s cues, interpreting his call for a “wild” protest on Jan. 6 as an invitation to come stop the certification of Joe Biden’s victory. 
"Trump said It's gonna be wild!!!!!!! It's gonna be wild!!!!!!!” Kelly Meggs, 52, a leader of Florida’s Oath Keepers, told a Facebook contact in a private message, according to the indictment. “He wants us to make it WILD that's what he's saying. He called us all to the Capitol and wants us to make it wild!!! Sir Yes Sir!!! Gentlemen we are heading to DC pack your shit!!"
And when then-Vice President Mike Pence rejected calls to unilaterally block Biden’s win, one of the leaders of the group, Thomas Caldwell, 65, told his collaborators they were “screwed.”









						More 'Oath Keepers' charged in assault on US Capitol
					

The US Justice Department charged six more members of the extremist Oath Keepers group Friday for taking part in the January 6 attack by Donald Trump supporters on the US Capitol.They were added to the case of three other Oath Keepers already charged as the department seeks to demonstrate a...




					www.rawstory.com
				




If TrumpQ didn’t cause these morons to come to DC for a “wild” protest on Jan. 6 as an invitation to come stop the certification of Joe Biden’s victory then you need to explain why so many of the arrested ones who acted on TrumpQ’s invitation are pinning it on him.

if they came to DC to see the cherry blossoms they were about four months early.

They did it for Trump. And  after they got in Trump was absolutely fine with it at first.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF he was planing an "insurrection", as you claim,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not so fast Bozo! You are a liar. I have never claimed that DJTQ planned an insurrection.  You are a liar. You need a new response. That one is based on a lie.
Click to expand...



You are talking in circles and more and more, you are playing games with semantics and arguing more about who said what, then trying to support your increasingly vague whinings about President Trump.


Trump called for a demonstration to put political pressure on his political enemies. You are trying to gin that up into something, so that you have an excuse for your side's next escalation. 

That is all this is.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be raving now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you can’t counter an argument based on the facts within a very well detailed chronology of the conversation based on facts what do you normally do? {FACT}>You start emoting and accusing others of such a thing.<{FACT}.
> 
> 
> There is no reason for McCarthy to call Trump if there are no rioters inside the capital building. That is correct, right?
> 
> I think the Bambi’s mother rule applies here. If you can’t say something factual, don’t say anything at all.
Click to expand...



Because you are stating "facts" in conjunction as though they are connected or as though they mean what you want them to mean, generally with little cause other than your deep hatred of President Trump and teh GOP.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That he did not take action to take advantage of the "supposedly his mob" taking the Capitol,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it proves DJTQ was not surprised or bothered by the FACT the some from his herd of goons that he incited and riled up for an hour before violently attacked the US CAPITOL.
> ...
Click to expand...



It does not prove that. It doesn't even sort of support it. You are just saying shit, in the hopes that you say it enough, that it will create the illusion of credibility.


Like you fuckers did with the VEry Fine People lie.


ALL you have, is lies.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Three of those named in the new indictment were arrested last month. Six new defendants were arrested this week.
> Private text and audio messages show that multiple members of the group claimed to be acting on then-President Donald Trump’s cues,




Is it your position that hard core Trump supporters are such brilliant and insightful people, that what they believe, we should accept as fact based solely on their Authority as Brilliant and Insightful People?



Because, otherwise, the fact that you found some Trump supporters that interpret Trump's "cues"  the same as you,


means less than nothing. 


YOu are just repeating yourself over and over as a propaganda technique. Your supporting arguments, don't actually support anything.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

TRUMP......


Correll said:


> would have have a plan to DO something once that stage was reached, instead, he just tweets something and did nothing.



No DJTQ would not need a plan. There is irrelevant to this case.

The only proper response, (amidst the riot DJTQ helped cause) to Kevin McCarthy’s phone request to call off his supporters as they breached the walls of the US Capital , was to spring into action to instantly (A) send a Tweet telling them they must stand down sad get out. (B) assemble a national security response to a terrorist attack on the Capital Building and the Constitution of the United States of America and the peaceful transfer of power to the indisputable winner of the 2020.

I am not inserting anti-Trump bias in expecting (A) and (B) to have been an instinctive and ingrained response from a real leader when confronted with a life or death and constitutional crisis al at once.

If you think I am wrong please do tell what you think wouid have been a leader’s response in TrumpQ’s predicament faced with a crisis by his supporters.

Was it proper to tweet to the rioters 15 minutes after the request made by McCarthy  to send out a tweet basically calling MIke Pence a coward.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> No DJTQ would not need a plan. There is irrelevant to this case.
> 
> The only proper response, (




That is your opinion, which you insist on presenting as fact.

MY opinion, is that Trump, since he had nothing to do with the riot, and every reason to believe that hte people in charge of the capitol security were competent and well funded, thus, was not needed to do whatever could be done to protect the congressmen and vp from harm, 

and so did not concern himself with events that were not his responsibility. And gave him mind over to other matters.


I would also point out, that I am a Trump supporter, and you have demonstrated the belief that TRump supporters are to be considered Authorities on such matters. 

So, defer to my opinion, and apologize for all the crazy talk you have posted here.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Post 26597076



Correll said:


> That is your opinion, which you insist on presenting as fact.



it’s a duty not a fact. This is a fact about TrumpQ’s sworn duty. He took it.

The Oath, as stated in Article II, Section I, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution, is as follows: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."​


Correll said:


> MY opinion, is that Trump, since he had nothing to do with the riot,



Did you get that Tweet from DJTQ referring to Pence’s cowardice? Were you watching the riots on tv when you got it?

We are getting good measure of your rancid character.
​


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." Post 26597076
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is your opinion, which you insist on presenting as fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it’s a duty not a fact. This is a fact about TrumpQ’s sworn duty. He took it.
> ​The Oath, as stated in Article II, Section I, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution, is as follows: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."​....
> ​
Click to expand...



Meaningless twaddle. The idea that Trump has the same idea of his sworn duty as you think he does, is freaking nonsense. 


That any discrepancy is proof of evil intent, is retarded. 


YOu are just repeating shit over and over again, in the hopes of creating the illusion of credibility though constant noise.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> The idea that Trump has the same idea of his sworn duty as you think he does, is freaking nonsense.



I get why you. the loyal DJTQ supporter and DJTQ himself cannot be held to the highest ideal interpretation of ‘sworn duty as President of the United States of America, but that is a given because Trump’s Christian base and the not so Christian rest of them didn’t hire him for his moral values.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> MY opinion, is that Trump, since he had nothing to do with the riot,



Nothing? He had the same objective as the rioters on the very same critical day of the riot. That is not a nothing.

DJTQ  cared about the stolen election

The peaceful DJTQ supporters cared about the stolen election.

The rioting  DJTQ supporters cared about the stolen election.

They all had that in common did they not?

DJTQ is blatantly responsible for assembling the two groups of supporters is he not?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

TrumpQ  had.....


Correll said:


> every reason to believe that hte people in charge of the capitol security were competent and well funded,



Let’s review your opinion against the facts that we knows

Kevin McCarthy requests TrumpQ to do something.to help because the Capitol Police couid not stop the rioters. TrumoQ tells MCCarthy that the rioters care about the stolen election.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> MY opinion, is that Trump, since he had nothing to do with the riot, and every reason to believe that hte people in charge of the capitol security were competent and well funded, thus, was not needed to do whatever could be done to protect the congressmen and vp from harm,
> 
> and so did not concern himself with events that were not his responsibility. And gave him mind over to other matters.



Fact: McC asks DJQT to call off riot
FacT: DJTQ tells McC the rioters care 
Fact: minutes go by
Fact: minutes go by
Fact: obvious Capitol not defended
Fact: minutes go by
Fact: minutes go by
Fact: Correll concludes that DJTQhad every reason to believe that the people in charge of the capitol security were competent and well funded, thus DJTQ was not needed to do whatever could be done to protect the congressmen and vp from harm,
Fact: DJTQ tweets Pence is coward
Fact: riot continues - no help from DJTQ 
Fact: Pence assumes Admin leadership role 
Fact: Pence coordinates restoration of order 
Fact: Pence/Congress resume certification 
Fsct: Biden is confirmed Pres-Elect.
Fact: DJTQ coup attempt fails.

FACT: weeks later Correll firmly in the belief that DJTQ was proper to do nothing whatever to protect the congressmen and vp from harm during the entire duration of the riot.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that Trump has the same idea of his sworn duty as you think he does, is freaking nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I get why you. the loyal DJTQ supporter and DJTQ himself cannot be held to the highest ideal interpretation of ‘sworn duty as President of the United States of America, but that is a given because Trump’s Christian base and the not so Christian rest of them didn’t hire him for his moral values.
Click to expand...



GOt it. YOu don't like TRump supporters. You've made that point, we don't need you to keep going over it again and again. 

My point stands. Your previous post was based on the assumption that you and Trump think completely alike.


Which is silly.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Nothing? He had the same objective as the rioters on the very same critical day of the riot. That is not a nothing.




A shared goal does not imply working together. 


These things  you say, they are structured as though they are points with supporting arguments.


BUT your supporting arguments, don't support your points.


You are just playing the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion as a propaganda tactic.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> YOu don't like TRump supporters



what point are you avoiding now?​I don’t like you bywhat you write: Lies, ignorance, intellectual cowardice and patterns of cult behavior among ither anti-social anti American behaviors. If Trump supporters are ignorant liars that fit your profile then I guess your diversionary tactic would be true..​​I get why you. the loyal DJTQ supporter and DJTQ himself cannot be held to the highest ideal interpretation of ‘sworn duty as President of the United States of .America,​Why do you oppose holding Trump to the highest ideal of what it meant when he swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> TrumpQ  had.....
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> every reason to believe that hte people in charge of the capitol security were competent and well funded,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s review your opinion against the facts that we knows
> 
> Kevin McCarthy requests TrumpQ to do something.to help because the Capitol Police couid not stop the rioters. TrumoQ tells MCCarthy that the rioters care about the stolen election.
Click to expand...



Is Trump the boss of the Capitol Police or the boss of the boss of the capitol police?


If McCarthy wanted action regarding the capitol police, that is the person that he should have been talking too.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> MY opinion, is that Trump, since he had nothing to do with the riot, and every reason to believe that hte people in charge of the capitol security were competent and well funded, thus, was not needed to do whatever could be done to protect the congressmen and vp from harm,
> 
> and so did not concern himself with events that were not his responsibility. And gave him mind over to other matters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact: McC asks DJQT to call off riot
> FacT: DJTQ tells McC the rioters care
> Fact: minutes go by
> Fact: minutes go by
> Fact: obvious Capitol not defended
> Fact: minutes go by
> Fact: minutes go by
> Fact: Correll concludes that DJTQhad every reason to believe that the people in charge of the capitol security were competent and well funded, thus DJTQ was not needed to do whatever could be done to protect the congressmen and vp from harm,
> Fact: DJTQ tweets Pence is coward
> Fact: riot continues - no help from DJTQ
> Fact: Pence assumes Admin leadership role
> Fact: Pence coordinates restoration of order
> Fact: Pence/Congress resume certification
> Fsct: Biden is confirmed Pres-Elect.
> Fact: DJTQ coup attempt fails.
> 
> FACT: weeks later Correll firmly in the belief that DJTQ was proper to do nothing whatever to protect the congressmen and vp from harm during the entire duration of the riot.
Click to expand...



A "coup attempt" where all the "coup attempter" does it call for a political demonstration?


LOL!!!


HOw many congressmen were hurt?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> A shared goal does not imply working together.



who said anything about working together?

I pointed out that you are wrong when you say DGTQ has nothing to do with the violent protestors but everything to do with the peaceful ones..

why do you almost always respond with a lie.

respond with facts or admit you were wrong or mistaken in that point instead of your usual pranks and word mangling

True true or Fsjse? 
NotfooledbyW said:
Nothing? He had the same objective as the rioters on the very same critical day of the riot. That is not a nothing.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu don't like TRump supporters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what point are you avoiding now?​I don’t like you bywhat you write: Lies, ignorance, intellectual cowardice and patterns of cult behavior among ither anti-social anti American behaviors. If Trump supporters are ignorant liars that fit your profile then I guess your diversionary tactic would be true..​​I get why you. the loyal DJTQ supporter and DJTQ himself cannot be held to the highest ideal interpretation of ‘sworn duty as President of the United States of .America,​Why do you oppose holding Trump to the highest ideal of what it meant when he swore to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States of America?
Click to expand...



That was not me avoiding a point, that was me asking you to not fill you posts with partisan filler.


See, I've come to realize that you are not even trying here.


What this is, is nothing more that what you libs always do. 


You can't make a real argument, so you just keep making accusations over and over again, until the illusion of credibility is created, because so many people seem to believe the accusations.


But, your claims are nonsense. 


Trump called for a demonstration. It got out of hand. There was a small riot, for a few hours. Then everyone went home. 


Now you people are trying to gin this up to justify your next round of escalation against your enemies.


You are just a partisan zealot.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Is Trump the boss of the Capitol Police



if you and Kevin McCarthy believe every word that DJTQ utters - Yes. A very resounding Yes.
TRUMP: "I'm actually, I guess, the chief law enforcement officer of the country."





__





						"I'm actually, I guess, the chief law enforcement officer of the country." - Google Search
					





					www.google.com


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is Trump the boss of the Capitol Police
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if you and Kevin McCarthy believe every word that DJTQ utters - Yes. A very resounding Yes.
> TRUMP: "I'm actually, I guess, the chief law enforcement officer of the country."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I'm actually, I guess, the chief law enforcement officer of the country." - Google Search
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
Click to expand...



So, you pretending to not know about the concept of Chain of Command?


Trump's job, is NOT to directly supervise the Capitol police.


If you really gave a damn about that, you would be talking about who's job it was, 


but this is just a smear job against Trump.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> that was me asking you to not fill you posts with partisan filler.



Because you can’t admit that your own extreme partisan anger and hatred combined with your loyalty to the highest most intolerable partisan asshole ever to defile the Oval Office has subjected you to rendering such things as DJTQ’s Oath of OFFICE to mean whatever DJTQ wants it to mean.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> that was me asking you to not fill you posts with partisan filler.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because you can’t admit that your own extreme partisan anger and hatred combined with your loyalty to the highest most intolerable partisan asshole ever to defile the Oval Office has subjected you to rendering such things as DJTQ’s Oath of OFFICE to mean whatever DJTQ wants it to mean.
Click to expand...



I admit it when I angry, or when I hate someone or something.

I admit that I am a partisan republican.

But I am not a partisan zealot who peppers every post with partisan hate filler as a propaganda ploy.


Which was my point. Which was why you cut my point from your reply. So you could dodge it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> So, you pretending to not know about the concept of Chain of Command?



You are a liar. I am not pretending anything at all.

Do you believe TrumpQ when he said he believed he was the chief law enforcement officer of the country?

Were McCarthy and  the self-perceived “chief law enforcement officer of the country." on January 6 locked into a military style chain of command awell as facing a life or death crisis?

yes or no?

No weasel words please.

What was McC asking DJTQ to do that the Chief if the Capitol Police could not do?

Hint: It had to do with TWEETYBird !!


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to not know about the concept of Chain of Command?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar. I am not pretending anything at all.
> 
> Do you believe TrumpQ when he said he believed he was the chief law enforcement officer of the country?
> 
> Were McCarthy and  the self-perceived “chief law enforcement officer of the country." on January 6 locked into a military style chain of command awell as facing a life or death crisis?
> 
> yes or no?
> 
> No weasel words please.
> 
> What was McC asking DJTQ to do that the Chief if the Capitol Police could not do?
> 
> Hint: It had to do with TWEETYBird !!
Click to expand...




So you are pretending to not understand the concept of chain of command.



If the cops at the scene needed more of anything, they had someone to call and it was not Trump. 


If that person did not have the authority, he had someone to call, and it was not Trump.


If you were seriously concerned about the lack of a strong response, you would be asking why the capital police were not prepared for the attack.


IMO, the lack of control though, was consistent with our failures as a society to control rioting over the last  5 years.


It did not bother you when it was your side though, doing the rioting.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> But I am not a partisan zealot who peppers every post with partisan hate filler as a propaganda ploy.
> 
> 
> Which was my point.



Which is the point you make when you can no longer deal with the facts being discussed.

You argue that my insistence that the Presidential Oath of OFFICE be kept to a meaningful high ideal us based in partisanship. Trump is entitled to own meaning.

You are wrong but rather than admit it you takes the “partisan hack” diversion.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to not know about the concept of Chain of Command?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar. I am not pretending anything at all.
> 
> Do you believe TrumpQ when he said he believed he was the chief law enforcement officer of the country?
> 
> Were McCarthy and  the self-perceived “chief law enforcement officer of the country." on January 6 locked into a military style chain of command awell as facing a life or death crisis?
> 
> yes or no?
> 
> No weasel words please.
> 
> What was McC asking DJTQ to do that the Chief if the Capitol Police could not do?
> 
> Hint: It had to do with TWEETYBird !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are pretending to not understand the concept of chain of command.
> 
> 
> 
> If the cops at the scene needed more of anything, they had someone to call and it was not Trump.
> 
> 
> If that person did not have the authority, he had someone to call, and it was not Trump.
> 
> 
> If you were seriously concerned about the lack of a strong response, you would be asking why the capital police were not prepared for the attack.
> 
> 
> IMO, the lack of control though, was consistent with our failures as a society to control rioting over the last  5 years.
> 
> 
> It did not bother you when it was your side though, doing the rioting.
Click to expand...


YES Or NO.   I asked nicely.


Do you believe TrumpQ when he said he believed he was the chief law enforcement officer of the country?​
Were McCarthy and the self-perceived “chief law enforcement officer of the country." on January 6 locked into a military style chain of command awell as facing a life or death crisis?​​
And why won’t you answer this:




NotfooledbyW said:


> What was McC asking DJTQ to do that the Chief if the Capitol Police could not do?
> 
> Hint: It had to do with TWEETYBird !!


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I am not a partisan zealot who peppers every post with partisan hate filler as a propaganda ploy.
> 
> 
> Which was my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which is the point you make when you can no longer deal with the facts being discussed.
> 
> You argue that my insistence that the Presidential Oath of OFFICE be kept to a meaningful high ideal us based in partisanship. Trump is entitled to own meaning.
> 
> You are wrong but rather than admit it you takes the “partisan hack” diversion.
Click to expand...



I've been addressing your points, or lack there of, as you made them.


But, it is also worth noting that you fill your posts with partisan hate filler.




I look forward to seeing you hold Sleepy Joe to that "high standard".


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to not know about the concept of Chain of Command?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar. I am not pretending anything at all.
> 
> Do you believe TrumpQ when he said he believed he was the chief law enforcement officer of the country?
> 
> Were McCarthy and  the self-perceived “chief law enforcement officer of the country." on January 6 locked into a military style chain of command awell as facing a life or death crisis?
> 
> yes or no?
> 
> No weasel words please.
> 
> What was McC asking DJTQ to do that the Chief if the Capitol Police could not do?
> 
> Hint: It had to do with TWEETYBird !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are pretending to not understand the concept of chain of command.
> 
> 
> 
> If the cops at the scene needed more of anything, they had someone to call and it was not Trump.
> 
> 
> If that person did not have the authority, he had someone to call, and it was not Trump.
> 
> 
> If you were seriously concerned about the lack of a strong response, you would be asking why the capital police were not prepared for the attack.
> 
> 
> IMO, the lack of control though, was consistent with our failures as a society to control rioting over the last  5 years.
> 
> 
> It did not bother you when it was your side though, doing the rioting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES Or NO.   I asked nicely.
Click to expand...



It was not a yes or no question. I answered seriously and honestly.


YOu failed to reply in kind.


As normal for you.


My point stands. 



If the cops at the scene needed more of anything, they had someone to call and it was not Trump.


If that person did not have the authority, he had someone to call, and it was not Trump.


If you were seriously concerned about the lack of a strong response, you would be asking why the capital police were not prepared for the attack.


IMO, the lack of control though, was consistent with our failures as a society to control rioting over the last  5 years.


It did not bother you when it was your side though, doing the rioting.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll 

“Do you believe TrumpQ when he said he believed he was the chief law enforcement officer of the country?”


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I've been addressing your points, or lack there of, as you made them.



LIAR: you did not address this:

Were McCarthy and the self-perceived “chief law enforcement officer of the country." on January 6 locked into a military style chain of command as well as facing a life or death crisis?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> It was not a yes or no question. I answered seriously and honestly.



you are a liar:

Were McCarthy and the self-perceived “chief law enforcement officer of the country." on January 6 locked into a military style chain of command as well as facing a life or death crisis?

Yes or No.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> It was not a yes or no question. I answered seriously and honestly.



You are a liar:

“Do you believe TrumpQ when he said he believed he was the chief law enforcement officer of the country?”

Yes or No?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I've been addressing your points, or lack there of, as you made them.



I’ve not seen where you addressed this one.



NotfooledbyW said:


> What was McC asking DJTQ to do that the Chief if the Capitol Police could not do?
> 
> Hint: It had to do with TWEETYBird !!



Why don’t you want to say?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll
> 
> “Do you believe TrumpQ when he said he believed he was the chief law enforcement officer of the country?”




Who? Sorry. Your partisan hate is so bad it makes you talk funny.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Who?



“Do you believe Donald J Trump when he said he believed he was the chief law enforcement officer of the country?”


----------



## NotfooledbyW

DJTQ’s highways to hell 26599757 reply to 26598930 





Correll said:


> If the cops at the scene needed more of anything, they had someone to call and it was not Trump.



“IF” ???? seriously?

You know what.... FU, ......That morning I watched intently and entirely the  one hour 15 minute rally speech by DJTQ to his drooling mob. After it ended,  I had to run an errand from   my home towards DC to my office located  inside the Beltway. Probably between 1:30  and 2 o’clock to pick up my laptop.  Coming back, heading west on interstate 66. I was talking to my friend in Ohio because I just heard on the radio about the riots. As I was driving west I could see the other side of the highway heading east the likes of which I’ve never seen. So many state troopers flashers sirens blaring probably 80 miles an hour a few car lengths apart, towards DC.

I said oh my God something really bad is going on. And they kept coming. As far as I could see that  cop high speed motorcade.  . other cars, everybody off the side of the road. there was a couple miles of road covered in patrol cars and some humvees, black Suburbans.   it was amazing. Solid train of Virginia etc state troopers tearing into DC. Heroes rushing toward danger.

I told my friend I should get my motorcycle out and go find out what the top end is. because there wasn’t going to be a cop anywhere to be found anywhere in Virginia for sometime.

I visualized the same scene on I-66 to be happening at I-95  Rt 50 from all directions around the beltway.

The point is you worthless partisan dirtbag fool and your “little” riot, the CAPITOL cops called everything and every law enforcement asset they could.

All the injured and terrified people and the  cop being killed probably wouid not have objected that Kevin McCarthy called DJTQ and asked him to tell the rioters to stand down. Even if that was outside of your fucking chain of command bullshit.

And that DJTQ could not be bothered to YELL !!!!!!!!!!!STOP!!!!!!!!!!  to his followers is a travesty and a disgrace alone.

But then 15 minutes after McC’s request for immediate help, when DJTQ finally could be bothered to Tweet a message, it was that his vice president Mike Pence was a coward.

That cowardly inciteful tweet should live in infamy.  THAT reeet makes DJTQ’s  behavior so abominable and atrocious that it’s absurd that he’s out on the golf course everyday unscathed, still deeply worshiped and defended by trash like you.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not a yes or no question. I answered seriously and honestly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are a liar:
> 
> Were McCarthy and the self-perceived “chief law enforcement officer of the country." on January 6 locked into a military style chain of command as well as facing a life or death crisis?
> 
> Yes or No.
Click to expand...



I answered your question completely and honestly. It was not a yes or no question as I explained.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been addressing your points, or lack there of, as you made them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve not seen where you addressed this one.
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was McC asking DJTQ to do that the Chief if the Capitol Police could not do?
> 
> Hint: It had to do with TWEETYBird !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why don’t you want to say?
Click to expand...



I want to say to you, that your pretense that Trump, as Supreme Authority of the Executive Branch, had any direct responsibility for the Capital security, 


is asinine.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I want to say to you, that your pretense that Trump, as Supreme Authority of the Executive Branch, had any direct responsibility for the Capital security,



Liar, that is not my pretense.

I asked you, what was McC asking DJTQ to do that the Chief of the Capitol Police could not do?”

If you don’t know I can tell you. It has absolutely nothing to do with Trump as Supreme Authority of the Executive Branch, having any direct responsibility for the Capital security.

It’s about DJTQ  and his Twitter account and the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT perpetrators that had their cell phones and MAGA hats and TRUMP flags.

Some of the rioters were in direct communication with DJTQ  who invited them to this wild time.

They were not in communication with Kevin McCarthy and would  not take orders from him.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> It was not a yes or no question as I explained.



you are dodging a yes or no question with no basis in fact or reality to be dudging it 


Were McCarthy and the self-perceived “chief law enforcement officer of the country." on January 6 locked into a military style chain of command as well as facing a life or death crisis?

Were  DJQT and KMcC on January 6 locked into a military style chain of command?

The factual answer is no. It is the only factually correct response. But you cannot
Answer because if you say yes you are lying
When you say no are admitting that your chain of command diversion was all a lie..


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “Do you believe Donald J Trump when he said he believed he was the chief law enforcement officer of the country?”
Click to expand...



Yes. What is your point, you raving loon?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> DJTQ’s highways to hell 26599757 reply to 26598930
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the cops at the scene needed more of anything, they had someone to call and it was not Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “IF” ???? seriously?
> 
> You know what.... FU, ......That morning I watched intently and entirely the  one hour 15 minute rally speech by DJTQ to his drooling mob. After it ended,  I had to run an errand from   my home towards DC to my office located  inside the Beltway. Probably between 1:30  and 2 o’clock to pick up my laptop.  Coming back, heading west on interstate 66. I was talking to my friend in Ohio because I just heard on the radio about the riots. As I was driving west I could see the other side of the highway heading east the likes of which I’ve never seen. So many state troopers flashers sirens blaring probably 80 miles an hour a few car lengths apart, towards DC.
> 
> I said oh my God something really bad is going on. And they kept coming. As far as I could see that  cop high speed motorcade.  . other cars, everybody off the side of the road. there was a couple miles of road covered in patrol cars and some humvees, black Suburbans.   it was amazing. Solid train of Virginia etc state troopers tearing into DC. Heroes rushing toward danger.
> 
> I told my friend I should get my motorcycle out and go find out what the top end is. because there wasn’t going to be a cop anywhere to be found anywhere in Virginia for sometime.
> 
> I visualized the same scene on I-66 to be happening at I-95  Rt 50 from all directions around the beltway.
> 
> The point is you worthless partisan dirtbag fool and your “little” riot, the CAPITOL cops called everything and every law enforcement asset they could.
> 
> All the injured and terrified people and the  cop being killed probably wouid not have objected that Kevin McCarthy called DJTQ and asked him to tell the rioters to stand down. Even if that was outside of your fucking chain of command bullshit.
> 
> And that DJTQ could not be bothered to YELL !!!!!!!!!!!STOP!!!!!!!!!!  to his followers is a travesty and a disgrace alone.
> 
> But then 15 minutes after McC’s request for immediate help, when DJTQ finally could be bothered to Tweet a message, it was that his vice president Mike Pence was a coward.
> 
> That cowardly inciteful tweet should live in infamy.  THAT reeet makes DJTQ’s  behavior so abominable and atrocious that it’s absurd that he’s out on the golf course everyday unscathed, still deeply worshiped and defended by trash like you.
Click to expand...



Have you been asleep for the last 5 years?

Cops who are not prepared to use force, cannot maintain order. 


Why would you expect a different result in DC, than in portland or seattle?



Question: Do you think the fbi was listening to the communications of the demonstration organizers, or the ones that led the riot phase?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want to say to you, that your pretense that Trump, as Supreme Authority of the Executive Branch, had any direct responsibility for the Capital security,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar, that is not my pretense.
> 
> I asked you, what was McC asking DJTQ to do that the Chief of the Capitol Police could not do?”
> 
> If you don’t know I can tell you. It has absolutely nothing to do with Trump as Supreme Authority of the Executive Branch, having any direct responsibility for the Capital security.
> 
> It’s about DJTQ  and his Twitter account and the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT perpetrators that had their cell phones and MAGA hats and TRUMP flags.
> 
> Some of the rioters were in direct communication with DJTQ  who invited them to this wild time.
> 
> They were not in communication with Kevin McCarthy and would  not take orders from him.
Click to expand...



Trump was in direct communication with the rioters? 


BULLSHIT.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was not a yes or no question as I explained.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are dodging a yes or no question with no basis in fact or reality to be dudging it
> 
> 
> Were McCarthy and the self-perceived “chief law enforcement officer of the country." on January 6 locked into a military style chain of command as well as facing a life or death crisis?
> 
> Were  DJQT and KMcC on January 6 locked into a military style chain of command?
> 
> The factual answer is no. It is the only factually correct response. But you cannot
> Answer because if you say yes you are lying
> When you say no are admitting that your chain of command diversion was all a lie..
Click to expand...




What I am saying is that every riot of the last 5 years has been a "life or death" crisis, and Trump, being President was not directly involved in ANY of them, because that is not the job of the President.


He did a lot to support those who were involved.


You are talking shit, to try to pretend that the one little riot on 1/6 was somehow worse than the 5 years of riots from your side, with over a BILLION dollars in damages and dozes of people killed.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> What I am saying is that every riot of the last 5 years has been a "life or death" crisis, and Trump, being President was not directly involved in ANY of them, because that is not the job of the President.



This thread is about the Trump riot on January 6, 2021. It is not about whataboutism. Since you want to maintain that Trump had no connection to the Trump riot on January 6, 2021 tells us that you are just being absurd and ridiculous.

The Trump riot occurred as a result of Trump requesting all his followers the peaceful ones and the violent ones to help stop the certification of the vote on January 6, 2021. That is a fact. That is the fact that you refused to deal with.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I am saying is that every riot of the last 5 years has been a "life or death" crisis, and Trump, being President was not directly involved in ANY of them, because that is not the job of the President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is about the Trump riot on January 6, 2021. It is not about whataboutism. Since you want to maintain that Trump had no connection to the Trump riot on January 6, 2021 tells us that you are just being absurd and ridiculous.
Click to expand...



Please do not put words in my mouth.

I said that, in all the hundreds of riots over the last 5 years, ALL of which were life or death crisises, Trump was never in directly involved in the handling of ANY of them.


That you suddenly think this is a problem, for ONE of them, is just you being a partisan hack, ginning up fake outrage to support your next round of escalation against your enemies.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Please do not put words in my mouth.



I didn’t put words in your mouth. That is a strange diversion even for you.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please do not put words in my mouth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn’t put words in your mouth. That is a strange diversion even for you.
Click to expand...



When you claim I said something I did not say, that is what you are doing.


We have had a period of civil unrest in this country since you people decided to RESIST the duly elected President, back in 2016.


Since then we have had hundreds of riots.

ONE of them, was from right leaning people.


That ONE riots, is the one that you are focused on, ignoring the vast majority of riots over the last 5 years.



You are not to be taken seriously.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> That you suddenly think this is a problem, for ONE of them



Which one of those hundreds of other protests had DJTQ’s  vice president right in the middle of it with his wife and kids and  the Trump flag flying fuckheads we’re looking for Pence so they could hang him.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you suddenly think this is a problem, for ONE of them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those hundreds of protest had trumps vice president right in the middle of it with his wife and kids
Click to expand...



Pence does not count more to you than regular American citizens, so don't pretend he does.


That is just an excuse to justify your support for the hundreds of riots from your side.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> That you suddenly think this is a problem, for ONE of them,



Which one of those other riots could DJTQ communicate directly to the rioters on his Twitter account. Like when DJTQ tweeted to the rioters, knowing that his VP was under siege, that Mike Pence was a coward.

DJTQ’s communication with one of the rioters was so intimate that one of the rioters immediately read the tweet to all other riders rioters on a bull horn.

When did that happen anytime else at any other riot? Tell me you DJTQ duped forlorn individual.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Pence does not count more to you than regular American citizens, so don't pretend he does.



You are a liar. On January 6, 2021 the day of the Trump riots, Mike Pence was my biggest hero coming from the Republican side ever.

Do you want me to explain why?

Because he stood up for the Constitution and every institution of American democracy and everything me and 80 million other Americans believe in when they voted for Joe Biden.

Once the Trump rally was quelled, mostly because Mike Pence was the only administration official that I know of who coordinated an effort to fight back against the rioters. Trump didn’t do it. So yes Pence is a hero. You are an asshole. That is a fact.

And then in the wee hours of the morning Mike Pence oversaw the certification of the election. The one that I voted in. The one where I voted for Joe Biden. And yes I thank Mike Pence for the peaceful transition of power after the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT done.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> That is just an excuse to justify your support for the hundreds of riots from your side.



You are a liar. I do not support riots from any side.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I said that, in all the hundreds of riots over the last 5 years, ALL of which were life or death crisises, Trump was never in directly involved in the handling of ANY of them.



DJTQ invited both the rioters and the peaceful demonstrators to stop the steal. He was directly involved in the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT.

That he could not control his peaceful demonstration is his fault. That he did not even try to stop the violence once it started is a serious serious problem. He did not even try to stop the violence when panicked Republican congressman called him and asked him to help.

Not only did DJTQ not try to help, he posted another tweet inciting a riot further by telling THE RIOTERS  that Mike Pence was a coward.

It’s all facts facts facts facts.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> When you claim I said something I did not say, that is what you are doing.



WHAT exactly did I say you said


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> That is just an excuse to justify your support for the hundreds of riots from your side.



Show me the post where I’ve ever supported or justified any riot anywhere anytime anyplace, Liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> MY opinion, is that Trump, since he had nothing to do with the riot,



That is about the stupidest opinion to base an entire argument on in the history of message boards.

What were the rioters’ Trump flags for. IVANKA?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> More likely, in my opinion, he was just commenting that that group as as whole, those outside and those inside, were more "upset than...you are".



Why was DJTQ referring  to the violent mob and the peaceful mob as a whole if he had nothing to do with any of it?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> That ONE riots, is the one that you are focused on, ignoring the vast majority of riots over the last 5 years.



The one I am focused on out of all those other riots is the one where my vote on November 3 was under a threat to be taken away. Disqualified based on nothing but lies and more lies and conspiracy theories. DJTQ led a months long campaign repeating the lie of the stolen election and the need to come to Washington on January 6th to stop the inauguration of Biden.

I have a legitimate reason to focus on DJTQ’s 1/6 RIOT.

If any other riot over the past four years threatened your right to vote and have it  counted, please let us know.

It is a FACT that the Trump rally and peaceful demonstration and the DJTQ1/6 RIOF happened only for the GOAL set  by y DJTQ  to overturn the election and the inauguration of Joe Biden on January 20.

It is a fact that you are completely unable to grasp and therefore deal with it
as seen on the message board.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you suddenly think this is a problem, for ONE of them,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those other riots could DJTQ communicate directly to the rioters on his Twitter account. Like when DJTQ tweeted to the rioters, knowing that his VP was under siege, that Mike Pence was a coward.
> 
> DJTQ’s communication with one of the rioters was so intimate that one of the rioters immediately read the tweet to all other riders rioters on a bull horn.
> 
> When did that happen anytime else at any other riot? Tell me you DJTQ duped forlorn individual.
Click to expand...



Sorry, I can't take you seriously right now, you are talking like a retarded baby.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> You are a liar. On January 6, 2021 the day of the Trump riots, Mike Pence was my biggest hero coming from the Republican side ever.
> 
> Do you want me to explain why?
> 
> Because he stood up for the Constitution and every institution of American democracy and everything me and 80 million other Americans believe in when they voted for Joe Biden.




Bullshit. YOu libs only pretend to show respect to republicans, when they are not a threat to your agenda. 


IF pence comes back, and four years from now, ends up threatening to win, in 2024, you will be right in there with the mob, screaming that he is a nazi or something like that, for <insert bullshit reasons".


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said that, in all the hundreds of riots over the last 5 years, ALL of which were life or death crisises, Trump was never in directly involved in the handling of ANY of them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJTQ invited both t...
Click to expand...



Said the man that  talks like a baby.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is just an excuse to justify your support for the hundreds of riots from your side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me the post where I’ve ever supported or justified any riot anywhere anytime anyplace, Liar.
Click to expand...



When you minimize those riots and give your leaders a pass for their support for them, you are supporting the riots and the riot organizers.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> MY opinion, is that Trump, since he had nothing to do with the riot,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is about the stupidest opinion to base an entire argument on in the history of message boards.
> 
> What were the rioters’ Trump flags for. IVANKA?
Click to expand...



Plenty of them were flying American flags too. Does that mean that America is responsible for them and their actions?

Are you drunk right now?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> More likely, in my opinion, he was just commenting that that group as as whole, those outside and those inside, were more "upset than...you are".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why was DJTQ referring  to the violent mob and the peaceful mob as a whole if he had nothing to do with any of it?
Click to expand...



Why not? You're commenting on it, and you had nothing to do with it?


Seriously, can your arguments get any weaker?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That ONE riots, is the one that you are focused on, ignoring the vast majority of riots over the last 5 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The one I am focused on out of all those other riots is the one where my vote on November 3 was under a threat to be taken away. Disqualified based on nothing but lies and more lies and conspiracy theories. DJTQ led a months long campaign repeating the lie of the stolen election and the need to come to Washington on January 6th to stop the inauguration of Biden.
> 
> I have a legitimate reason to focus on DJTQ’s 1/6 RIOT.
> 
> If any other riot over the past four years threatened your right to vote and have it  counted, please let us know.
> 
> It is a FACT that the Trump rally and peaceful demonstration and the DJTQ1/6 RIOF happened only for the GOAL set  by y DJTQ  to overturn the election and the inauguration of Joe Biden on January 20.
> 
> It is a fact that you are completely unable to grasp and therefore deal with it
> as seen on the message board.
Click to expand...



Sorry, can't talk to you when you talk like a retarded baby.


----------



## MadChemist

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.



This post is amazing.

It was a ridiculous impeachment over a fabricated connection that could not be shown to exist.

But we can take this further.

The boy who cried wolf.

The desire to find something for YEARS to launch an impeachment over resulted in finally getting to a point where the house moved forward with literally nothing in the way of reasonable charges.

So when this arrived.....it was never going to get a fair look.

As to rioting dangerous people, look to the left.  

You'll get anything but a republic given what the left is doing.


----------



## MadChemist

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That you suddenly think this is a problem, for ONE of them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one of those hundreds of other protests had DJTQ’s  vice president right in the middle of it with his wife and kids and  the Trump flag flying fuckheads we’re looking for Pence so they could hang him.
Click to expand...


Who really cares and what has that got to do with anything ?

Truly, in the end, you just foment what you think is a view of the universe that really can only be found in the same kind of book that has the story of Snow White.


----------



## MadChemist

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> “stopping the certification of the election pursuant to the instructions of the then President”   reply to 26586821
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, um, that does not support your case. At all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> McCarthy Tells DJTQ that the rioters were TRUMP’s supporters and begged Trump to call them off.
> 
> Trump does not call them off. That is a fact.,
> 
> The rioters are there because they care about the election being stolen and that stolen election is still of primary concern of the President.
> 
> They care about the stolen election and are there to stop a stolen election from being validated by Congress.
> 
> Trump explained it to Kevin in the heat of the battle.
> 
> “Well, Kevin, I guess these people are more upset about the election than you are,
> 
> DJTQ did not attempt  to stop the violent mob  from achieving DJTQ!s publicly stated objective.
> 
> The knew what DJTQ’s objective was.
> 
> https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000177-b80e-d644-a377-fe9f756e0000
> 
> (Proud Boy )Pezzola is just seen as one of the crowd walking through the building. *There is a selfie video where he lights a “victory cigar” and mugs for the camera. The implication was he stopped for a cigar because he considered the objective achieved, *There is no indication that he sought to seek or harm anyone in the Capitol.
> 
> On January 6, 2021, he gained instant infamy when he was photographed using a police shield to break a window at the Capitol. That window was one of the numerous doors and windows used by protesters to gain access into the Capitol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "Fact" that Trump did not attempt to "call them off" proves one thing. That TRump did not attempt to "Call them off".
> 
> 
> That is all it shows. It does not show that Trump was in control of the crowd, or really anything.
> 
> 
> You are grasping at straws.
Click to expand...


Get used to it.


----------



## MadChemist

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.



Why is this piece of trash littering the Constitution forum ?


----------



## MadChemist

Mac1958 said:


> Tom Paine 1949 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, the die is cast on the vote to convict.
> 
> The GQP'ers are putting their political ambitions over the Constitution.  Not exactly a shock.
Click to expand...


Is this the only explanation for the way they vote ?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MadChemist said:


> Who really cares and what has that got to do with anything ?



Do you think the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT was just another little riot like every other riot that occurred while DJTQ was President?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who really cares and what has that got to do with anything ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT was just another little riot like every other riot that occurred while DJTQ was President?
Click to expand...



Why do you talk like a baby?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MadChemist said:


> As to rioting dangerous people, look to the left.



whataboutism Peers to be the best argument for the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT deniers

Look at the left for what? If they ever stormed the US Capitol for the purpose of overturning an election by violent means because their sore loser asshole candidate lost,  please do let us all know when that happened.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to rioting dangerous people, look to the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whataboutism Peers to be the best argument for the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT deniers
> 
> Look at the left for what? If they ever stormed the US Capitol for the purpose of overturning an election by violent means because their sore loser asshole candidate lost,  please do let us all know when that happened.
Click to expand...



Your excuse to ignore 5 years of riots well pretending to be upset about a few hours, 

makes you look like a completely dishonest fool.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

“President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it.” Mitch



Correll said:


> Why do you talk like a baby?



Why do you talk about nothing at all?

I do know that the person at the top of the republican party right now, Mitch McConnell,  says Trump is responsible for the riot, but  didn’t convict DJTQ because he’s no longer in office and he thinks the courts are the place do it?

Hell of a speech from  Mitch.
"There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it. The people that stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president," McConnell said. "And having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole, which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on the Earth," McConnell added.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/senate/538772-mcconnell-unloads-on-trump-morally-responsible-f

I’m bi-partisan on DJTQ being morally and patient responsible for the riot.  Why aren’t you?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you talk like a baby?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you talk about nothing at all?
> 
> I do know that the person at the top of the republican party right now, Mitch McConnell,  says Trump is responsible for the riot, but  didn’t convict DJTQ because he’s no longer in office and he thinks the courts are the place do it?
> 
> Hell of a speech for all Mitch.
> 
> 
> "There's no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day. No question about it. The people that stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president," McConnell said. "And having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories and reckless hyperbole, which the defeated president kept shouting into the largest megaphone on the Earth," McConnell added.”
> 
> https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/homenews/senate/538772-mcconnell-unloads-on-trump-morally-responsible-f
Click to expand...



You don't care about his opinion and neither do I. 


So, why are you showing it as though you do?

Because not only do you talk like a baby, but you are also a liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> You don't care about his opinion and neither do I.



What is wrong with you dude? You don’t know what I care about. Every time you pull that crap it’s a lie. I care a hell of a lot about what Mitch McConnell said. Mainly because it proves you’re a freaking idiot believing  Trump had nothing to do with the DJTQ1/6RIOT. Q And TRUMP flags were flying gloriously over the Trump mob. 

The US military used acronyms just about every communication they write. Really?  talking like babies? You’re an idiot.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't care about his opinion and neither do I.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is wrong with you dude? You don’t know what I care about. Every time you pull that crap it’s a lie. I care a hell of a lot about what Mitch McConnell said. Mainly because it proves you’re a freaking idiot believing  Trump had nothing to do with the DJTQ1/6RIOT. Q And TRUMP flags were flying gloriously over the Trump mob.
> 
> The US military used acronyms just about every communication they write. Really?  talking like babies? You’re an idiot.
Click to expand...



You pretend  to care because you can use his words right now. The moment he disagrees with you, you will be back to pretending he is a comicbook super villain, like you do with any republican that is a problem for your agenda. 


You are just throwing shit out there, a lot, to keep up the illusion that your asinine accusations must have some weight, because so many people are talking about them. 


And, you talk like a retarded baby.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> And, you talk like a retarded baby.





Correll said:


> You are just throwing shit out there,





Correll said:


> You pretend to care



This crap really ramps up right after I post several questions to you that you cannot answer because they kill your arguments  right.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, you talk like a retarded baby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are just throwing shit out there,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You pretend to care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This crap really ramps up right after I post several questions to you that you cannot answer because they kill your arguments  right.
Click to expand...



Nope. Sometimes I just don't have the patience to put up with libs talking like retarded babies.


None of your questions are difficult. 


All of your position is a weak ass attempt to pretend to be upset over a small riot after you ignored 5 years of riots, 


so, basically, you are a liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> None of your questions are difficult.



Why can’t you explain why DJTQ ignored McC’s plea for help from one fellow human being to another? It had nothing to do with a chain of command or anything like that. 

IF DJTQ had nothing to do with the rioters at the Capitol except that they were possibly following him on Twitter, still, why not give it a shot. Post a tweet “STOP” get out of the Capitol now - no Stopping the Steal with violence and rioting.” 

Why not?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of your questions are difficult.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can’t you explain why DJTQ ignored McC’s plea for help from one fellow human being to another? It had nothing to do with a chain of command or anything like that.
> 
> IF DJTQ had nothing to do with the rioters at the Capitol except that they were possibly following him on Twitter, still, why not give it a shot. Post a tweet “STOP” get out of the Capitol now - no Stopping the Steal with violence and rioting.”
> 
> Why not?
Click to expand...



Because there is no such person. YOur baby talk is meaningless partisan pap.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Because there is no such person.



Why can’t you explain why Donald J Trump ignored KEVIN McCathy’s plea for help from one fellow human being to another? It had nothing to do with a chain of command or anything like that.

IF Donald J Trump had nothing to do with the rioters at the Capitol except that they were possibly following him on Twitter, still, why not give it a shot. Post a tweet “STOP” get out of the Capitol now - no Stopping the Steal with violence and rioting.

Does that help you freaking coward?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because there is no such person.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why can’t you explain why Donald J Trump ignored KEVIN McCathy’s plea for help from one fellow human being to another? It had nothing to do with a chain of command or anything like that.
> 
> IF Donald J Trump had nothing to do with the rioters at the Capitol except that they were possibly following him on Twitter, still, why not give it a shot. Post a tweet “STOP” get out of the Capitol now - no Stopping the Steal with violence and rioting.
> 
> Does that help you freaking coward?
Click to expand...




Your inability to ask a question without peppering it with some type of partisan pap, is what this is all about.


All your concerns have been seriously addressed many times.


you are just repeating them over and over again, to create the illusion of reasonable doubt, though the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion used as a propaganda strategy.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> All your concerns have been seriously addressed many times.



Liar, you dodged that question by going off on that ‘chain of command’ bullshit. You answered nothing. 

Do you have any explanation on a purely human level why Donald J Trump would ignore a plea for immediate help from a high ranking Congressman who voted against certifying the election as Trump wanted?

Kevin McCarthy called Trump and asked him to call off the rioters. He called, presumably because, if not for fearing for his own life, he feared that every person working in the that building could be injured or killed.. From janitors to staff to the man one heartbeat from the presidency itself. 

Donald J Trump didn’t respond to the request. He ignored it. But he still could tweet. Moments later he tweeted that Mike Pence was a coward. In real time,  that tweet was being read verbatim by a rioter, further inciting the mob - Hang Mike Pence Hang Mike Pence Hang Mike Pence!!  

What kind of human being does that? Refusing to help a friend and coworker? Refusing to do something as easy as sending out a tweet from the Safety of the White House. 

I am looking for an explanation. I don’t see how any decent moral human being can lack basic feeling for others in real danger when they can do something to help. 

I don’t know how Donald J Trump did nothing. 

Why can’t you help my to understand why that obscene, heartless immoral behavior  was just fine in your mind?


----------



## MadChemist

NotfooledbyW said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who really cares and what has that got to do with anything ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT was just another little riot like every other riot that occurred while DJTQ was President?
Click to expand...


Have not paid any attention to it.


----------



## MadChemist

NotfooledbyW said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to rioting dangerous people, look to the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whataboutism Peers to be the best argument for the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT deniers
> 
> Look at the left for what? If they ever stormed the US Capitol for the purpose of overturning an election by violent means because their sore loser asshole candidate lost,  please do let us all know when that happened.
Click to expand...


Any other fallacies you want to throw into your so-called argument.

Let's look at a few:

Riots don't only occur at the U.S. Capitol.

Riots don't only occur because of election outcomes.

You have no definition of an asshole that is agreed upon.

So your question is moot.  

Shall we continue ?


----------



## MadChemist

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> All your concerns have been seriously addressed many times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar, you dodged that question by going off on that ‘chain of command’ bullshit. You answered nothing.
> 
> Do you have any explanation on a purely human level why Donald J Trump would ignore a plea for immediate help from a high ranking Congressman who voted against certifying the election as Trump wanted?
> 
> Kevin McCarthy called Trump and asked him to call off the rioters. He called, presumably because, if not for fearing for his own life, he feared that every person working in the that building could be injured or killed.. From janitors to staff to the man one heartbeat from the presidency itself.
> 
> Donald J Trump didn’t respond to the request. He ignored it. But he still could tweet. Moments later he tweeted that Mike Pence was a coward. In real time,  that tweet was being read verbatim by a rioter, further inciting the mob - Hang Mike Pence Hang Mike Pence Hang Mike Pence!!
> 
> What kind of human being does that? Refusing to help a friend and coworker? Refusing to do something as easy as sending out a tweet from the Safety of the White House.
> 
> I am looking for an explanation. I don’t see how any decent moral human being can lack basic feeling for others in real danger when they can do something to help.
> 
> I don’t know how Donald J Trump did nothing.
> 
> Why can’t you help my to understand why that obscene, heartless immoral behavior  was just fine in your mind?
Click to expand...


Your silly adhesion to the idea that they wanted or may have wanted to kill people in the riot is simply silly.

Drama, thy name is left-winger.


----------



## MadChemist

NotfooledbyW said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> As to rioting dangerous people, look to the left.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whataboutism Peers to be the best argument for the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT deniers
> 
> Look at the left for what? If they ever stormed the US Capitol for the purpose of overturning an election by violent means because their sore loser asshole candidate lost,  please do let us all know when that happened.
Click to expand...


How completely stupid is it to think that people could have actually accomplished the overturning of an election via a frontal attack.

That people somehow see this connection is beyond me.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Making Correll look intelligent!!! Trump told the at least 200,000 sized mob that he clearly assembled ........quote: “ Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, (that very day on Jan 6 2021) we (the mob and he ) win the election. “ :unquote ........ 26610869 reply to 26610332



MadChemist said:


> How completely stupid is it to think that people could have actually accomplished the overturning of an election via a frontal attack.
> 
> That people somehow see this connection is beyond me.



Just ask John:

*Trump rallying the forces at noon January 6, 2021: * “John is one of the most brilliant lawyers in the country, and he looked at this and he said, “What an absolute disgrace that this can be happening to our Constitution.”
And he looked at Mike Pence, and I hope Mike is going to do the right thing. I hope so. I hope so.
Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All he has to do, all this is, this is from the number one, or certainly one of the top, Constitutional lawyers in our country. He has the absolute right to do it. We’re supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our Constitution, and protect our constitution.
States want to revote. The states got defrauded, They were given false information. They voted on it. Now they want to recertify. They want it back. *All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people.”*

djtqriot1 copied and pasted from https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-01-13/transcript-of-trumps-speech-at-rally-before-us-capitol-riot?context=amp

Thank you for the public display of how about a thousand of DJTQ’s cult followers could be so stupid to believe in their cult master so much that they couud violently storm the Capitol with a frontal assault in order to overturn the election.  It is because DJTQ told them right before the riot began its how true patriots like them could STOP the evil dark leftist forces from stealing the election from them.

I realize the above speech (that perhaps unintentionally incited a riot) is a lot of words to read so I will summarize exactly why some of the whole Trump mob launched an assault on the Capitol precisely on a day that very well could have overturned the election.

Trump told the at least 200,000 sized mob that he assembled  “ Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, (that day on Jan6 2021) we (the mob) win the election. “

“All he (Pence) has to do, all this is, this is from.....one of the *top, Constitutional lawyers* in our country. .... (in order to) to protect our country, support our country, support our Constitution, and protect our constitution” .....”send it back to the states to recertify and we (the mob)  *become president and you are the happiest people.”    *And Trump told that mob a huge lie  that the states* “They want it back” *the states ‘*want*’ Pence to send the election back for a revote.



I could get into the Alternate Electors too but that may be too much input into a duped Trump brain for one session.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Do you have any explanation on a purely human level why Donald J Trump would ignore a plea for immediate help from a high ranking Congressman who voted against certifying the election as Trump wanted?




Sure. "Immediate help" in law enforcement is not his job. HIs job is more about giving the people who's job it is, the tools and support they need to do their jobs.


LIke he did with the riots in Portland and Seattle. 


If you were serious about the security of the capital you would be asking questions about the people in charge of the situation and what we could do in similar situations moving forward.


Which is the last thing you want to do, because you know that next time, it will almost certainly be leftwingers.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> If you were serious about the security of the capital





This conversation is not about security of the Capitol. It has evolved to a question about Trump (supposedly a human bring) ignoring a request from another human being who was in harms way in a riot asking for life saving help that Trump could have easily and safely immediately provided.

Waiting for you to explain why you support and condone Trump’s inhumane conduct having absolutely no compassion for his fellow man.

I’ll wait for your response and won’t be diverted to something else.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Which is the last thing you want to do, because you know that next time, it will almost certainly be leftwingers.



You are a liar. I do not know that. I find it a million times improbable that leftists with ever ever in million years storm the Capitol building the east at TrumpQ’s Mob did during the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT.

Chances are better that the Japanese will attack Pearl Harbor again.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MadChemist said:


> Riots don't only occur at the U.S. Capitol.



you are a liar. I have not and am not arguing that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MadChemist said:


> Riots don't only occur because of election outcomes.



You are a liar and and idiot.  I have not, will not argue such a point. Of course it’s true that riots don't only occur because of election outcomes.

what is true is that the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT was an attempt to overthrow  the 2020 election and destroy the Constitution of the United States.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MadChemist said:


> You have no definition of an asshole that is agreed upon.



I don’t expect a Trump duped brain to agree with that. So what us your point?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MadChemist said:


> Have not paid any attention to it.



Then who’s cares when you ask - Who cares about the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT?

Your self professed ignorance on the subject is duly noted. Why are you posting hear.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you were serious about the security of the capital
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This conversation is not about security of the Capitol. It has evolved to a question about Trump (supposedly a human bring) ignoring a request from another human being who was in harms way in a riot asking for life saving help that Trump could have easily and safely immediately provided.
> 
> Waiting for you to explain why you support and condone Trump’s inhumane conduct having absolutely no compassion for his fellow man.
> 
> I’ll wait for your response and won’t be diverted to something else.
Click to expand...



Your pretense that you give a damn about human life is disproved by your lack of concern about the hundreds of other riots that your side did over the last 5 years.


I have been unhappy about all the violence and danger to people for 5 years. This bit where I am suddenly supposed to be bent out of shape because this one small one, that was from my side, because, of.... bullshit reasons, 


is fucking stupid.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which is the last thing you want to do, because you know that next time, it will almost certainly be leftwingers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar. I do not know that. I find it a million times improbable that leftists with ever ever in million years storm the Capitol building the east at TrumpQ’s Mob did during the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT.
> 
> Chances are better that the Japanese will attack Pearl Harbor again.
Click to expand...



Nice qualifier. Which shows that every time you mention the danger to human life from the riot, you don't really care about that. 

You are just using this to smear your enemies.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> you don't really care about that



When will you care about something other than telling people what you think they care about? You are a liar when you do it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Nice qualifier



Do you have a basis that it would be probable that leftists would storm the Capitol? They will never do what the idiot Trump mob did on January 6.  Never.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> you don't really care about that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When will you care about something other than telling people what you think they care about? You are a liar when you do it.
Click to expand...



When you get outraged over the danger and violence of the riot on 1/6, but not about the hundreds of other riots over the last 5 years,

it is easy to see that your "outrage" is bullshit.


YOu are the liar here, not me.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice qualifier
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a basis that it would be probable that leftists would storm the Capitol? They will never do what the idiot Trump mob did on January 6.  Never.
Click to expand...



My point was about riots, likely by leftists. You added the qualifier "the capitol", because your goal is to invent excuses for giving your side a pass and having a hissy fit over anything your enemies do.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> This bit where I am suddenly supposed to be bent out of shape because this one small one



you can be happy as hell that Trump ignored A call for help from a loyal Republican who actually voted Trump’s way denying to certify the election - you know Rep McCarthy voted to toss all the black votes out from big cities Detroit Milwaukee Atlanta Philadelphia Pittsburgh Phoenix.

I think you’d be pissed off at trump dumped a hero of yours left him to die.



All  the violence lootingand danger to people for the last  5 years thoroughly pisses me off from all sides. No matter what side. So I don’t know why in the hell you keep bringing it up. You’re so full of it Still loyal to Trump who was asked to call off the rioters and he ignored it.  Your silence on Trump’s refusal stop violence or at least try where asked  is quite the approval of violence when Trump has a hand in it.

Why are you silent on what Trump did?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This bit where I am suddenly supposed to be bent out of shape because this one small one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can be happy as hell that Trump ignored A call for help from a loyal Republican who actually voted Trump’s way denying to certify the election - you know Rep McCarthy voted to toss all the black votes out from big cities Detroit Milwaukee Atlanta Philadelphia Pittsburgh Phoenix.
> 
> I think you’d be pissed off at trump dumped a hero of yours left him to die.
> 
> 
> 
> All  the violence lootingand danger to people for the last  5 years thoroughly pisses me off from all sides. No matter what side. So I don’t know why in the hell you keep bringing it up. You’re so full of it Still loyal to Trump who was asked to call off the rioters and he ignored it.  Your silence on Trump’s refusal stop violence or at least try where asked  is quite the approval of violence when Trump has a hand in it.
> 
> Why are you silent on what Trump did?
Click to expand...


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> When you get outraged over the danger and violence of the riot on 1/6, but not about the hundreds of other riots over the last 5 years,



All violence outages me. That includes the president of United States not trying to stop violence when he had a chance to try. All he had to do was tweet the words  “stop get out of the capitol”

you cannot comment on Trump’s failure to try to stop the riot. Why?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This bit where I am suddenly supposed to be bent out of shape because this one small one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can be happy as hell that Trump ignored A call for help from a loyal Republican who actually voted Trump’s way denying to certify the election - you know Rep McCarthy voted to toss all the black votes out from big cities Detroit Milwaukee Atlanta Philadelphia Pittsburgh Phoenix.
> 
> I think you’d be pissed off at trump dumped a hero of yours left him to die.
> 
> 
> 
> All  the violence lootingand danger to people for the last  5 years thoroughly pisses me off from all sides. No matter what side. So I don’t know why in the hell you keep bringing it up. You’re so full of it Still loyal to Trump who was asked to call off the rioters and he ignored it.  Your silence on Trump’s refusal stop violence or at least try where asked  is quite the approval of violence when Trump has a hand in it.
> 
> Why are you silent on what Trump did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 460465
> 
> View attachment 460466
> 
> 
> View attachment 460467
Click to expand...


Anyone committing violence should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Do you have a point?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you get outraged over the danger and violence of the riot on 1/6, but not about the hundreds of other riots over the last 5 years,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All violence outages me. ....
Click to expand...



BULLSHIT. You are constantly making excuses why the hundreds of riots from your side are not worth discussing and why hte ONE riot from teh right is sooooo terrible.


Which shows that your pretense of concern about violence is bullshit. THis is about smearing your enemies. And ginning up fake outrage to justify your next escalation against your enemies.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This bit where I am suddenly supposed to be bent out of shape because this one small one
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you can be happy as hell that Trump ignored A call for help from a loyal Republican who actually voted Trump’s way denying to certify the election - you know Rep McCarthy voted to toss all the black votes out from big cities Detroit Milwaukee Atlanta Philadelphia Pittsburgh Phoenix.
> 
> I think you’d be pissed off at trump dumped a hero of yours left him to die.
> 
> 
> 
> All  the violence lootingand danger to people for the last  5 years thoroughly pisses me off from all sides. No matter what side. So I don’t know why in the hell you keep bringing it up. You’re so full of it Still loyal to Trump who was asked to call off the rioters and he ignored it.  Your silence on Trump’s refusal stop violence or at least try where asked  is quite the approval of violence when Trump has a hand in it.
> 
> Why are you silent on what Trump did?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 460465
> 
> View attachment 460466
> 
> 
> View attachment 460467
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anyone committing violence should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Do you have a point?
Click to expand...



Yeah, how cool and not convincing that post was, compared to the passion you see when you are talking about the 1/6 riot.

Even though there were HUNDREDs from your side over the last 5 years and just ONE from the right.


THIS IS JUST ABOUT YOU GINNING UP PRETEND OUTRAGE, TO JUSTIFY YOUR NEXT ESCALATION AGAISNT YOUR ENEMIES.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Even though there were HUNDREDs from your side over the last 5 years and just ONE from the right.



There there has been only one riot during
the past five years where the President of United States organized a rally setting as the  goal to overturn the election that he lost. The build up to that rally was a set of lies about the election fraud. Trump told his mob  “if Mike Pence does the right thing”, (that very day on Jan 6 2021) “we”
(the mob and he ) “win the election”.

After the riot started Mike McCarthy called Trump and asked him to call off the riot. Just a tweet to stop it. Nothing more.  What Trump does instead is tweet to the rioting mob that PENCE did not to do the right thing because he didn’t have enough courage.

I just want you to explain to me or help me understand why Trump’s behavior was OK. Why was it OK for him to not try to stop the violence?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> BULLSHIT. You are constantly making excuses why the hundreds of riots from your side are not worth discussing and why hte ONE riot from teh right is sooooo terrible.



You are a liar. Post something from me from the past 20  years where I made excuses for not discussing any violence. Your constant lying like this is violence.

Right now in this thread you are making excuses for Trump for not trying to stop violence when he had a chance.

You said he’s not in the proper chain of command. Well that’s a lie Because MCcarthy was not in a  chain of command.


----------



## toobfreak

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> All violence outages me. ....
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT. You are constantly making excuses why the hundreds of riots from your side are not worth discussing and why the ONE riot from the right is sooooo terrible.
Click to expand...




EXACTLY.  You know it is bullshit because the Left always applies ONE standard for their own while a totally DIFFERENT standard against yours!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

toobfreak said:


> You know it is bullshit because the Left always applies ONE standard for their own while a totally DIFFERENT standard against yours!



Liar. What standard am I not applying to the left?  What are you basing this on?

I do not have a case for comparison where  the president of the United States, a Democrat, was called by a member of Congress to call off his rioters from attacking the US Capitol Building during a Joint Session of Congress.  I do not have a set of standards for when a Democrat president ignored a call for help to stop the violence, ignored that and actually encouraged more.

So WTF are you talking about set of standards?


----------



## toobfreak

NotfooledbyW said:


> toobfreak said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know it is bullshit because the Left always applies ONE standard for their own while a totally DIFFERENT standard against yours!
> 
> 
> 
> Liar. What standard am I not applying to the left?  So WTF are you talking about set of standards?
Click to expand...



Who asked you?  Guess you got fooled by W again.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> here there has been only one riot during
> the past five years where the President of United States organized a rally setting as the goal to overturn the election



So, if that is your real concern, then EVERYTIME you whine about the violence or the life or death crisis, then you are just talking shit, trying to use an emotional appeal, DISHONESTLY, when your real complaint is about the election.


Because, as you have demonstrated, you don't give a fuck about Americans being in danger from riots, unless you can use it to smear your enemies.

You use an emotional appeal about violence, because you can't make a case based on reasoned arguments for your position.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> BULLSHIT. You are constantly making excuses why the hundreds of riots from your side are not worth discussing and why hte ONE riot from teh right is sooooo terrible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar. Post something from me from the past 20  years where I made excuses for not discussing any violence. Your constant lying like this is violence.
> 
> Right now in this thread you are making excuses for Trump for not trying to stop violence when he had a chance.
> 
> You said he’s not in the proper chain of command. Well that’s a lie Because MCcarthy was not in a  chain of command.
Click to expand...




When you whine about "violence" and "life and death crisises" and yet want to focus on one small one, while ignoring hundreds of other ones, over a period of YEARS,


your hypocrisy and dishonesty is clear to see. 


You don't give a fuck about the danger to innocent people. You just want an excuse to have a hissy fit.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> When you whine about "violence" and "life and death crisises" and yet want to focus on one small one, while ignoring hundreds of other ones, over a period of YEARS,




This thread is about the Senate arguments in the impeachment trial of Donald J Trump. Perhaps you are confused that this thread is solely about comparative violence, when it’s not. It’s about the threat to overturn an election that Trump lost by seven million votes  and the Constitutional crisis that Trump caused when he refused to concede, spread the big lie about the election being stolen, and then the 1/6 last ditch effort to “stop the steal” as explained by Trump at the pre-riot rally:

“All he (Pence) has to do, all this is, this is from.....one of the top, Constitutional lawyers in our country. .... (in order to) to protect our country, support our country, support our Constitution, and protect our constitution” .....”send it back to the states to recertify and we (the mob)  become president and you are the happiest people.”

You  and your loser President did all he could to toss my vote and declare himself winner.

That is my focus. And I fully understand why you do not discuss the subject of this thread.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> When you get outraged over the danger and violence of the riot on 1/6, but not about the hundreds of other riots over the last 5 years,





Correll said:


> why hte ONE riot from teh right is sooooo terrible



FACT: The DJTQ 1/6 RIOT was the worst direct attack on our government and high profile Federal property since the AlQaeda attacks on US soil on September 11 2001. They attacked the Pentagon and most likely targeted the Capitol Building.

But that 9/11/01 attack was by foreign terrorists. The DJTQ 1/6 RIOT was an assault on a Federal Structure known as the Citadel of Democracy, but more damning than that, it was a direct attack on an underway Constitutional proceeding that was directly related to the peaceful transition of power from one Administration to the winner of the election.

 The DJTQ 1/6 RIOT was an assault on our Republic by Domestic Terrorist under the TRUMP flag with the intent to overturn the election that Trump lost.

Get a clue you lying worthless Trump goon.

Every single American should be angry and upset and fully pushed off about the domestic attack on our republic under thec flying flags emblazoned with the NAME of the President of the United States on them.

They attacked our Government for Trump.

Why are you are working so hard to downplay a domestic terrorist attack on the US Capitol makes no sense m, but it tells me what kind of person you are.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> This thread is about the Senate arguments in the impeachment trial of Donald J Trump. Perhaps you are confused that this thread is solely about comparative violence, when it’s not.




Then stop referring to the violence in hysterical fashion like some kind of girl.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> FACT: The DJTQ 1/6 RIOT was the worst direct attack on our government and high profile Federal property since the AlQaeda attacks on US soil on September 11 2001.




Bullshit. It caused a short delay in a formality. 


The riots of your sides RESIST, killed dozens, caused hundreds of millions in damages and tore this nation apart.


"High profile"? LOL!!! You are just talking shit.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACT: The DJTQ 1/6 RIOT was the worst direct attack on our government and high profile Federal property since the AlQaeda attacks on US soil on September 11 2001.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It caused a short delay in a formality.
> 
> 
> The riots of your sides RESIST, killed dozens, caused hundreds of millions in damages and tore this nation apart.
> 
> 
> "High profile"? LOL!!! You are just talking shit.
Click to expand...

Why do you trivialize violating a serious law as though all they did was delay certification? That in itself is a serious crime. Are you on their side?









						18 U.S. Code § 2384 -  Seditious conspiracy
					






					www.law.cornell.edu


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> It caused a short delay in a formality.



The intent was to overturn the election, capture and perhaps assassinate the 2nd and 3rd politicians in line to the presidency.

Just because the insurrection failed, killing and wounding people on the way in, doesn’t mean it’s no big deal, just a delay.

You are scum. You still support Trump who refused to even try to stop the attack by simple tweet  after he was notified that it had started and Congress-members from his own Party pleaded with him to call of the rioters.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACT: The DJTQ 1/6 RIOT was the worst direct attack on our government and high profile Federal property since the AlQaeda attacks on US soil on September 11 2001.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It caused a short delay in a formality.
> 
> 
> The riots of your sides RESIST, killed dozens, caused hundreds of millions in damages and tore this nation apart.
> 
> 
> "High profile"? LOL!!! You are just talking shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you trivialize violating a serious law as though all they did was delay certification? That in itself is a serious crime. Are you on their side?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2384 -  Seditious conspiracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
Click to expand...



Wait, are you saying that I am wrong in that that is all they did, or are you saying that that is a serious crime?

Oh, right, you are trying to have it both ways, pretending that they did "more" without any support, while focusing on the worst possible spin on the actual delaying of the formality.



While no mention of the dozens killed and the BILLION in damages from your side's riots of the last 5 years.


Mmm, it is almost like your pretend concern is all bullshit, just designed as an excuse to be an ass.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACT: The DJTQ 1/6 RIOT was the worst direct attack on our government and high profile Federal property since the AlQaeda attacks on US soil on September 11 2001.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It caused a short delay in a formality.
> 
> 
> The riots of your sides RESIST, killed dozens, caused hundreds of millions in damages and tore this nation apart.
> 
> 
> "High profile"? LOL!!! You are just talking shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you trivialize violating a serious law as though all they did was delay certification? That in itself is a serious crime. Are you on their side?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2384 -  Seditious conspiracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, are you saying that I am wrong in that that is all they did, or are you saying that that is a serious crime?
> 
> Oh, right, you are trying to have it both ways, pretending that they did "more" without any support, while focusing on the worst possible spin on the actual delaying of the formality.
> 
> 
> 
> While no mention of the dozens killed and the BILLION in damages from your side's riots of the last 5 years.
> 
> 
> Mmm, it is almost like your pretend concern is all bullshit, just designed as an excuse to be an ass.
Click to expand...

No, I showed they violated a very serious law.

And for some reason, you're intent on trivialize that. Why? Are you on their side?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It caused a short delay in a formality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The intent was to overturn the election, capture and perhaps assassinate the 2nd and 3rd politicians in line to the presidency.
> 
> Just because the insurrection failed, killing and wounding people on the way in, doesn’t mean it’s no big deal, just a delay.
> 
> You are scum. You still support Trump who refused to even try to stop the attack by simple tweet  after he was notified that it had started and Congress-members from his own Party pleaded with him to call of the rioters.
Click to expand...



You keep harping on the people hurt in the riot, because that is the real crime that occurred. 


BUT, every time I address taht, and point out the hypocrisy of your lack of concern for the far greater bloodshed from YOUR side's riots, 

you insist that it is not the violence that upsets you, but the "insurrection".


So I drop it.

Then you make the emotional point about the violence again. Because a short delay in a formality, seems like such a small deal. Because it is.



You are just talking in circles, because you are a dishonest troll.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACT: The DJTQ 1/6 RIOT was the worst direct attack on our government and high profile Federal property since the AlQaeda attacks on US soil on September 11 2001.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It caused a short delay in a formality.
> 
> 
> The riots of your sides RESIST, killed dozens, caused hundreds of millions in damages and tore this nation apart.
> 
> 
> "High profile"? LOL!!! You are just talking shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you trivialize violating a serious law as though all they did was delay certification? That in itself is a serious crime. Are you on their side?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2384 -  Seditious conspiracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, are you saying that I am wrong in that that is all they did, or are you saying that that is a serious crime?
> 
> Oh, right, you are trying to have it both ways, pretending that they did "more" without any support, while focusing on the worst possible spin on the actual delaying of the formality.
> 
> 
> 
> While no mention of the dozens killed and the BILLION in damages from your side's riots of the last 5 years.
> 
> 
> Mmm, it is almost like your pretend concern is all bullshit, just designed as an excuse to be an ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I showed they violated a very serious law.
> 
> And for some reason, you're intent on trivialize that. Why? Are you on their side?
Click to expand...




What about the murders done by antifa and blm? Are those serious crimes? More serious than "delaying a formality"?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACT: The DJTQ 1/6 RIOT was the worst direct attack on our government and high profile Federal property since the AlQaeda attacks on US soil on September 11 2001.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It caused a short delay in a formality.
> 
> 
> The riots of your sides RESIST, killed dozens, caused hundreds of millions in damages and tore this nation apart.
> 
> 
> "High profile"? LOL!!! You are just talking shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you trivialize violating a serious law as though all they did was delay certification? That in itself is a serious crime. Are you on their side?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2384 -  Seditious conspiracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, are you saying that I am wrong in that that is all they did, or are you saying that that is a serious crime?
> 
> Oh, right, you are trying to have it both ways, pretending that they did "more" without any support, while focusing on the worst possible spin on the actual delaying of the formality.
> 
> 
> 
> While no mention of the dozens killed and the BILLION in damages from your side's riots of the last 5 years.
> 
> 
> Mmm, it is almost like your pretend concern is all bullshit, just designed as an excuse to be an ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I showed they violated a very serious law.
> 
> And for some reason, you're intent on trivialize that. Why? Are you on their side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the murders done by antifa and blm? Are those serious crimes? More serious than "delaying a formality"?
Click to expand...

I've condemned those. Is there a reason why you won't answer my question?

You're trivializing the insurrection on the Capitol as though all they did was to delay certifying the election. But that in itself is a very serious crime...









						18 U.S. Code § 2384 -  Seditious conspiracy
					






					www.law.cornell.edu
				




_...or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States..._​
So why do you trivialize that? Are you on their side?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACT: The DJTQ 1/6 RIOT was the worst direct attack on our government and high profile Federal property since the AlQaeda attacks on US soil on September 11 2001.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It caused a short delay in a formality.
> 
> 
> The riots of your sides RESIST, killed dozens, caused hundreds of millions in damages and tore this nation apart.
> 
> 
> "High profile"? LOL!!! You are just talking shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you trivialize violating a serious law as though all they did was delay certification? That in itself is a serious crime. Are you on their side?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2384 -  Seditious conspiracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, are you saying that I am wrong in that that is all they did, or are you saying that that is a serious crime?
> 
> Oh, right, you are trying to have it both ways, pretending that they did "more" without any support, while focusing on the worst possible spin on the actual delaying of the formality.
> 
> 
> 
> While no mention of the dozens killed and the BILLION in damages from your side's riots of the last 5 years.
> 
> 
> Mmm, it is almost like your pretend concern is all bullshit, just designed as an excuse to be an ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I showed they violated a very serious law.
> 
> And for some reason, you're intent on trivialize that. Why? Are you on their side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the murders done by antifa and blm? Are those serious crimes? More serious than "delaying a formality"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've condemned those. Is there a reason why you won't answer my question?
> 
> You're trivializing the insurrection on the Capitol as though all they did was to delay certifying the election. But that in itself is a very serious crime...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2384 -  Seditious conspiracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> ​_...or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States..._​
> So why do you trivialize that? Are you on their side?
Click to expand...



"Any law"? 

Wow. Thanks for posting the text of the law you were referring to. 

What a vague and dangerous piece of shit law. 


Hell, you got enough of an asshole prosecutor, and you could get slammed by that for flushing pot down a toilet.


Heavy shit man. Really heavy. 

Any how, a month ago, some really upset people rioted and delayed the certification of the election count, for a few hours.


And you people are trying to act as though it was kristallnacht.


you are tyrants justifying your next escalation in your war on your enemies.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACT: The DJTQ 1/6 RIOT was the worst direct attack on our government and high profile Federal property since the AlQaeda attacks on US soil on September 11 2001.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It caused a short delay in a formality.
> 
> 
> The riots of your sides RESIST, killed dozens, caused hundreds of millions in damages and tore this nation apart.
> 
> 
> "High profile"? LOL!!! You are just talking shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you trivialize violating a serious law as though all they did was delay certification? That in itself is a serious crime. Are you on their side?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2384 -  Seditious conspiracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, are you saying that I am wrong in that that is all they did, or are you saying that that is a serious crime?
> 
> Oh, right, you are trying to have it both ways, pretending that they did "more" without any support, while focusing on the worst possible spin on the actual delaying of the formality.
> 
> 
> 
> While no mention of the dozens killed and the BILLION in damages from your side's riots of the last 5 years.
> 
> 
> Mmm, it is almost like your pretend concern is all bullshit, just designed as an excuse to be an ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I showed they violated a very serious law.
> 
> And for some reason, you're intent on trivialize that. Why? Are you on their side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the murders done by antifa and blm? Are those serious crimes? More serious than "delaying a formality"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've condemned those. Is there a reason why you won't answer my question?
> 
> You're trivializing the insurrection on the Capitol as though all they did was to delay certifying the election. But that in itself is a very serious crime...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2384 -  Seditious conspiracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> ​_...or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States..._​
> So why do you trivialize that? Are you on their side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Any law"?
> 
> Wow. Thanks for posting the text of the law you were referring to.
> 
> What a vague and dangerous piece of shit law.
> 
> 
> Hell, you got enough of an asshole prosecutor, and you could get slammed by that for flushing pot down a toilet.
> 
> 
> Heavy shit man. Really heavy.
> 
> Any how, a month ago, some really upset people rioted and delayed the certification of the election count, for a few hours.
> 
> 
> And you people are trying to act as though it was kristallnacht.
> 
> 
> you are tyrants justifying your next escalation in your war on your enemies.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if you agree with that law or not, it's the law. And seditious conspiracy is a very serious law. One even you admitted they violated, albeit you did so unwittingly.

So why do you flat out refuse to answer the questions? Why do you trivialize it and are you trivializing it because you're on their side?


----------



## Rawley

Faun said:


> No, I showed they violated a very serious law.
> And for some reason, you're intent on trivialize that. Why? Are you on their side?


You better share your brilliant analysis with those fucking Biden morons, because no one has been charged with sedition.


----------



## Faun

Rawley said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I showed they violated a very serious law.
> And for some reason, you're intent on trivialize that. Why? Are you on their side?
> 
> 
> 
> You better share your brilliant analysis with those fucking Biden morons, because no one has been charged with sedition.
Click to expand...

So? They're not done investigating or filing charges. You really are the world's shittiest lawyer to not know that.


----------



## Rawley

Faun said:


> Rawley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I showed they violated a very serious law.
> And for some reason, you're intent on trivialize that. Why? Are you on their side?
> 
> 
> 
> You better share your brilliant analysis with those fucking Biden morons, because no one has been charged with sedition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? They're not done investigating or filing charges. You really are the world's shittiest lawyer to not know that.
Click to expand...

WHat's more to investigate?  Even with your lmited resources you've shown they violated the statute.  Unless you're just making shit up and blowing it out of your ass.  But you would never do that, would you?


----------



## Faun

Rawley said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rawley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I showed they violated a very serious law.
> And for some reason, you're intent on trivialize that. Why? Are you on their side?
> 
> 
> 
> You better share your brilliant analysis with those fucking Biden morons, because no one has been charged with sedition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? They're not done investigating or filing charges. You really are the world's shittiest lawyer to not know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHat's more to investigate?  Even with your lmited resources you've shown they violated the statute.  Unless you're just making shit up and blowing it out of your ass.  But you would never do that, would you?
Click to expand...

They haven't even captured everyone yet. The investigation continues. More charges will be coming. And I didn't show they violated that statute, Correll did...



Correll said:


> Bullshit. It caused a short delay in a formality.



Sadly, he proved to be too big of a pussy to stand up for what he posts.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> FACT: The DJTQ 1/6 RIOT was the worst direct attack on our government and high profile Federal property since the AlQaeda attacks on US soil on September 11 2001.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It caused a short delay in a formality.
> 
> 
> The riots of your sides RESIST, killed dozens, caused hundreds of millions in damages and tore this nation apart.
> 
> 
> "High profile"? LOL!!! You are just talking shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you trivialize violating a serious law as though all they did was delay certification? That in itself is a serious crime. Are you on their side?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2384 -  Seditious conspiracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, are you saying that I am wrong in that that is all they did, or are you saying that that is a serious crime?
> 
> Oh, right, you are trying to have it both ways, pretending that they did "more" without any support, while focusing on the worst possible spin on the actual delaying of the formality.
> 
> 
> 
> While no mention of the dozens killed and the BILLION in damages from your side's riots of the last 5 years.
> 
> 
> Mmm, it is almost like your pretend concern is all bullshit, just designed as an excuse to be an ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I showed they violated a very serious law.
> 
> And for some reason, you're intent on trivialize that. Why? Are you on their side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What about the murders done by antifa and blm? Are those serious crimes? More serious than "delaying a formality"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've condemned those. Is there a reason why you won't answer my question?
> 
> You're trivializing the insurrection on the Capitol as though all they did was to delay certifying the election. But that in itself is a very serious crime...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2384 -  Seditious conspiracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> ​_...or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States..._​
> So why do you trivialize that? Are you on their side?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Any law"?
> 
> Wow. Thanks for posting the text of the law you were referring to.
> 
> What a vague and dangerous piece of shit law.
> 
> 
> Hell, you got enough of an asshole prosecutor, and you could get slammed by that for flushing pot down a toilet.
> 
> 
> Heavy shit man. Really heavy.
> 
> Any how, a month ago, some really upset people rioted and delayed the certification of the election count, for a few hours.
> 
> 
> And you people are trying to act as though it was kristallnacht.
> 
> 
> you are tyrants justifying your next escalation in your war on your enemies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't matter if you agree with that law or not, it's the law. And seditious conspiracy is a very serious law. One even you admitted they violated, albeit you did so unwittingly.
> 
> So why do you flat out refuse to answer the questions? Why do you trivialize it and are you trivializing it because you're on their side?
Click to expand...



I think it has to do with the 5 years of increasing rioting from your side. It became normal to me, though sad. 


THus, when I heard there was another riot, it did not seem like something shocking or new.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Rawley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rawley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I showed they violated a very serious law.
> And for some reason, you're intent on trivialize that. Why? Are you on their side?
> 
> 
> 
> You better share your brilliant analysis with those fucking Biden morons, because no one has been charged with sedition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? They're not done investigating or filing charges. You really are the world's shittiest lawyer to not know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHat's more to investigate?  Even with your lmited resources you've shown they violated the statute.  Unless you're just making shit up and blowing it out of your ass.  But you would never do that, would you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They haven't even captured everyone yet. The investigation continues. More charges will be coming. And I didn't show they violated that statute, Correll did...
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It caused a short delay in a formality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, he proved to be too big of a pussy to stand up for what he posts.
Click to expand...



I'm not such a pussy that I insult people online from the safety of my mom's basement.


----------



## MadChemist

NotfooledbyW said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have not paid any attention to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then who’s cares when you ask - Who cares about the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT?
> 
> Your self professed ignorance on the subject is duly noted. Why are you posting hear.
Click to expand...


Yes, my lack of information and analysis is why I don't comment on it.

Unlike so many of you who seem so quick to take a few "facts" and try to spin a tale that warrants the analysis you provide using your "standards" of performance.

BTW: I post here because I want to.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MadChemist said:


> Yes, my lack of information and analysis is why I don't comment on it.



Then why do you say “who cares”?

Every person in that building cares. The families of the people that were killed care. I care because those MFers flying Trump Flags tried to violently overturn the election and take away my vote - render voting meaningless for millions. 

If you don’t care; too lazy to learn some facts about it,  just leave everybody who does care alone.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, my lack of information and analysis is why I don't comment on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you say “who cares”?
> 
> Every person in that building cares. The families of the people that were killed care. I care because those MFers flying Trump Flags tried to violently overturn the election and take away my vote - render voting meaningless for millions.
> 
> If you don’t care; too lazy to learn some facts about it,  just leave everybody who does care alone.
Click to expand...



But you don't care about all  the people killed by your side's riots, cause "wacism".


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> But you don't care about all the people killed by your side's riots, cause "wacism".



You are a liar. I care about all victims of violence. I hate those that take advantage of peaceful protest spevifically looters. They get the fucking headlines and end up burying the message the peaceful protests are out to convey so as NO WAR : don’t invade Iraq you ignorant ass BUSH43.

I was at a protest in DC before the invasion of Iraq. 99% peaceful but I saw cops going toward a mob of socialists that started breaking windows . I hate those fuckers - they only help the warmongers.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you don't care about all the people killed by your side's riots, cause "wacism".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar. I care about all victims of violence. I hate those that take advantage of peaceful protest spevifically looters. They get the fucking headlines and end up burying the message the peaceful protests are out to convey so as NO WAR : don’t invade Iraq you ignorant ass BUSH43.
> 
> I was at a protest in DC before the invasion of Iraq. 99% peaceful but I saw cops going toward a mob of socialists that started breaking windows . I hate those fuckers - they only help the warmongers.
Click to expand...



Antfia and blm have been rioting for years and I heard only the most token concerns from libs about those killed or hurt by the rioters.


Suddenly it  is something they can use against their partisan enemies, and it is the worst thing since Reagan won the Cold War. 


It is laughable. You are laughable.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Antfia and blm have been rioting for years



THATS BECAUSE BLM IS A PEACEFUL PROTEST MOVEMENT. They don’t riot.

Provide some evidence that ANTIFA killed someone and I’ll get back to you.

I’m opposed to fascists but I do not condone  what ANTIFA thugs do.

But I do know this; BLM protesters and ANTIFA fighters, neither of which, have been invited to Washington DC by a sitting or former President of the United States to come to the Capitol to help him to overturn the election that he lost after months of lying that he has won it. Won it by a Landslide.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Antfia and blm have been rioting for years and I heard only the most token concerns from libs about those killed or hurt by the rioters



why did you cite it but you have not responded to this post:


You are a liar. I care about all victims of violence. I hate those that take advantage of peaceful protest spevifically looters. They get the fucking headlines and end up burying the message the peaceful protests are out to convey so as NO WAR : don’t invade Iraq you ignorant ass BUSH43.

I was at a protest in DC before the invasion of Iraq. 99% peaceful but I saw cops going toward a mob of socialists that started breaking windows . I hate those fuckers - they only help the warmongers.

Didnt think you could.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Antfia and blm have been rioting for years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> THATS BECAUSE BLM IS A PEACEFUL PROTEST MOVEMENT. They don’t riot.
> 
> Provide some evidence that ANTIFA killed someone and I’ll get back to you.
> 
> I’m opposed to fascists but I do not condone  what ANTIFA thugs do.
> 
> But I do know this; BLM protesters and ANTIFA fighters, neither of which, have been invited to Washington DC by a sitting or former President of the United States to come to the Capitol to help him to overturn the election that he lost after months of lying that he has won it. Won it by a Landslide.
Click to expand...



They have been rioting and killing for 5 years now. That you suddenly as of 1/6 are now pretending to be upset by riots, is not credible.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Antfia and blm have been rioting for years and I heard only the most token concerns from libs about those killed or hurt by the rioters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> why did you cite it but you have not responded to this post:
> 
> 
> You are a liar. I care about all victims of violence. I hate those that take advantage of peaceful protest spevifically looters. They get the fucking headlines and end up burying the message the peaceful protests are out to convey so as NO WAR : don’t invade Iraq you ignorant ass BUSH43.
> 
> I was at a protest in DC before the invasion of Iraq. 99% peaceful but I saw cops going toward a mob of socialists that started breaking windows . I hate those fuckers - they only help the warmongers.
> 
> Didnt think you could.
Click to expand...



I addressed it, by pointing out that it is not credible.


----------



## themirrorthief

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.


when the french dragged their government out to the guillotine...was it a forshadow of what is gonna happen to our own royal , priviliged class


----------



## themirrorthief

Synthaholic said:


> The fact that this entire forum is very quiet shows that the Trumpers have zero case.


always remember left wing riots...good   right wing riots bad


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I addressed it, by pointing out that it is not credible.



Whats not credible. You are a l liar. You addressed ITV with a lie. The lie that BLM are rioters. You are a liar.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed it, by pointing out that it is not credible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whats not credible. You are a l liar. You addressed ITV with a lie. The lie that BLM are rioters. You are a liar.
Click to expand...


Saying "mostly peaceful" while people die and buildings burn, is you lying.


----------



## themirrorthief

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed it, by pointing out that it is not credible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whats not credible. You are a l liar. You addressed ITV with a lie. The lie that BLM are rioters. You are a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saying "mostly peaceful" while people die and buildings burn, is you lying.
Click to expand...

blm doesnt riot, they just break into places and carry off everything, especially the booze


----------



## Correll

themirrorthief said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed it, by pointing out that it is not credible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whats not credible. You are a l liar. You addressed ITV with a lie. The lie that BLM are rioters. You are a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saying "mostly peaceful" while people die and buildings burn, is you lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> blm doesnt riot, they just break into places and carry off everything, especially the booze
Click to expand...



And get blamed when people just happen to die in the vicinity.


----------



## themirrorthief

Correll said:


> themirrorthief said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed it, by pointing out that it is not credible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whats not credible. You are a l liar. You addressed ITV with a lie. The lie that BLM are rioters. You are a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saying "mostly peaceful" while people die and buildings burn, is you lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> blm doesnt riot, they just break into places and carry off everything, especially the booze
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And get blamed when people just happen to die in the vicinity.
Click to expand...

stats prove  black people lov popping caps on each other


----------



## Correll

themirrorthief said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> themirrorthief said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed it, by pointing out that it is not credible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whats not credible. You are a l liar. You addressed ITV with a lie. The lie that BLM are rioters. You are a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saying "mostly peaceful" while people die and buildings burn, is you lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> blm doesnt riot, they just break into places and carry off everything, especially the booze
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And get blamed when people just happen to die in the vicinity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> stats prove  black people lov popping caps on each other
Click to expand...



You say math, liberals say racist!


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rawley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rawley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I showed they violated a very serious law.
> And for some reason, you're intent on trivialize that. Why? Are you on their side?
> 
> 
> 
> You better share your brilliant analysis with those fucking Biden morons, because no one has been charged with sedition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? They're not done investigating or filing charges. You really are the world's shittiest lawyer to not know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHat's more to investigate?  Even with your lmited resources you've shown they violated the statute.  Unless you're just making shit up and blowing it out of your ass.  But you would never do that, would you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They haven't even captured everyone yet. The investigation continues. More charges will be coming. And I didn't show they violated that statute, Correll did...
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It caused a short delay in a formality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, he proved to be too big of a pussy to stand up for what he posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not such a pussy that I insult people online from the safety of my mom's basement.
Click to expand...

I would say if in person if I could. Meanwhile, until your last post, you refused to answer the question. And it took you almost 3 hours to think up that answer. Pussy.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

themirrorthief said:


> blm doesnt riot, they just break into places and carry off everything, especially the booze



Another racist liar joins Correll in the discussion.

That is because, Anybody can put on a BLM T-Shirt, help start a riot and rob a liquor store. That is just like anybody can carry a Trump flag, help start a riot and attack a Joint Session of Congress set to certify the election that Trump lost, and on the felonious way in, beat a Capitol Police Officer to death with that Trump Flag while chanting hang Mike Pence snd FIGHT FOR TRUMP taking fucking selfies and videos of each other while committing the crimes.

*There is a huge *difference between the liquor looter in a BLM TShirt (not saying it ever happened) and the Trump Flag waving rioter beating a cop with it.

*It is this: *BLM leadership has never publicly asked or incited it’s members to loot liquor stores or steal anything. They never spread lies and disinformation that closing liquor stores will serve the cause of achieving social justices still out of reach.

However, President Trump did tell his supporters for months the lie that he won the 2020 election and that he fought every challenge and battle he could to overturn it but there was one last chance to get it done. He told his supporters to come to DC precisely on January 6 to stop the election from being stolen from them.

Many came. Some rioted and took Trump seriously about the last chance to save the country from being destroyed by Biden
and the left.  A thousand or so of all the Trump supporters in DC that day attacked a joint session of Congress to Stop the STEAL

I don’t have any record of any high office holder from any political side that exhorted lie upon lie about liquor stores and exhorting BLM participants to come to a city and march against liquor stores because if they don’t their lives and the entire nation itself will be ruined and spoiled.

*And for that explicit and facts based reason this ....*.......“blm doesnt riot, they just break into places and carry off everything, especially the booze” ...Shameful........*Is a RACIST LIE  *using whataboutism as cover for the shameful behavior of a thousand Trump supporters out of the twenty thousand that did go to DC to protest in favor of  the lies about the election - peacefully.

They all were misled,  but most had enough sense to know that beating a cop with a Trump flag or hanging Mike Pence on a gallows set up outside the Capitol is not going to put Trump in the White House for a second term.

I’m just not sure at this point that Trump is aware that *Stopping the Steal* on January 6 was never going to work - at least not without a real army, a well armed militia with millions of recruits and officers trained in the art of guerrilla warfare and ready to seize and hold state capitol buildings as well as the national one in DC. Maybe he thought he had it maybe not.  The man is a lunatic, so who knows. And he would have needed the Secret Service in on it too.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Saying "mostly peaceful" while people die and buildings burn, is you lying.



is there such a thing as peaceful protest.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rawley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rawley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I showed they violated a very serious law.
> And for some reason, you're intent on trivialize that. Why? Are you on their side?
> 
> 
> 
> You better share your brilliant analysis with those fucking Biden morons, because no one has been charged with sedition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? They're not done investigating or filing charges. You really are the world's shittiest lawyer to not know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHat's more to investigate?  Even with your lmited resources you've shown they violated the statute.  Unless you're just making shit up and blowing it out of your ass.  But you would never do that, would you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They haven't even captured everyone yet. The investigation continues. More charges will be coming. And I didn't show they violated that statute, Correll did...
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It caused a short delay in a formality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sadly, he proved to be too big of a pussy to stand up for what he posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not such a pussy that I insult people online from the safety of my mom's basement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would say if in person if I could. Meanwhile, until your last post, you refused to answer the question. And it took you almost 3 hours to think up that answer. Pussy.
Click to expand...



Maybe if you had a mob backing you up. Libs I meet in person, are all so much more polite.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> themirrorthief said:
> 
> 
> 
> blm doesnt riot, they just break into places and carry off everything, especially the booze
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another racist liar joins Correll in the discussion.
> 
> That is because, Anybody can put on a BLM T-Shirt, help start a riot and rob a liquor store. That is just like anybody can carry a Trump flag, help start a riot and attack a Joint Session of Congress set to certify the election that Trump lost, and on the felonious way in, beat a Capitol Police Officer to death with that Trump Flag while chanting hang Mike Pence snd FIGHT FOR TRUMP taking fucking selfies and videos of each other while committing the crimes.
> 
> *There is a huge *difference between the liquor looter in a BLM TShirt (not saying it ever happened) and the Trump Flag waving rioter beating a cop with it.
> 
> *It is this: *BLM leadership has never publicly asked or incited it’s members to loot liquor stores or steal anything. They never spread lies and disinformation that closing liquor stores will serve the cause of achieving social justices still out of reach.
> 
> However, President Trump did tell his supporters for months the lie that he won the 2020 election and that he fought every challenge and battle he could to overturn it but there was one last chance to get it done. He told his supporters to come to DC precisely on January 6 to stop the election from being stolen from them.
> 
> Many came. Some rioted and took Trump seriously about the last chance to save the country from being destroyed by Biden
> and the left.  A thousand or so of all the Trump supporters in DC that day attacked a joint session of Congress to Stop the STEAL
> 
> I don’t have any record of any high office holder from any political side that exhorted lie upon lie about liquor stores and exhorting BLM participants to come to a city and march against liquor stores because if they don’t their lives and the entire nation itself will be ruined and spoiled.
> 
> *And for that explicit and facts based reason this ....*.......“blm doesnt riot, they just break into places and carry off everything, especially the booze” ...Shameful........*Is a RACIST LIE  *using whataboutism as cover for the shameful behavior of a thousand Trump supporters out of the twenty thousand that did go to DC to protest in favor of  the lies about the election - peacefully.
> 
> They all were misled,  but most had enough sense to know that beating a cop with a Trump flag or hanging Mike Pence on a gallows set up outside the Capitol is not going to put Trump in the White House for a second term.
> 
> I’m just not sure at this point that Trump is aware that *Stopping the Steal* on January 6 was never going to work - at least not without a real army, a well armed militia with millions of recruits and officers trained in the art of guerrilla warfare and ready to seize and hold state capitol buildings as well as the national one in DC. Maybe he thought he had it maybe not.  The man is a lunatic, so who knows. And he would have needed the Secret Service in on it too.
Click to expand...





1 Every time you mention the violence of the 1/6 riot, you are engaged in circular debating, because your stated position is that it is about the election that makes it so bad. But, you can't justify your hysteria over that, so you keep referencing the violence, then when  point out the much greater violence from your side, you back off of it. But then you need to reference it again to justify your pretense of outrage.

You are lying.


2. BLM and teh Dem Party, AND Biden, support hte Lie that America is a terribly wacist nation with a terribly wacist police forces that just randomly kill black people. That "misled" the rioters from your side.  

3. The point is not "what about ism" but pointing out that your pretense of outrage over the 1/6 riot is bullshit generated to give yourself an excuse to be an asshole.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saying "mostly peaceful" while people die and buildings burn, is you lying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> is there such a thing as peaceful protest.
Click to expand...



Sure. It happens when people don't die and buildings are not burned.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Sure. It happens when people don't die and buildings are not burned.



You are therefore  confirming in writing there was no peaceful protest in Washington DC on January 6 2021 under the TRUMP flag.  Why did you say in the past that Donald J Trump called for tens of thousands of his loyal supporters to come to DC to protest peacefully. But now you say they was no peaceful protest on that day.,


----------



## Flash

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.




You are always confused about everything, aren't you?

You wouldn't be so confused if you would pull your head out of your Libtard ass.

The only reason for the goddamn bogus impeachment was for the filthy ass Democrats to take the spotlight away from the fact they stole the election with the scam of unverified mail in ballots in Democrat controlled swing districts.

Useful Idiots like you fell for it.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. It happens when people don't die and buildings are not burned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are therefore  confirming in writing there was no peaceful protest in Washington DC on January 6 2021 under the TRUMP flag.  Why did you say in the past that Donald J Trump called for tens of thousands of his loyal supporters to come to DC to protest peacefully. But now you say they was no peaceful protest on that day.,
Click to expand...



By my definition, correct. That was  a riot

By the standards of liberals it was "mostly peaceful".


Oh man. It has been a while since I had to explain teh concept of linear time to anyone. 


Ok. Trump called for a peaceful protest. But once the crowd assembled, someone led some portion of the crowd into an assault on the building, and it changed from a peaceful protest to a riot.


Trump called for a peaceful protest. But it got out of control, and became a riot.


There is no conflict between those two points.



That you think there is, is your thinking being very confused. LIke pathologically.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> your stated position is that it is about the election that makes it so bad.


No. That is not my stated position about violence. You are a liar and your entire argument is based upon your lie. Why don’t you argue against MY STATED POSITIONS not what you need them to be in that stupid irrational head of yours.

My stated position is that all violence is equally bad. It all is condemned by me no matter who does it and for whatever reason.

 Violence is bad, always matter who does it.

The only exceptions are clear cases of self defense and of course when a legitimate government must use violence to maintain legitimate law and order under the law it is not bad. It is a necessity but there must be restraint on its use. 

Will you please remove your lie from your argument so we can see what happens to it.

That is my stated position on the use of violence as a means to an end. It is wrong and bad and detrimental to society no matter the end.

I’ll ask you another question to think about. When a government uses lethal force is it violence? What about if the use of lethal force is excessive and turns out not to have been necessary to keep law and order. It cannot be undone, can it?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> No. That is not my stated position about violence. You are a liar and your entire argument is based upon your lie. Why don’t you argue against MY STATED POSITIONS not what you need them to be in that stupid irrational head of yours.




You keep changing your stated position, to run away from how  I am constantly challenging it.


You are wally. 









You cite teh violence. When I point out that your side's violence has been vastly greater, you change the subject to "teh election".

But, the only effect on the election was to delay a formality by a few hours. So you keep going back to teh violence, to justify your level of pretend outrage.


Then I point out that your side's violence has been vastly greater, and you change the subject to "the election".


I changed my mind. You are WORSE than Wally.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

No cops killed in 7305 BLM Protests.  2 cops killed in 1 DJTQ election fraud protest.




Correll said:


> Trump called for a peaceful protest. But it got out of control, and became a riot.



Trump is at the top of leadership of the riot in  DC..is that correct? He called for a peaceful protest and a riot showed up. 


Do you believe there is any possibility that BLM organizers called for peaceful protests and a riot showed up now that we can see that it happens when a white leader as high as Trump calls for peaceful protest and a riot shows up?

The facts back me up on this:

The Black Lives Matter uprisings were remarkably nonviolent. When there was violence, very often police or counterprotesters were reportedly directing it at the protesters.​
Black Lives Matter Protesters Were Overwhelmingly Peaceful, Our Research Finds | Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University​
Please read it.

“Here is what we have found based on the *7,305 events* we’ve collected. The overall levels of violence and property destruction were low, and most of the violence that did take place was, in fact, directed against the BLM protesters.”​
“Protesters or bystanders were reported injured in 1.6 percent of the protests. In total, at least three Black Lives Matter protesters and one other person were killed while protesting in Omaha, Austin and Kenosha, Wis. One anti-fascist protester killed a far-right group member during a confrontation in Portland, Ore.; law enforcement killed the alleged assailant several days later.​
Police were reported injured in 1% of the protests. A law enforcement officer killed in California was allegedly shot by supporters of the far-right “boogaloo” movement, not anti-racism protesters.​


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> You keep changing your stated position



I have not changed my position. If you believe that I have, provide an excerpt where I expressed each position differently.

if not you lied again and are unable to argue any point without lying.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> No cops killed in 7305 BLM Protests.  2 cops killed in 1 DJTQ election fraud protest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump called for a peaceful protest. But it got out of control, and became a riot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is at the top of leadership of the riot in  DC..is that correct? He called for a peaceful protest and a riot showed up.
> 
> .....
Click to expand...



So, to be clear, you are dropping that line of argument, about callng it a protest at one time and a riot at another?


you understand that that is not a conflict but a function of linear time?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep changing your stated position
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not changed my position. If you believe that I have, provide an excerpt where I expressed each position differently.
> 
> if not you lied again and are unable to argue any point without lying.
Click to expand...






As I explained and you cut from my post.


you made a point about the violence of the 1/6 riot for emotional impact.


When I point out that it was one of hundreds of riots and why didn't you care about that violence, you change your complain to, "it was a coup attempt".


When I point out that the effect was to delay a formality by a few hours and your level of outrage is uncalled for,


you go back to citing the violence as an emotional appeal. 


Even though that  point was already dealt with.


YOu are just talking shit to justify your attempts to marginalize and dehumanize your enemies.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Then I point out that your side's violence has been vastly greater,



Show me the data behind your conclusion that my side includes random acts of looting and violence. Remember that my side, Just like Trump on election fraud calls for peaceful protests only - no violence.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then I point out that your side's violence has been vastly greater,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me the data behind your conclusion that my side includes random acts of looting and violence. Remember that my side, Just like Trump on election fraud calls for peaceful protests only - no violence.
Click to expand...



The claim kind of falls apart, after a couple dozen of riots and your side is still ordering cops to stand down, if not help the rioters, and your lib prosecutors are refusing  to change the rioters and in one case, the city council fired a cop for arresting a rioter, or arresting people for defending themselves from the riots.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> So, to be clear, you are dropping that line of argument, about callng it a protest at one time and a riot at another?



I’m not dropping any line of argument.

The facts are with me. Reality is

I recognize both can occur in reality and at the same time.

Peaceful demonstrators are good actors.

Rioters, looters and anyone initiating physical violence against any other human being are bad actors. My point does not change on the use violence as a means to an end.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are dropping that line of argument, about callng it a protest at one time and a riot at another?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not dropping any line of argument.
> 
> The facts are with me. Reality is
> 
> I recognize both can occur in reality and at the same time.
> 
> Peaceful demonstrators are good actors.
> 
> Rioters, looters and anyone initiating physical violence against any other human being are bad actors. My point does not change on the use violence as a means to an end.
Click to expand...


Except that they did not occur at teh same time. Your point is based on pretending to not understand the concept of linear time.

Trump called for a demonstration. 


That the crowd that showed up, turned into a riot later, does not conflict with that.


Changing the subject, as you did to something else, does not mean that you get to come back to that line of delusional argument later.


It has been refuted.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Except that they did not occur at teh same time.



let’s say when 1000 out of 20,000 of Trump’s protesters stormed the Capitol, the peaceful demonstration ended and the riot started. Thus making  all 20,000 of Trump supporters to be participants in a riot, whether they remained to peacefully protest outside of the building or tried to get in with the rioters.

That’s absurd.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Your point is based on pretending to not understand the concept of linear time.



Your concept of linear time is applied here why?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Trump called for a demonstration.
> 
> 
> That the crowd that showed up, turned into a riot later, does not conflict with that.



Did the entire crowd that showed up turn the peaceful protests into a riot?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except that they did not occur at teh same time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> let’s say when 1000 out of 20,000 of Trump’s protesters stormed the Capitol, the peaceful demonstration ended and the riot started. Thus making  all 20,000 of Trump supporters to be participants in a riot, whether they remained to peacefully protest outside of the building or tried to get in with the rioters.
> 
> That’s absurd.
Click to expand...



Less absurd than your position, that my referring to it as a protest when it was called for, and a riot after the violence broke out, was somehow contradictory.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your point is based on pretending to not understand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your concept of linear time is applied here why?
Click to expand...



It is not my concept. Linear time is a lot bigger than me. You really should have gotten a firm grasp of it, long ago.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump called for a demonstration.
> 
> 
> That the crowd that showed up, turned into a riot later, does not conflict with that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the entire crowd that showed up turn the peaceful protests into a riot?
Click to expand...



I'm not sure how separate the overlapping groups were. Btu referring to the event as a riot at this point in time, is completely valid.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I'm not sure how separate the overlapping groups were. Btu referring to the event as a riot at this point in time, is completely valid.



Why is it valid to lump lawful peaceful protestors into the few that initiate violence and create a riot.

It’s easy to separate the violent from the non-violent in the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT because the peaceful law abiding protesters were outside the perimeter of the  Capitol Campus about 50 yards back. Not a violent bone in their Trump duped bodies.

Why don’t you make that valid distinction?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how separate the overlapping groups were. Btu referring to the event as a riot at this point in time, is completely valid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it valid to lump lawful peaceful protestors into the few that initiate violence and create a riot.
> 
> It’s easy to separate the violent from the non-violent in the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT because the peaceful law abiding protesters were outside the perimeter of the  Capitol Campus about 50 yards back. Not a violent bone in their Trump duped bodies.
> 
> Why don’t you make that valid distinction?
Click to expand...



An event is defined by what happened at it. Not everyone who was there is guilty of rioting. But it was a riot.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> An event is defined by what happened at it. Not everyone who was there is guilty of rioting. But it was a riot.



Did Trump organize the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT when you tell us the entire event is defined by what happened at it?




Correll said:


> Some lefty was gloating yesterday about some people being charged with conspiracy for organizing the dc riot.
> 
> I asked him how many lefties have been arrested for organizing the last 5 years of riots.



Assume you are referring to what yuh call BLM riots?

Why not apply your rule to  the organizer of the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT. There is no mystery as to who that is.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Flash said:


> Democrats to take the spotlight away from the fact they stole the election with the scam of unverified mail in ballots in Democrat controlled swing districts


Could you be specific? What states what districts, how many votes.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> An event is defined by what happened at it. Not everyone who was there is guilty of rioting. But it was a riot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Trump organize the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT when you tell us the entire event is defined by what happened at it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some lefty was gloating yesterday about some people being charged with conspiracy for organizing the dc riot.
> 
> I asked him how many lefties have been arrested for organizing the last 5 years of riots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Assume you are referring to what yuh call BLM riots?
> 
> Why not apply your rule to  the organizer of the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT. There is no mystery as to who that is.
Click to expand...




1. No, he called for a demonstration. That is not "organizing" it, nor is it causing it to become a riot.  

2. I actually refer to them as the antifa/blm riots. Because that is what they are.

3. I want the same rules applied to the riot organizers of all the riots. That is what the Equal Protection clause calls for. Either they all get a pass or they all get investigated and charged.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> You say math, liberals say racist!



How about this math?

Trump election fraud: 1 / Cops killed: 2

BLM anti-racism uprisings: 7305 / Cops killed: 0.


So if there were as many DJTQ 1/6 riots as BLM Riots there would have been 14,610 cops killed.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You say math, liberals say racist!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How about this math?
> 
> Trump election fraud: 1 / Cops killed: 2
> 
> BLM anti-racism uprisings: 7305 / Cops killed: 0.
> 
> 
> So if there were as many DJTQ 1/6 riots as BLM Riots there would have been 14,610 cops killed.
Click to expand...




1. Your math is bullshit

2. YOu talk like a retarded baby. This obsession with quanon is pathetic and weak of you.

3. I reject  your desire to give antifa a pass. They are just as responsible for this period of civil unrest as blm. 

4. I know that the reason you do it, is so you can wace bait.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> 1. No, he called for a demonstration. That is not "organizing" it, nor is it causing it to become a riot.



BLM organizers call for demonstration also. They do not call for or cause riots. BLM organizers in no way organized a riot. 

BLM organizers always call for peaceful

 So do you have some kind of rule that applies to whites only that organizing a protest is not to blame when I write it pops up?

But when Black people organize a protest they are fully responsible and always to blame whenever a riot pops up?


----------



## Rawley

Faun said:


> Rawley said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHat's more to investigate?  Even with your lmited resources you've shown they violated the statute.  Unless you're just making shit up and blowing it out of your ass.  But you would never do that, would you?
> 
> 
> 
> They haven't even captured everyone yet. The investigation continues. More charges will be coming. And I didn't show they violated that statute, Correll did...
Click to expand...


The FBI hasn't even captured them yet, but you've convicted them of sedition!!! You are so damn smart.  We are humbled in your presence.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> 2. YOu talk like a retarded baby.





Correll said:


> wace bait.



same post


----------



## Rawley

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. No, he called for a demonstration. That is not "organizing" it, nor is it causing it to become a riot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BLM organizers call for demonstration also. They do not call for or cause riots. BLM organizers in no way organized a riot.
Click to expand...

but by your logic, Trump did.  You funny.

Do you think it might have occurred to them after the 100th "protest" that turned into a riot, they might have caught on that the two were connected?


----------



## Faun

Rawley said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rawley said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHat's more to investigate?  Even with your lmited resources you've shown they violated the statute.  Unless you're just making shit up and blowing it out of your ass.  But you would never do that, would you?
> 
> 
> 
> They haven't even captured everyone yet. The investigation continues. More charges will be coming. And I didn't show they violated that statute, Correll did...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The FBI hasn't even captured them yet, but you've convicted them of sedition!!! You are so damn smart.  We are humbled in your presence.
Click to expand...

Shitty lawyer, I didn't convict them of sedition -- Correll did. What part of that is beyond your 1st grade reading comprehension?



Correll said:


> Bullshit. It caused a short delay in a formality.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. No, he called for a demonstration. That is not "organizing" it, nor is it causing it to become a riot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BLM organizers call for demonstration also. They do not call for or cause riots. BLM organizers in no way organized a riot.
> 
> BLM organizers always call for peaceful
> 
> So do you have some kind of rule that applies to whites only that organizing a protest is not to blame when I write it pops up?
> 
> But when Black people organize a protest they are fully responsible and always to blame whenever a riot pops up?
Click to expand...




Somewhere along the line, when you "call" for a "peaceful demonstration" and riots just happen to break  out, over and over again, your plausible deniability becomes not plausible. 


To be clear, I am not advocating arrests of antifa and blm organizers based on that.


What seems clear though is that an investigation into their activities that so often turn into riots, is certainly called for. 


Also, to be further clear, blocking traffic and holding people thus hostage in their cars, is not "peaceful".

And especially with antifa with their widespread use of masks. The intent to commit crime is obvious there.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. YOu talk like a retarded baby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> wace bait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> same post View attachment 461198
Click to expand...



Correct. The way that you wace baiters use race, we have to distinguish real accusations of real racism, from teh shit you people do.


That's reasonable. 


Your talking like a baby, is just you being a baby.


----------



## Rawley

Faun said:


> Shitty lawyer, I didn't convict them of sedition -- Correll did. What part of that is beyond your 1st grade reading comprehension?


Sure you did.  Did you forget what you wrote yesterday?  "No, I showed they violated a very serious law."
Does it frighten you even a little bit that you have the congnitive abilities of Joe Biden?


----------



## Rawley

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. YOu talk like a retarded baby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> wace bait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> same post View attachment 461198
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. The way that you wace baiters use race, we have to distinguish real accusations of real racism, from teh shit you people do.
> 
> 
> That's reasonable.
> 
> 
> Your talking like a baby, is just you being a baby.
Click to expand...

The word "racism" has zero meaning today.  Many common words have no meaning today due to the left's misuse.


----------



## Correll

Rawley said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. YOu talk like a retarded baby.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> wace bait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> same post View attachment 461198
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. The way that you wace baiters use race, we have to distinguish real accusations of real racism, from teh shit you people do.
> 
> 
> That's reasonable.
> 
> 
> Your talking like a baby, is just you being a baby.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The word "racism" has zero meaning today.  Many common words have no meaning today due to the left's misuse.
Click to expand...



I think my practice of spelling it with a "w" to give the feel of a retarded baby saying it, is a good way of dealing with that. 


THus, we can save the "r" word, for when it is a real discussion of actual racism.


----------



## Rawley

NotfooledbyW said:


> Trump election fraud: 1 / Cops killed: 2



2, huh?    Is that the tale they are telling you  in Rachel's Vagina?


----------



## Faun

Rawley said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shitty lawyer, I didn't convict them of sedition -- Correll did. What part of that is beyond your 1st grade reading comprehension?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you did.  Did you forget what you wrote yesterday?  "No, I showed they violated a very serious law."
> Does it frighten you even a little bit that you have the congnitive abilities of Joe Biden?
Click to expand...

LOL

Shitty lawyer, I showed the law, but what convicts them is their crime -- which was delaying the election certification -- which was posted by Correll.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Rawley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shitty lawyer, I didn't convict them of sedition -- Correll did. What part of that is beyond your 1st grade reading comprehension?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you did.  Did you forget what you wrote yesterday?  "No, I showed they violated a very serious law."
> Does it frighten you even a little bit that you have the congnitive abilities of Joe Biden?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Shitty lawyer, I showed the law, but what convicts them is their crime -- which was delaying the election certification -- which was posted by Correll.
Click to expand...



Hours of delay. So important. So important that you libs keep having to instead talk about the violence to justify your hysteria.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rawley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shitty lawyer, I didn't convict them of sedition -- Correll did. What part of that is beyond your 1st grade reading comprehension?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you did.  Did you forget what you wrote yesterday?  "No, I showed they violated a very serious law."
> Does it frighten you even a little bit that you have the congnitive abilities of Joe Biden?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Shitty lawyer, I showed the law, but what convicts them is their crime -- which was delaying the election certification -- which was posted by Correll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hours of delay. So important. So important that you libs keep having to instead talk about the violence to justify your hysteria.
Click to expand...

Show me where the law states it's ok to delay the law as long as it's only just for hours...









						18 U.S. Code § 2384 -  Seditious conspiracy
					






					www.law.cornell.edu
				




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.​


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Somewhere along the line, when you "call" for a "peaceful demonstration" and riots just happen to break out, over and over again, your plausible deniability becomes not plausible.



Who is the “you” in the  (when you "call" for a "peaceful demonstration".)

The “you” in the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT is TRUMP.

please do tell whom it might be that compares, within the BLM movement, to Trump and his election fraud movement

let’s get some names, dates and locations and positions of whoever you think keeps calling for demonstrations that bring riots over and over.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rawley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shitty lawyer, I didn't convict them of sedition -- Correll did. What part of that is beyond your 1st grade reading comprehension?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you did.  Did you forget what you wrote yesterday?  "No, I showed they violated a very serious law."
> Does it frighten you even a little bit that you have the congnitive abilities of Joe Biden?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Shitty lawyer, I showed the law, but what convicts them is their crime -- which was delaying the election certification -- which was posted by Correll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hours of delay. So important. So important that you libs keep having to instead talk about the violence to justify your hysteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where the law states it's ok to delay the law as long as it's only just for hours...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2384 -  Seditious conspiracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> ​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.​
Click to expand...



I did not say it was "ok". 

I pointed out that your hysteria is overblown considering what actually happened. 


The bit where you had to lie, in order to try to push back against me? That was you admitting in your heart, that you know I am right.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rawley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shitty lawyer, I didn't convict them of sedition -- Correll did. What part of that is beyond your 1st grade reading comprehension?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you did.  Did you forget what you wrote yesterday?  "No, I showed they violated a very serious law."
> Does it frighten you even a little bit that you have the congnitive abilities of Joe Biden?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Shitty lawyer, I showed the law, but what convicts them is their crime -- which was delaying the election certification -- which was posted by Correll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hours of delay. So important. So important that you libs keep having to instead talk about the violence to justify your hysteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where the law states it's ok to delay the law as long as it's only just for hours...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2384 -  Seditious conspiracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> ​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.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say it was "ok".
> 
> I pointed out that your hysteria is overblown considering what actually happened.
> 
> 
> The bit where you had to lie, in order to try to push back against me? That was you admitting in your heart, that you know I am right.
Click to expand...

Great, so we agree they broke that law.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Somewhere along the line, when you "call" for a "peaceful demonstration" and riots just happen to break out, over and over again, your plausible deniability becomes not plausible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is the “you” in the  (when you "call" for a "peaceful demonstration".)
> 
> The “you” in the DJTQ 1/6 RIOT is TRUMP.
> 
> please do tell whom it might be that compares, within the BLM movement, to Trump and his election fraud movement
> 
> let’s get some names, dates and locations and positions of whoever you think keeps calling for demonstrations that bring riots over and over.
Click to expand...



Sorry, President Trump called for a demonstration once on 1/6 that turned into a riot. That is ONCE, not over and over again. 

AND, I was clear, that imo, the next step is a real investigation, not arrest based just on that.


As to whom is behind the scenes organizing the antifa and blm riots? I don't know. The investigation has not been done. They have been given a pass.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rawley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shitty lawyer, I didn't convict them of sedition -- Correll did. What part of that is beyond your 1st grade reading comprehension?
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you did.  Did you forget what you wrote yesterday?  "No, I showed they violated a very serious law."
> Does it frighten you even a little bit that you have the congnitive abilities of Joe Biden?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Shitty lawyer, I showed the law, but what convicts them is their crime -- which was delaying the election certification -- which was posted by Correll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hours of delay. So important. So important that you libs keep having to instead talk about the violence to justify your hysteria.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me where the law states it's ok to delay the law as long as it's only just for hours...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 18 U.S. Code § 2384 -  Seditious conspiracy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.law.cornell.edu
> 
> 
> 
> ​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.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say it was "ok".
> 
> I pointed out that your hysteria is overblown considering what actually happened.
> 
> 
> The bit where you had to lie, in order to try to push back against me? That was you admitting in your heart, that you know I am right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so we agree they broke that law.
Click to expand...



YOu show an amazing ability to, after being exposed to some information over and over again, to state it as though it is a shocking revelation.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> That is ONCE, not over and over again.



Liar. I didn’t say It was. Trump’s first election fraud riot killed two cops.

what do you want -Three Strikes you are out?  Six dead cops?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is ONCE, not over and over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar. I didn’t say It was. Trump’s first election fraud riot killed two cops.
> 
> what do you want -Three Strikes you are out?  Six dead cops?
Click to expand...



I made a point about how repeatedly calling for a peaceful demonstration that turns into riots over and over again, loses you " plausible deniability".

You said, "that's Trump".


Now you are calling me a liar for pointing out that "once" is not "over and over again".



Trump has one riot. The leaders of antifa and blm, have hundreds. 


Your pretense of not understanding the difference, is you being a liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Rawley said:


> but by your logic, Trump did.



Liar, I’m saying Trump didn’t.

I’m saying BLM organizers at times call for demonstrations also. They do not call for or cause riots. BLM organizers in no way organized a riot at anytime anyplace anywhere. 

Neither did Trump call for a riot as far as we know.

What Trump did do though was see that his peaceful protest turned violent and when McCArthy called him and asked him to call off the rioters Trump ignored that specific call for help in a life or death situation. 

Trump’s response to trying to stop the violence was to incite the rioters more by tweeting to them that Pence was a coward.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Trump has one riot. The leaders of antifa and blm, have hundreds.



What leaders - let’s have names places and events since you are making an accusation here.  So we can compare that to Trump.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is ONCE, not over and over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar. I didn’t say It was. Trump’s first election fraud riot killed two cops.
> 
> what do you want -Three Strikes you are out?  Six dead cops?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I made a point about how repeatedly calling for a peaceful demonstration that turns into riots over and over again, loses you " plausible deniability".
> 
> You said, "that's Trump".
> 
> 
> Now you are calling me a liar for pointing out that "once" is not "over and over again".
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has one riot. The leaders of antifa and blm, have hundreds.
> 
> 
> Your pretense of not understanding the difference, is you being a liar.
Click to expand...



"Trump has one riot."

Have to disagree:





						What if there were no Trump-Capitol Rioters?
					

Rioters......but they weren't as the NYTimes put it, 'Trump loyalists.'    1.What if it was simply one more of the hundreds of Biden voter mayhem-assault-violence riots that we have witnessed for a year or more?  What if it were political theatre designed to smear Trump supporters, soften their...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				






It was a Biden voter riot.....as they all are.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has one riot. The leaders of antifa and blm, have hundreds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What leaders - let’s have names places and events since you are making an accusation here.  So we can compare that to Trump.
Click to expand...



Being criminals, they are less open in their activities than Trump.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Being criminals, they are less open in their activities than Trump.



So all this time you’re whattboutism is in reference to unknown fictitious villains on the order of some conspiracy theory you heard on the internet somewhere?

Fucking nice!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

PoliticalChic said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is ONCE, not over and over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar. I didn’t say It was. Trump’s first election fraud riot killed two cops.
> 
> what do you want -Three Strikes you are out?  Six dead cops?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I made a point about how repeatedly calling for a peaceful demonstration that turns into riots over and over again, loses you " plausible deniability".
> 
> You said, "that's Trump".
> 
> 
> Now you are calling me a liar for pointing out that "once" is not "over and over again".
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has one riot. The leaders of antifa and blm, have hundreds.
> 
> 
> Your pretense of not understanding the difference, is you being a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Trump has one riot."
> 
> Have to disagree:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if there were no Trump-Capitol Rioters?
> 
> 
> Rioters......but they weren't as the NYTimes put it, 'Trump loyalists.'    1.What if it was simply one more of the hundreds of Biden voter mayhem-assault-violence riots that we have witnessed for a year or more?  What if it were political theatre designed to smear Trump supporters, soften their...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a Biden voter riot.....as they all are.
Click to expand...


oh no! Correll PoliticalChic said you got it all wrong.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is ONCE, not over and over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar. I didn’t say It was. Trump’s first election fraud riot killed two cops.
> 
> what do you want -Three Strikes you are out?  Six dead cops?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I made a point about how repeatedly calling for a peaceful demonstration that turns into riots over and over again, loses you " plausible deniability".
> 
> You said, "that's Trump".
> 
> 
> Now you are calling me a liar for pointing out that "once" is not "over and over again".
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has one riot. The leaders of antifa and blm, have hundreds.
> 
> 
> Your pretense of not understanding the difference, is you being a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Trump has one riot."
> 
> Have to disagree:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if there were no Trump-Capitol Rioters?
> 
> 
> Rioters......but they weren't as the NYTimes put it, 'Trump loyalists.'    1.What if it was simply one more of the hundreds of Biden voter mayhem-assault-violence riots that we have witnessed for a year or more?  What if it were political theatre designed to smear Trump supporters, soften their...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a Biden voter riot.....as they all are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh no! Correll PoliticalChic said you got it all wrong.
Click to expand...



Whether it is one or zero, your sides hundreds is still far more. 


Thus your pretense that we are the bad guys, is absurd.


----------



## PoliticalChic

NotfooledbyW said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is ONCE, not over and over again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar. I didn’t say It was. Trump’s first election fraud riot killed two cops.
> 
> what do you want -Three Strikes you are out?  Six dead cops?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I made a point about how repeatedly calling for a peaceful demonstration that turns into riots over and over again, loses you " plausible deniability".
> 
> You said, "that's Trump".
> 
> 
> Now you are calling me a liar for pointing out that "once" is not "over and over again".
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has one riot. The leaders of antifa and blm, have hundreds.
> 
> 
> Your pretense of not understanding the difference, is you being a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Trump has one riot."
> 
> Have to disagree:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if there were no Trump-Capitol Rioters?
> 
> 
> Rioters......but they weren't as the NYTimes put it, 'Trump loyalists.'    1.What if it was simply one more of the hundreds of Biden voter mayhem-assault-violence riots that we have witnessed for a year or more?  What if it were political theatre designed to smear Trump supporters, soften their...
> 
> 
> 
> www.usmessageboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a Biden voter riot.....as they all are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh no! Correll PoliticalChic said you got it all wrong.
Click to expand...




The claim of Trump supporters being responsible for the riot flies in the face of reality, of experience with Biden voters.

It is the state media that 'got it wrong,' and you bought it like it was on sale.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Thus your pretense that we are the bad guys, is absurd.



I have no pretense that trumps peaceful protesters are the bad guys. Just as you should have no pretense that Black Lives Matter protesters are the bad guys. Fair is fair right is right.

So please quit lying. It’s getting old.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

PoliticalChic said:


> The claim of Trump supporters being responsible for the riot flies in the face of reality, of experience with Biden voters.



Trump has not ever claimed that the DJTQ 1/6 rioters we’re not his supporters. So why are you?


----------



## PoliticalChic

NotfooledbyW said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The claim of Trump supporters being responsible for the riot flies in the face of reality, of experience with Biden voters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump has not ever claimed that the DJTQ 1/6 rioters we’re not his supporters. So why are you?
Click to expand...




I have the facts......here:






						What if there were no Trump-Capitol Rioters?
					

Rioters......but they weren't as the NYTimes put it, 'Trump loyalists.'    1.What if it was simply one more of the hundreds of Biden voter mayhem-assault-violence riots that we have witnessed for a year or more?  What if it were political theatre designed to smear Trump supporters, soften their...



					www.usmessageboard.com
				





Have someone read it to you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Rawley said:


> 2, huh? Is that the tale they are telling you in Rachel's Vagina?



How many police officers were killed in the DJTQ 1/6 Riot? Fix news reports 1.   2 have committed suicide. I thought one had died of a medical condition. Apparently not.

so one officer was killed by Trump rioters in the DJTQ 1/6 Uprising. Zero police officers have be killed in BLM uprisings.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thus your pretense that we are the bad guys, is absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no pretense that trumps peaceful protesters are the bad guys. Just as you should have no pretense that Black Lives Matter protesters are the bad guys. Fair is fair right is right.
> 
> So please quit lying. It’s getting old.
Click to expand...



Depends what you mean by bad guys. The protestors might not be breaking a law at a particular time, but they are supporters of a violent and racist and marxist organization. 

Not my definition of good.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

PoliticalChic said:


> I have the facts......here:



You do not have facts. You are too mentally and factually  incompetent to be taken seriously.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Rawley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2, huh? Is that the tale they are telling you in Rachel's Vagina?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many police officers were killed in the DJTQ 1/6 Riot? Fix news reports 1.   2 have committed suicide. I thought one had died of a medical condition. Apparently not.
> 
> so one officer was killed by Trump rioters in the DJTQ 1/6 Uprising. Zero police officers have be killed in BLM uprisings.
Click to expand...



That is a lie.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Depends what you mean by bad guys. The protestors might not be breaking a law at a particular time, but they are supporters of a violent and racist and marxist organization.



And what violent organization do the BLM peaceful protesters support? You’re a goddamn liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> That is a lie.


What is a lie?


----------



## Rawley

NotfooledbyW said:


> How many police officers were killed in the DJTQ 1/6 Riot? Fix news reports 1.   2 have committed suicide. I thought one had died of a medical condition. Apparently not.
> so one officer was killed by Trump rioters in the DJTQ 1/6 Uprising. Zero police officers have be killed in BLM uprisings.



I assume you talking about officer Sicknick.  You do know the claim he was hit by a fire extinguisher were proven to be a left wing lie, right?  They have no idea why he died - at least they haven't told us.  His mom thinks he may have had a stoke.









						Capitol cop Brian Sicknick may have suffered fatal stroke, family says
					

Officer Sicknick's mother, Gladys, 74, told DailyMail.com: 'He wasn't hit on the head no, that was pretty quickly debunked. We think he had a stroke but we don't know anything for sure.




					www.dailymail.co.uk
				




Meanwhile several police and retired police have been killed and shot during the BLM riots.









						12 Police Officers Have Been Shot During the George Floyd Protests—Here Are Their Names
					

News of Floyd’s death prompted many to peacefully protest police brutality and violence, but spurred others to commit acts of looting, rioting and violence against police officers.




					news.yahoo.com


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Rawley said:


> Meanwhile several police and retired police have been killed and shot during the BLM riots.



There is no mention of BLM being responsible or associated with any of those attacks on police officers. Why did you lie and say they all happen during the BLM riots? Why do you Trump defenders have to lie so much?

On Officer Sicknick I have it from Capitol Police:
​Sicknick, a 13-year veteran of the police force, died on January 7, one day after he collapsed in his office after being "injured while physically engaging with protestors," the Capitol Police said in a statement last month.​
What are you calling the Capitol Police liars now?


----------



## Rawley

NotfooledbyW said:


> Rawley said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile several police and retired police have been killed and shot during the BLM riots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no mention of BLM being responsible or associated with any of those attacks on police officers. Why did you lie and say they all happen during the BLM riots? Why do you Trump defenders have to lie so much?
Click to expand...


We've been through this.  After the 50th BLM "protest" devolved into a riot, all of the riots Are BLM riots.   That you refuse to acknowledge this says volumes about you.



> On Officer Sicknick I have it from Capitol Police:
> ​Sicknick, a 13-year veteran of the police force, died on January 7, one day after he collapsed in his office after being "injured while physically engaging with protestors," the Capitol Police said in a statement last month.​
> What are you calling the Capitol Police liars now?



No, I'm calling you intellectually dishonest, if not challenged.  They did not say he died from any injury.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Rawley said:


> After the 50th BLM "protest" devolved into a riot, all of the riots Are BLM riots.



Whose rule is that? Did you pull it off a white supremacist website?

Seriously, who made that rule. Why did they choose fifty?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick passed away due to *injuries sustained while on-duty.   *Officer Sicknick was responding to the riots on Wednesday, January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol and was* injured while physically engaging with protesters.*

Here in Post 26629778 You refer to the Capitol Police as “they”    





Rawley said:


> They did not say he died from any injury.



*Loss of USCP Officer Brian D. Sicknick*​January 7, 2021​Press Release​


At approximately 9:30 p.m. this evening (January 7, 2021), United States Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick passed away due to injuries sustained while on-duty.​Officer Sicknick was responding to the riots on Wednesday, January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol and was injured while physically engaging with protesters.  He returned to his division office and collapsed.  He was taken to a local hospital where he succumbed to his injuries.  The death of Officer Sicknick will be investigated by the Metropolitan Police Department’s Homicide Branch, the USCP, and our federal partners.​
So you lied. Deal with it.





__





						Loss of USCP Officer Brian D. Sicknick
					

At approximately 9:30 p.m. this evening (January 7, 2021), United States Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick passed away due to injuries sustained while on-duty. Officer Sicknick was responding to the riots on Wednesday, January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol and was injured while physically...




					www.uscp.gov
				




In case you can’t figure it out USCP  is US CAPITOL POLICE - not Rachel Maddows Vagina you sick turd.


----------



## Faun

Rawley said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many police officers were killed in the DJTQ 1/6 Riot? Fix news reports 1.   2 have committed suicide. I thought one had died of a medical condition. Apparently not.
> so one officer was killed by Trump rioters in the DJTQ 1/6 Uprising. Zero police officers have be killed in BLM uprisings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I assume you talking about officer Sicknick.  You do know the claim he was hit by a fire extinguisher were proven to be a left wing lie, right?  They have no idea why he died - at least they haven't told us.  His mom thinks he may have had a stoke.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Capitol cop Brian Sicknick may have suffered fatal stroke, family says
> 
> 
> Officer Sicknick's mother, Gladys, 74, told DailyMail.com: 'He wasn't hit on the head no, that was pretty quickly debunked. We think he had a stroke but we don't know anything for sure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.dailymail.co.uk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile several police and retired police have been killed and shot during the BLM riots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 12 Police Officers Have Been Shot During the George Floyd Protests—Here Are Their Names
> 
> 
> News of Floyd’s death prompted many to peacefully protest police brutality and violence, but spurred others to commit acts of looting, rioting and violence against police officers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> news.yahoo.com
Click to expand...

*"...were proven to be a left wing lie..."*

You're truly fucked in the head, shitty lawyer. That claim came from 2 Capitol police officers. Let's see your proof they are "left wing".....


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> The protestors might not be breaking a law at a particular time, but they are supporters of a violent and racist and marxist organization.



What violent organization are you lying about now?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

The killings in the line of duty of other law enforcement officers during this period were not related to the protests. Post 26628965


Correll said:


> That is a lie.











						Black Lives Matter Protesters Were Overwhelmingly Peaceful, Our Research Finds | Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University
					

The Black Lives Matter uprisings were remarkably nonviolent. When there was violence, very often police or counterprotesters were reportedly directing it at the protesters.




					www.radcliffe.harvard.edu
				




I have a Radcliffe/Harvard study of individual BLM crowds, protests and demonstrations starting in 2017. No police officers were killed while engaged during BLM protests through May of last year. The study counted 7305 BLM protests.

Here is what we have found based on the 7,305 events we’ve collected. The overall levels of violence and property destruction were low, and most of the violence that did take place was, in fact, directed against the BLM protesters.​
First, police made arrests in 5% of the protest events, with over 8,500 reported arrests (or possibly more). Police used tear gas or related chemical substances in 2.5% of these events.​
Protesters or bystanders were reported injured in 1.6 percent of the protests. In total, at least three Black Lives Matter protesters and one other person were killed while protesting in Omaha, Austin and Kenosha, Wis. One anti-fascist protester killed a far-right group member during a confrontation in Portland, Ore.; law enforcement killed the alleged assailant several days later.​
Police were reported injured in 1% of the protests. A law enforcement officer killed in California was allegedly shot by supporters of the far-right “boogaloo” movement, not anti-racism protesters.​
The killings in the line of duty of other law enforcement officers during this period were not related to the protests.​
What does Correll have to call the above study a lie? Something he pulled out of his ass - because he won’t cite where he got it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Hours of delay. So important. So important that you libs keep having to instead talk about the violence to justify your hysteria.



DJTQ’s 1/6 Riot was an attempt to force Congess to reject the certified election only in certain states that Trump lost. The rioters intent was to get the members and Senators to reject those those electors and send them baby to the states to have a revote. Thus creating chaos by the necessity of delaying the inauguration on the date required by the Constitution.

Can you imagine the chaos resulting in rejection of millions of black votes in Milwaukee Detroit Philadelphia etc.

And you being the idiot that you are have rejected the fact that the only way the white supremacists and other rebellious Trump supporters could create the aforementioned chaos was through violence. Violence was the means to the end of creating chaos which the rioters belief was would keep Trump in the White House perhaps with the entire country under Trump edict of Martial  Law.

And you downplay it as just a little delay.



Correll said:


> made a point about how repeatedly calling for a peaceful demonstration that turns into riots over and over again, loses you " plausible deniability".
> 
> You said, "that's Trump".



No I didn’t - I was agreeing Trump’s riot was the first and only violent riot.




NotfooledbyW said:


> Liar. I didn’t say It was. Trump’s first election fraud riot killed two cops.



I correctly called you a liar because I never said TrumpQ’s one ‘election fraud’ riot occurred over and over again.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW said:


> Liar. I didn’t say It was. Trump’s first election fraud riot killed two cops.



And you lied where you put my words in quotation marks  (You said, "that's Trump".) . I didn’t say that in the post you cited. You are a liar - deal with it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> BLM is a SIT criminal organization and marxist. They have engaged in far more violence and rioting and "insurrection" than the little dust up at dc.



You are a liar: like Trump’s one “election fraud’ peaceful demonstration on 1/6 in DC BLM leaders organize peace demonstrations .
Its not their fault when peaceful demonstrations turn violent. 

Black Lives Matter demonstrations that took place across the US after the killing of George Floyd have been peaceful.​
ACLED found that the overwhelming majority of the more than 9.000 Black Lives Matter demonstrations that took place across the US after the killing of George Floyd have been peaceful. News reports at the height of demonstrations over Floyd’s killing cited dozens of deaths in connection with protests, but many of those turned out to be examples of deadly crimes carried out in the vicinity of protests, rather than directly related to the demonstrations themselves, the researchers concluded. ACLED’s dataset only focuses on political violence.​
At least 25 Americans were killed during protests and political unrest in 2020​
Other demonstrators died when cars drove through or rammed into crowds of Black Lives Matter protesters. Summer Taylor, a Black Lives Matter protester who worked in a veterinary clinic, was killed in such an incident in Seattle. So was Robert Forbes, a black protester from Bakersfield whose sister recalled him demonstrating decades earlier over the brutal police beating of Rodney King. In St Louis, Barry Perkins, a father of two, was killed after being dragged and run over by a FedEx truck”​
We are not ignoring BLM leadership’s calls for violence because BLM’s leaders do not call for violence.

No cops were killed at any of the 9000 BLM protests demonstrations crowds according to this Princeton study.

So when do you quit the lie that the worst riot that erupted after a peaceful BLM Protest is worse than the riot that broke out in DC at the Capitol on 1/6 following a call for a peaceful protest of the election by DJT?

A cop was killed after he engaged the TRUMP rioters - no cop was killed by Protesters outvif 9000 protests. 

Trump’s goons killed a cop in their one and only election ction fraud riot. 

And you want it called a little riot.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depends what you mean by bad guys. The protestors might not be breaking a law at a particular time, but they are supporters of a violent and racist and marxist organization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what violent organization do the BLM peaceful protesters support? You’re a goddamn liar.
Click to expand...



BLM is a violent and racist and marxist organization.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> The killings in the line of duty of other law enforcement officers during this period were not related to the protests. Post 26628965
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Black Lives Matter Protesters Were Overwhelmingly Peaceful, Our Research Finds | Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University
> 
> 
> The Black Lives Matter uprisings were remarkably nonviolent. When there was violence, very often police or counterprotesters were reportedly directing it at the protesters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.radcliffe.harvard.edu
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a Radcliffe/Harvard study of individual BLM crowds, protests and demonstrations starting in 2017. No police officers were killed while engaged during BLM protests through May of last year. The study counted 7305 BLM protests.
> 
> Here is what we have found based on the 7,305 events we’ve collected. The overall levels of violence and property destruction were low, and most of the violence that did take place was, in fact, directed against the BLM protesters.​​First, police made arrests in 5% of the protest events, with over 8,500 reported arrests (or possibly more). Police used tear gas or related chemical substances in 2.5% of these events.​​Protesters or bystanders were reported injured in 1.6 percent of the protests. In total, at least three Black Lives Matter protesters and one other person were killed while protesting in Omaha, Austin and Kenosha, Wis. One anti-fascist protester killed a far-right group member during a confrontation in Portland, Ore.; law enforcement killed the alleged assailant several days later.​​Police were reported injured in 1% of the protests. A law enforcement officer killed in California was allegedly shot by supporters of the far-right “boogaloo” movement, not anti-racism protesters.​​The killings in the line of duty of other law enforcement officers during this period were not related to the protests.​
> What does Correll have to call the above study a lie? Something he pulled out of his ass - because he won’t cite where he got it.
Click to expand...




Yeah, not buying it. I am just dismissing it. It reeks of bullshit.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hours of delay. So important. So important that you libs keep having to instead talk about the violence to justify your hysteria.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DJTQ’s 1/6 Riot was an attempt to force Congess to reject the certified election only in certain states that Trump lost. The rioters intent was to get the members and Senators to reject those those electors and send them baby to the states to have a revote. Thus creating chaos by the necessity of delaying the inauguration on the date required by the Constitution.
> 
> Can you imagine the chaos resulting in rejection of millions of black votes in Milwaukee Detroit Philadelphia etc.
> 
> And you being the idiot that you are have rejected the fact that the only way the white supremacists and other rebellious Trump supporters could create the aforementioned chaos was through violence. Violence was the means to the end of creating chaos which the rioters belief was would keep Trump in the White House perhaps with the entire country under Trump edict of Martial  Law.
> 
> And you downplay it as just a little delay.
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> made a point about how repeatedly calling for a peaceful demonstration that turns into riots over and over again, loses you " plausible deniability".
> 
> You said, "that's Trump".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I didn’t - I was agreeing Trump’s riot was the first and only violent riot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar. I didn’t say It was. Trump’s first election fraud riot killed two cops.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I correctly called you a liar because I never said TrumpQ’s one ‘election fraud’ riot occurred over and over again.
Click to expand...



1.  You show that you know it was nothing by the way you keep pivoting to talk about the violence.

2. Only an troll would pretend that quanon is relevant to anything.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> 1. You show that you know it was nothing by the way you keep pivoting to talk about the violence.


Since your reply has nothing to do with the post you were responding to I have no idea what context your point number one is about.

You say that I know nothing about something.. I know you’re a moron and you lie a lot.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> 2. Only an troll would pretend that quanon is relevant to anything.



The Q anon shaman was in the middle of the riot. He was not a peaceful protester. I saw many Trump flags flying in the breeze as the Trump riot commenced and as the Trump riot.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Yeah, not buying it. I am just dismissing it. It reeks of bullshit.



Of course you’re dismissing it. But it’s not because you have an equal in depth study on the subject or any data that indicates otherwise. It’s just that it must be dismissed because it interferes with your long practice of lying about Black Lives Matter being a violent organization and movement.

Where is the beef dude? Your word is worthless. Give us something to work with here.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You show that you know it was nothing by the way you keep pivoting to talk about the violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Since your reply has nothing to do with the post you were responding to I have no idea what context your point number one is about.
> 
> You say that I know nothing about something.. I know you’re a moron and you lie a lot.
Click to expand...



Your little two step about the 1/6 riot. You focus on the election angle so that you can pretend it is different from your side's years of riots, 

but, all that happened was a few hours delay,  not nearly enough to justify your pretend outrage.


So, then you focus on the violence. BUT, then I point out that the violence from a few hours on one day is nothing compared to the years of riots from your side, so you pivot BACK to "the election".

Over adn over again. 


That is this entire thread and your entire position on the issue.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Only an troll would pretend that quanon is relevant to anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Q anon shaman was in the middle of the riot. He was not a peaceful protester. ...
Click to expand...



So one guy was there and that makes a fringe conspiracy theory not a fringe conspiracy theory?

That is meaningless nonsense. 

My point stands. ONly a troll would pretend that quanon is relevant to anything.


You are that troll.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, not buying it. I am just dismissing it. It reeks of bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you’re dismissing it. But it’s not because you have an equal in depth study on the subject or any data that indicates otherwise. It’s just that it must be dismissed because it interferes with your long practice of lying about Black Lives Matter being a violent organization and movement.
> 
> Where is the beef dude? Your word is worthless. Give us something to work with here.
Click to expand...



Your pretense that you missed the last 5 years of riots is not credible. I dismiss it.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You show that you know it was nothing by the way you keep pivoting to talk about the violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Since your reply has nothing to do with the post you were responding to I have no idea what context your point number one is about.
> 
> You say that I know nothing about something.. I know you’re a moron and you lie a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your little two step about the 1/6 riot. You focus on the election angle so that you can pretend it is different from your side's years of riots,
> 
> but, all that happened was a few hours delay,  not nearly enough to justify your pretend outrage.
> 
> 
> So, then you focus on the violence. BUT, then I point out that the violence from a few hours on one day is nothing compared to the years of riots from your side, so you pivot BACK to "the election".
> 
> Over adn over again.
> 
> 
> That is this entire thread and your entire position on the issue.
Click to expand...

If you weren't such a fucking nut, you too would be outraged over the seditious attempt to take the Capitol in order to stop the certification of an election. The traitorous fuckers found guilty of that should have their citizenship revoked and should be shipped off to Gitmo.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You show that you know it was nothing by the way you keep pivoting to talk about the violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Since your reply has nothing to do with the post you were responding to I have no idea what context your point number one is about.
> 
> You say that I know nothing about something.. I know you’re a moron and you lie a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your little two step about the 1/6 riot. You focus on the election angle so that you can pretend it is different from your side's years of riots,
> 
> but, all that happened was a few hours delay,  not nearly enough to justify your pretend outrage.
> 
> 
> So, then you focus on the violence. BUT, then I point out that the violence from a few hours on one day is nothing compared to the years of riots from your side, so you pivot BACK to "the election".
> 
> Over adn over again.
> 
> 
> That is this entire thread and your entire position on the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you weren't such a fucking nut, you too would be outraged over the seditious attempt to take the Capitol in order to stop the certification of an election. The traitorous fuckers found guilty of that should have their citizenship revoked and should be shipped off to Gitmo.
Click to expand...



i was outraged over the violent riots used as partisan political tools. 

At first. After 5 years, I would say my response was more one of sadness at the death of our democracy. 


By the time it got to the point that my side actually had a riot, my response was pretty muted.


You made political riots normal. 


Your pretense that you are that outraged over a delay of a few hours of a formality, is not credible.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> BLM is a violent and racist and marxist organization.



Give me names, leadership, places, events, times, that factually support your thus far unsupported racist accusation that BLM is a violent organization and movement.

All it can be determined by your hateful commentary on BLM is that you must think any black organization has to be violent because you believe blacks are violent. I see no other way that you could every second conclusion without your in green prejudice and bigotry. So All it can be determined by your hateful commentary on BLM is that you must think any black organization has to be violent because you believe blacks are violent. I see no other way that you could every second conclusion without your deeply ingrained prejudice and bigotry.

Perhaps you have the facts to back up this constant lie of yours, but none of us have seen them yet. Why is that?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Give me names, leadership, places, events, times, that factually support your thus far unsupported racist accusation that BLM is a violent organization and movement.
> 
> All it can be determined by your hateful commentary on BLM is that you must think any black organization has to be violent because you believe blacks are violent. I see no other way




I stopped reading here. You just got too stupid.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> was outraged over the violent riots used as partisan political tools.



You cannot say anything more stupid.

Peaceful protests are a political tool and they need to be. Democrats support peaceful protest. It’s a fucking constitutional right you dumb ass. However to say the Democrats use riots as a political tool is asinine and is so far out there you need to check your brain in for service or something.

Riots and looting and senseless violence hurt protests for social justice and therefore the Democratic Party. It is white right wing groups like the Boogaloo boys making sure the peaceful demonstrations are violent because peaceful demonstrations destroy the right wing’s opposition to social justice.

I really think you are losing your mind. Get help.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You show that you know it was nothing by the way you keep pivoting to talk about the violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Since your reply has nothing to do with the post you were responding to I have no idea what context your point number one is about.
> 
> You say that I know nothing about something.. I know you’re a moron and you lie a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your little two step about the 1/6 riot. You focus on the election angle so that you can pretend it is different from your side's years of riots,
> 
> but, all that happened was a few hours delay,  not nearly enough to justify your pretend outrage.
> 
> 
> So, then you focus on the violence. BUT, then I point out that the violence from a few hours on one day is nothing compared to the years of riots from your side, so you pivot BACK to "the election".
> 
> Over adn over again.
> 
> 
> That is this entire thread and your entire position on the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you weren't such a fucking nut, you too would be outraged over the seditious attempt to take the Capitol in order to stop the certification of an election. The traitorous fuckers found guilty of that should have their citizenship revoked and should be shipped off to Gitmo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i was outraged over the violent riots used as partisan political tools.
> 
> At first. After 5 years, I would say my response was more one of sadness at the death of our democracy.
> 
> 
> By the time it got to the point that my side actually had a riot, my response was pretty muted.
> 
> 
> You made political riots normal.
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you are that outraged over a delay of a few hours of a formality, is not credible.
Click to expand...

I'll accept that as you simply don't understand what the word, "sedition," means.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> istopped reading here.



That is easily predictable because there is where I ask again and again for facts leaders names times places events that have brought you to a conclusion that BLM is a violent organization.

You have nothing. Why would you continue to read?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> At first. After 5 years, I would say my response was more one of sadness at the death of our democracy.



What death of democracy is that?

November 3 was a tribute to American democratic institutions. We accomplished an amazing election In numbers of voters and in election security, all in the face of a global pandemic. The biggest threat to our democratic institutions came from the loser of the presidential race. That culminated In the January 6 insurrection. Fortunately the court system held this time. Fortunately lawmakers and officials in critical states were more devoted to the state constitutions and the federal  constitution than they were to the Republican party and the fascist wannabe Donald J Trump. Fortunately vice president Pence refused to go along with Trump’s last minute desperate attempt to overthrow a legitimate secure decisive election because lost.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> was outraged over the violent riots used as partisan political tools.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you cannot say anything more stupid. Peaceful protests are political tool and they need to be Democrats support peaceful protest. It’s a fucking constitutional right you dumb ass. However to say the Democrats use riots as a political tool is asinine and is so far out there you need to check your brain in for service or something.
> 
> rioting and looting and senseless violence hurt because for social justice and therefore the Democratic Party. It’s white it’s white right wing groups like the Boogaloo boys make sure the peaceful demonstrations are violent because peaceful demonstrations Destroy the right wing Republican opposition to social justice.
> 
> I really think you are losing your mind. Get help.
Click to expand...




The rioting helped the democratic party because it supported the narrative fo President TRump not being "normal".

It was also useful because is supported the narrative of America as a wacist nation, even ws. 


The various right wing groups, did NOT make sure that the demonstrations became violent.


Antifa, blm, those people are your side's brown shirts, goons who employ violence against your political enemies.


OWN it,  Living in denial is a sickness, a weakness.


----------



## Rawley

Faun said:


> You're truly fucked in the head, shitty lawyer. That claim came from 2 Capitol police officers. Let's see your proof they are "left wing".....



Is that what they are  telling you in Rachel's Vagina?  That the Capitol police claimed he was killled by protestors with a fire extinguisher?  And you deep throated it, like elevatorboy


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. You show that you know it was nothing by the way you keep pivoting to talk about the violence.
> 
> 
> 
> Since your reply has nothing to do with the post you were responding to I have no idea what context your point number one is about.
> 
> You say that I know nothing about something.. I know you’re a moron and you lie a lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your little two step about the 1/6 riot. You focus on the election angle so that you can pretend it is different from your side's years of riots,
> 
> but, all that happened was a few hours delay,  not nearly enough to justify your pretend outrage.
> 
> 
> So, then you focus on the violence. BUT, then I point out that the violence from a few hours on one day is nothing compared to the years of riots from your side, so you pivot BACK to "the election".
> 
> Over adn over again.
> 
> 
> That is this entire thread and your entire position on the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you weren't such a fucking nut, you too would be outraged over the seditious attempt to take the Capitol in order to stop the certification of an election. The traitorous fuckers found guilty of that should have their citizenship revoked and should be shipped off to Gitmo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i was outraged over the violent riots used as partisan political tools.
> 
> At first. After 5 years, I would say my response was more one of sadness at the death of our democracy.
> 
> 
> By the time it got to the point that my side actually had a riot, my response was pretty muted.
> 
> 
> You made political riots normal.
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you are that outraged over a delay of a few hours of a formality, is not credible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll accept that as you simply don't understand what the word, "sedition," means.
Click to expand...


Your little two step about the 1/6 riot. You focus on the election angle so that you can pretend it is different from your side's years of riots,

but, all that happened was a few hours delay,  not nearly enough to justify your pretend outrage.


So, then you focus on the violence. BUT, then I point out that the violence from a few hours on one day is nothing compared to the years of riots from your side, so you pivot BACK to "the election".

Over adn over again.


That is this entire thread and your entire position on the issue.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> istopped reading here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is easily predictable because there is where I ask again and again for facts leaders names times places events that have brought you to a conclusion that BLM is a violent organization.
> 
> You have nothing. Why would you continue to read?
Click to expand...



Your pretense that you have missed the last 5 years of riots, is not credible.


----------



## Rawley

NotfooledbyW said:


> Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick passed away due to *injuries sustained while on-duty.   *Officer Sicknick was responding to the riots on Wednesday, January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol and was* injured while physically engaging with protesters.*
> 
> Here in Post 26629778 You refer to the Capitol Police as “they”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rawley said:
> 
> 
> 
> They did not say he died from any injury.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Loss of USCP Officer Brian D. Sicknick*​January 7, 2021​Press Release​
> 
> At approximately 9:30 p.m. this evening (January 7, 2021), United States Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick passed away due to injuries sustained while on-duty.​Officer Sicknick was responding to the riots on Wednesday, January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol and was injured while physically engaging with protesters.  He returned to his division office and collapsed.  He was taken to a local hospital where he succumbed to his injuries.  The death of Officer Sicknick will be investigated by the Metropolitan Police Department’s Homicide Branch, the USCP, and our federal partners.​
> So you lied. Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Loss of USCP Officer Brian D. Sicknick
> 
> 
> At approximately 9:30 p.m. this evening (January 7, 2021), United States Capitol Police Officer Brian D. Sicknick passed away due to injuries sustained while on-duty. Officer Sicknick was responding to the riots on Wednesday, January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol and was injured while physically...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.uscp.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In case you can’t figure it out USCP  is US CAPITOL POLICE - not Rachel Maddows Vagina you sick turd.
Click to expand...

LOL  If you pulled your head out of Rachel's Vagina just fora moment to get some fresh air you might notice that was released the day he died.  Please post the result of the coroner's report or the investigation.  You can't.  Becasue they haven't released it.  Because it damages your left wing loon narrative. Wake up.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> At first. After 5 years, I would say my response was more one of sadness at the death of our democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What death of democracy is that?
> ....
Click to expand...



The use of political brown shirts and massive censorship and propaganda. You can't have a civil discourse or a free election in such circumstances. 


Imagine for a moment if it were Proud Boys, rioting so much and conservative media and big tech that controlled the flow of information.


That is how I felt looking at you people do  it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> The use of political brown shirts



What political brown shirts. Can you give me names? And what they did to you.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The use of political brown shirts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What political brown shirts. Can you give me names? And what they did to you.
Click to expand...



Antifa and blm. 


Your spin that I have to have been personally hurt to comment is just you being a troll.


----------



## Faun

Rawley said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're truly fucked in the head, shitty lawyer. That claim came from 2 Capitol police officers. Let's see your proof they are "left wing".....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what they are  telling you in Rachel's Vagina?  That the Capitol police claimed he was killled by protestors with a fire extinguisher?  And you deep throated it, like elevatorboy
Click to expand...

LOL

Shitty lawyer ... 









						US Capitol Police officer dies from injuries in riot; federal homicide investigation opened
					

U.S. Capitol Police said Thursday police officer Brian Sicknick died due to injuries sustained in response to the riot led by supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday at the Capitol.




					fox59.com
				




_WASHINGTON (NewsNation Now) — U.S. Capitol Police said Thursday officer Brian Sicknick died due to injuries sustained in response to the riot led by supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday at the Capitol.

“Officer Sicknick was responding to the riots on Wednesday, January 6, 2021, at the U.S. Capitol and was injured while physically engaging with protesters,” the police said.

During the melee, Sicknick, 42, was hit in the head with a fire extinguisher, *two law enforcement officials said*. The officials could not discuss the ongoing investigation publicly and spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity._​


----------



## NotfooledbyW

The use of.....





Correll said:


> massive censorship



What massive use of censorship? Where, when, who caused the death of American democracy?


The massive use of.....





Correll said:


> propaganda.



What massive use of propaganda? Where, when, who led to the death of American democracy in your feelings, snowflake?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Antifa and BLM killed American Democracy.  post: 26632861 





Correll said:


> The use of political brown shirts and massive censorship and propaganda. You can't have a civil discourse or a free election in such circumstances.





Correll said:


> Antifa and blm.
> 
> Your spin that I have to have been personally hurt to comment is just you being a troll.



You are a liar. I am not insisting that you had to be personally hurt to comment. What did they do that led you to the insane baseless belief that the last five years brought the death of American Democracy and made you a sad sad sad little snowflake. In tears.

Now we have your answer: it was Black Lives Matter and their peaceful protests for social justice and ANTIFA that killed American democracy in your mind.

Just trying to understand what is rattling around in that thick skull of yours.

Now we know.

Now I can comment on your pain and suffering over the death of American Democracy and who you think killed it.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> I am not insisting that you had to be personally hurt to comment.



Then what was that snide shit about "what they did to you"? 

You assholes constantly pepper your posts with infantile shit and expect us to treat  you as though you are not talking like retarded babies.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

NotfooledbyW said:


> What political brown shirts. Can you give me names? And what they did to you.





Correll said:


> Then what was that snide shit about "what they did to you"?



Oh THAT? The request you did not answer?

I forgot I asked you that, Thanks for the reminder. Now that I have your attention will you give me the names of the people associated with Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA that specifically hindered your ability to vote. DId they come to your house and prevent you from going to the polls or tear down your yard signs? What what did they do?

And asking that question does not mean that I’m trying to censor you from commenting if they did nothing to you. You made a claim that American democracy is dead and it’s because of antifa and BLM. Don’t we deserve to know what drove you to that nutty conclusion?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> What political brown shirts. Can you give me names? And what they did to you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then what was that snide shit about "what they did to you"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh THAT? The request to did not answer?
> 
> .... Now that I have your attention will you give me the names of the people associated with Black Lives Matter and ANTIFA that specifically hindered your ability to vote. DId they come to your house and prevent you from going to the polls or tear down your yard signs? What what did they do?
> ....
Click to expand...



You cannot have a civil or even real debate on issues, when violent mobs are targeted on people that speak out from one side. 


Combine that with the massive censorship and propaganda from your side and the election becomes not free, not fair.


And thus, not legitimate.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> At first. After 5 years, I would say my response was more one of sadness at the death of our democracy.



I think you missed the boat on what is dying.

What is actually *making you sad* is the death of the Republican Party since it became overwhelmingly irrational and absent a connection to reality since the take over by Trump and the white evangelical wing of the conservative movement.

Trump’s lost to Joe Biden because Biden  was chosen by Democrats to defeat Trump mostly because he had such strong support from the black churches. The black churches won and that makes you sad because Trump and his white church voter base cannot grow. And without growth the Party dies.

Read this
In a series of tweets, a prominent conservative critic of Donald Trump offered up a mea culpa for standing by for years as the Republican Party he proudly belonged to was taken over by Christian fundamentalists, racists and "gun nuts" which culminated with the party embracing Donald Trump.​​On Twitter, Tom Nichols -- a professor at the Naval War College -- responded to a commenter who claimed he left the Republican Party due to the "Christian right wing (American Hezbollah)."​
Conservative apologizes for ignoring racist evangelical takeover of the GOP -- which led to Trump​


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> violent mobs are targeted on people that speak out from one side.



What violent  mobs,  when and where targeted at whom,  are you fucking talking about?

You are getting into delusions territory.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> At first. After 5 years, I would say my response was more one of sadness at the death of our democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you missed the boat on what is dying.
> 
> What is actually *making you sad* is the death of the Republican Party since it became overwhelmingly irrational and absent a connection to reality since the take over by Trump and the white evangelical wing of the conservative movement.
> 
> Trump’s lost to Joe Biden because Biden  was chosen by Democrats to defeat Trump mostly because he had such strong support from the black churches. The black churches won and that makes you sad because Trump and his white church voter base cannot grow. And without growth the Party dies.
> 
> Read this
> In a series of tweets, a prominent conservative critic of Donald Trump offered up a mea culpa for standing by for years as the Republican Party he proudly belonged to was taken over by Christian fundamentalists, racists and "gun nuts" which culminated with the party embracing Donald Trump.​​On Twitter, Tom Nichols -- a professor at the Naval War College -- responded to a commenter who claimed he left the Republican Party due to the "Christian right wing (American Hezbollah)."​
> Conservative apologizes for ignoring racist evangelical takeover of the GOP -- which led to Trump​
Click to expand...




1. My point was that the mob violence of the Left, combined with the propaganda and censorship is the death of democracy. You failed to address that.

2. Trump won the gop primaries based on economic nationalism and populism. That is not irrational nor the death of hte party. It is also NOT the victory of the religious wing.

3. This is the first time I have heard someone give credit to the black churches for Biden. I don't know or care if that is true. It does not make me sad as I am unaware of it.

4. Your wace baiting is noted and dismissed.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> violent mobs are targeted on people that speak out from one side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What violent  mobs,  when and where targeted at whom,  are you fucking talking about?
> 
> You are getting into delusions territory.
Click to expand...


The violent mobs, antifa, blm, random lefties. 


Your pretense that you missed all of that is not credible.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> The violent mobs, antifa, blm, random lefties.
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you missed all of that is not credible.



You say I ignore violence related to the Black Lives Matter movement. But what can I do? You cannot provide a single name , person at any event at any time in any place that you want me quit ignoring. Who specifically do you want me to stop ignoring?

Who, named individual, prevented you from voting or censored you from commenting on anything for the past five years? If it never happened to you how do you know that it  happened to anybody else?. You are not naming names or placing places; you are  muttering shit.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The violent mobs, antifa, blm, random lefties.
> 
> 
> Your pretense that you missed all of that is not credible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say I ignore violence related to the Black Lives Matter movement. But what can I do? You cannot provide a single name , person at any event at any time in any place that you want me quit ignoring. Who specifically do you want me to stop ignoring?
> 
> Who, named individual, prevented you from voting or censored you from commenting on anything for the past five years? If it never happened to you how do you know that it  happened to anybody else?. You are not naming names or placing places; you are  muttering shit.
Click to expand...



You don't need to know the name of a masked individual committing violence to know that he committed violence. 


Your demand is a senseless rationalization for you to NOT deal with my point.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Your demand is a senseless rationalization for you to NOT deal with my point.



You don’t have a point until you provide the evidence or data or named persons in the BLM movement that supports your claim that BLM is a violent organization. They are a peaceful organization calling for peaceful protest. When a riot broke out at the Trump election fraud peaceful protest you say that is no fault of the organizers. But I see when the organizers are black they are responsible if violence breaks out at a peaceful protest in your hate filled racist mind.

You have no point. Racists have no point
That can be taken seriously.

Your whattaboutism is based on your unsupported conclusion that BLM is a violent organization. You have been asked to support your baseless accusation over and over again and you cannot do it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> You don't need to know the name of a masked individual committing violence to know that he committed violence.



When you do that whataboutism thing I’m just not sure what your expectations are to satisfy your goofy requests to cease ti ignore anonymous masked individuals who committed acts of violence which I wholeheartedly deplore and they have nothing to do with me or my political views. What the fuck do you want?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Your demand is a senseless rationalization for you to NOT deal with my point.



I have dealt with your lies that you refer to as your point. You have no rebuttal. 


Black Lives Matter demonstrations that took place across the US after the killing of George Floyd have been peaceful. 



ACLED found that the overwhelming majority of the more than 9.000 Black Lives Matter demonstrations that took place across the US after the killing of George Floyd have been peaceful. News reports at the height of demonstrations over Floyd’s killing cited dozens of deaths in connection with protests, but many of those turned out to be examples of deadly crimes carried out in the vicinity of protests, rather than directly related to the demonstrations themselves, the researchers concluded. ACLED’s dataset only focuses on political violence.



At least 25 Americans were killed during protests and political unrest in 2020



Other demonstrators died when cars drove through or rammed into crowds of Black Lives Matter protesters. Summer Taylor, a Black Lives Matter protester who worked in a veterinary clinic, was killed in such an incident in Seattle. So was Robert Forbes, a black protester from Bakersfield whose sister recalled him demonstrating decades earlier over the brutal police beating of Rodney King. In St Louis, Barry Perkins, a father of two, was killed after being dragged and run over by a FedEx truck.


The Black Lives Matter uprisings were remarkably nonviolent. When there was violence, very often police or counterprotesters were reportedly directing it at the protesters.

Black Lives Matter Protesters Were Overwhelmingly Peaceful, Our Research Finds | Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard University
Here is what we have found based on the 7,305 events we’ve collected. The overall levels of violence and property destruction were low, and most of the violence that did take place was, in fact, directed against the BLM protesters.

First, police made arrests in 5% of the protest events, with over 8,500 reported arrests (or possibly more). Police used tear gas or related chemical substances in 2.5% of these events.

Protesters or bystanders were reported injured in 1.6 percent of the protests. In total, at least three Black Lives Matter protesters and one other person were killed while protesting in Omaha, Austin and Kenosha, Wis. One anti-fascist protester killed a far-right group member during a confrontation in Portland, Ore.; law enforcement killed the alleged assailant several days later.

Police were reported injured in 1% of the protests. A law enforcement officer killed in California was allegedly shot by supporters of the far-right “boogaloo” movement, not anti-racism protesters.

The killings in the line of duty of other law enforcement officers during this period were not related to the protests.

Only 3.7% of the protests involved property damage or vandalism. Some portion of these involved neither police nor protesters, but people engaging in vandalism or looting alongside the protests.

In short, our data suggest that 96.3% of events involved no property damage or police injuries, and in 97.7% of events, no injuries were reported among participants, bystanders or police.

These figures should correct the narrative that the protests were overtaken by rioting and vandalism or violence.

Such claims are false. Incidents in which there was protester violence or property destruction should be regarded as exceptional – and not representative of the uprising as a whole.

In many instances, police reportedly began or escalated the violence, but some observers nevertheless blame the protesters.

The claim that the protests are violent – even when the police started the violence – can help local, state and federal forces justify intentionally beating, gassing or kettling the people marching, or reinforces politicians’ calls for “law and order.”

Given that protesters were objecting to extrajudicial police killings of Black citizens, protesters displayed an extraordinary level of nonviolent discipline, particularly for a campaign involving hundreds of documented incidents of apparent police brutality.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll   are you ignoring this violence?


 A law enforcement officer killed in California was allegedly shot by supporters of the far-right “boogaloo” movement,
Other demonstrators died when cars drove through or rammed into crowds of Black Lives Matter protesters. Summer Taylor, a Black Lives Matter protester who worked in a veterinary clinic, was killed in such an incident in Seattle.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> 1. My point was that the mob violence of the Left, combined with the propaganda and censorship is the death of democracy. You failed to address that.



Liar. I’ve been addressing your racism and lies from every single angle. Requesting you to produce some facts and data. And you refuse to comply.

There was no death of American democracy. You are a complete idiot for being sad about that.  So your point makes absolutely no sense in the first place.

And you’re out loud crying about mob violence over the past few years apparently is based on your belief in nothing but lies and rightwing propaganda. You have produced absolutely no data or study that backs up your claim that all violence us based on the BLM Movement and that it’s all left driven violence supported by the Democratic Party and News Media.

You do not consider lethal and excessive use of force against Black people by police officers to be violence apparently.

Do you not consider right wing militia groups, white supremacists and other extremists that disrupt peaceful demonstrations for social justice to be violence?  apparently not.

When Trump calls for a peaceful demonstration and a riot shows up -  he is not responsible. When BLM calls for a peaceful demonstration and a riot shows up they are violent organization. They are fully responsible for all the violence. In your head.

Why and what is that if it is not your racist attitude against BLM?

You got some explaining to do.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> 2. Trump won the gop primaries based on economic nationalism and populism. That is not irrational



Trump won the GOP Primary by courting  the white evangelical Christian nationalist voters. Probably the strongest and consistent voting block in the country. Running in the Primaries, he promised the leaders of the white evangelical nationalist Christian movement power. He told them if they elect him, if they choose him he will give Christians power. He will give them judges. They did it. They got it. Sorry they are not rational people.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your demand is a senseless rationalization for you to NOT deal with my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t have a point until you provide the evidence or data or named persons in the BLM movement that supports your claim that BLM is a violent organization. They are a peaceful organization calling for peaceful protest. When a riot broke out at the Trump election fraud peaceful protest you say that is no fault of the organizers. But I see when the organizers are black they are responsible if violence breaks out at a peaceful protest in your hate filled racist mind.
> 
> You have no point. Racists have no point
> That can be taken seriously.
> 
> Your whattaboutism is based on your unsupported conclusion that BLM is a violent organization. You have been asked to support your baseless accusation over and over again and you cannot do it.
Click to expand...




I've already addressed that point. 


Having a riot break out ONCE, is a tragedy. Having a riot break out hundreds of times, is a plan. 


Your reference to wace is noted and held against you. Note that I constantly refer to antifa/blm riots of the last two years. You keep dropping antifa to focus on half the problem so you can wace bait like a retarded child.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't need to know the name of a masked individual committing violence to know that he committed violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you do that whataboutism thing I’m just not sure what your expectations are to satisfy your goofy requests to cease ti ignore anonymous masked individuals who committed acts of violence which I wholeheartedly deplore and they have nothing to do with me or my political views. What the fuck do you want?
Click to expand...



I want you to stop inventing excuses to ignore the riots of antifa/blm. 

Such as demanding the names of their leaders as though the lack of identified leaders means that there are none.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your demand is a senseless rationalization for you to NOT deal with my point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have dealt with your lies that you refer to as your point. You have no rebuttal.
> 
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> Other demonstrators died when cars drove through or rammed into crowds of Black Lives Matter protesters. Summer Taylor, a Black Lives Matter protester who worked in a veterinary clinic, was killed in such an incident in Seattle. So was Robert Forbes, a black protester from Bakersfield whose sister recalled him demonstrating decades earlier over the brutal police beating of Rodney King. In St Louis, Barry Perkins, a father of two, was killed after being dragged and run over by a FedEx truck.
> ...
Click to expand...




Nice cut and pastes. 



I will address this part of your gish gallop fallacy.


When a crowd blocks a road, especially trapping cars in traffic, that is a threat of violence. THe drivers of the cars are presented with a choice of being held prisoner in place or facing the violence of the mob OR if they manage to escape beign arrested by the police at the orders of dem mayors.


That it is not counted as violence is lying by politically tainted researchers.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll   are you ignoring this violence?
> 
> 
> A law enforcement officer killed in California was allegedly shot by supporters of the far-right “boogaloo” movement,




There have been incidents of oppose side infiltrators on both sides trying to make the other side look bad. 

The idea that either or both side's examples of violence or rioting is primarily caused by pretenders, 


seems far fetched, and something that belongs in the Conspiracy Sub Forum, at least until well supported.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Liar. I’ve been addressing your racism




Stopped reading here. I you want to just call me names, fuck you.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Trump won the gop primaries based on economic nationalism and populism. That is not irrational
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump won the GOP Primary by courting  the white evangelical Christian nationalist voters. Probably the strongest and consistent voting block in the country. Running in the Primaries, he promised the leaders of the white evangelical nationalist Christian movement power. He told them if they elect him, if they choose him he will give Christians power. He will give them judges. They did it. They got it. Sorry they are not rational people.
Click to expand...



Everything you said there was wrong.


1. Evangelical Christians are a bloc in teh gop. They are not the strongest. If they were, mike huckabee would have been the gop candidate in 2008

2. He did not promise them power. He promised them protection from anti-Christian bigots like you.

3. He won in the primaries by courting the working class voters of the gop. They have been largely ignored in policy for a long time and reacted very strongly to the promise of a "turn".

4. he did give them judges. That is a campaign promise made and a campaign promise delivered.

5 All of that is rational and not only rational, but GOOD. It is the way our system is supposed to work. That it bothers you is something wrong with YOU, not us.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Stopped reading here.




Of course you did, Had you read farther you would find this shining example of your racism and your racist slander and defamation of BLM as a violent organization.



NotfooledbyW said:


> When Trump calls for a peaceful demonstration and a riot shows up - he is not responsible. When BLM calls for a peaceful demonstration and a riot shows up they are violent organization. They are fully responsible for all the violence. In your head.



Its black and white.

You argue that:

When Trump calls for a peaceful demonstration and a riot shows up - he is not responsible for violence in any way shape or form:

When BLM calls for a peaceful demonstration and a riot shows up they are a violent organization. They are fully responsible for all the violence and therefore are a violent organization.

You refuse to either substantively refute two major studies that I’ve posted that show that out of over 7000 BLM protests nationwide around 3% are tarnished by violence.

BLM is a peaceful movement. You argue that it’s violent because you Correll are a racist.

And no cops were killed at a BLM protest.

Read MLK and Gandhi - it might bring you away from your racism if you understood what peaceful protest is.

There was much more violence at KING AND GHANDI  protests - what I’m hearing
from you is - protests must cease and desist if violence happens. The cause has no bearing and justification and those who champion a cause against injustice are to blame if the reaction to peaceful protest and what is called non-violent civil disobedience is hostile.

Instead of your normal boilerplate unhinged from reality responses why don’t you first watch a movie: I 


*Gandhi* is a 1982 period biographical film based on the life of Mahatma Gandhi, the leader of nonviolent non-cooperative Indian independence movement against the British Raj during the 20th century. A co-production between India and United Kingdom, it is directed and produced by Richard Attenborough from a screenplay written by John Briley. It stars Ben Kingsley in the title role. The film covers Gandhi's life from a defining moment in 1893, as he is thrown off a South African train for being in a whites-only compartment, and concludes with his assassination and funeral in 1948. Although a practising Hindu, Gandhi's embracing of other faiths, particularly Christianity and Islam, is also depicted.


Gandhi


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Of course you did, Had you read farther you would find this shining example of your racism




Stopped reading here. If all you want to do is name call, I can play that game. 


You are an asshole.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Stopped reading here.



That’s too bad. You don’t want to know what you keep saying that only a racist would say.

I understand your dilemma


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Trump's appeal among this group really was a cultural appeal. It was really the "Make America Great Again" mantra. I think most of the power of that slogan was in the last word: again. It was hearkening back to a kind of 1950s America, where white Christians and particularly white Anglo-Saxon Protestants were more dominant in the society demographically and culturally.
post: 26638841


Correll said:


> 1. Evangelical Christians are a bloc in teh gop. They are not the strongest.



What group is stronger.

The “again” in MAGA is a huge shiny object to them and it is not a rational appeal it is an emotional appeal with a darker underlying appeal. Unless you think 1950’s racial barriers were an ideal setup for society.


In some of the recent polling data that you found before the election, eight in 10 white evangelicals said that they would vote for Trump. Given Trump's very particular biography and demeanor, his appeal among white evangelicals is confusing for a lot of us who are not part of that world. So why have they embraced him so enthusiastically?​
I think I've probably spent more time answering this question over the last four years than maybe any other question in my career. It is perplexing. And the reason it is perplexing is that this group has defined itself as so-called values voters, right. That's the internal history there. But there are two things here.They have supported Republican candidates, no matter who they were, going all the way back to Reagan. So [their support for Trump] is not atypical. Now, it was notable that [white evangelical support of Trump] reached 81 percent in the exit polls in 2016, which was even higher than what George W. Bush got. And he was kind of one of their own, who himself identified as evangelical.​
Trump's appeal among this group really was a cultural appeal. It was really the "Make America Great Again" mantra. I think most of the power of that slogan was in the last word: again. It was hearkening back to a kind of 1950s America, where white Christians and particularly white Anglo-Saxon Protestants were more dominant in the society demographically and culturally. That's also obviously before Brown v. Board of Education, desegregation and the civil rights movement. And it really had that power. I even started calling them nostalgia voters in the 2016 election cycle, because it was that backward pull that was really the real attraction.​


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> 3. He won in the primaries by courting the working class voters of the gop.



Yes  evangelical Christian working class voters would go for God’s choice for sure.. But  Non-Christian working class voters tend to vote more for the satanic cult of atheists communists and Muslim loving anti-Christian  Democrats don’t  you think. that’s not a reliable socially and religiously tied voting block in my opinion that can out perform the white evangelical Christian Republican bloc
At all


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> If all you want to do is name call,



You are a liar. And I always explain why. Its not ‘only name calling’ when its explained why you are what you are. . And you admit you know that every time you refuse to read the explanation.

You are an idiot because of that chickenshit evasion.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> The idea that either or both side's examples of violence or rioting is primarily caused by pretenders,



I do not think that at all. I never did and I never will. So what is your point? Why did you bring it up?

Rioting and looting are rioting and looting fir rioting and looting’s sake. It is a criminal act committed by criminals. They should all be prosecuted and punished.
It has nothing to do with organized peaceful protests. You said the rioters have  nothing to do with a Trump voter protest. But it has everything to do with the BLM protest. That’s what I’m challenging you on. That’s what you keep running away from.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> When a crowd blocks a road, especially trapping cars in traffic, that is a threat of violence. THe drivers of the cars are presented with a choice of being held prisoner in place or facing the violence of the mob OR if they manage to escape beign arrested by the police at the orders of dem mayors.



Last summer, My wife, the dog and I were headed to get on the W&OD railroad bike path just outside of Leesburg VA when our usual parking spot was blocked by police barricades. The road to the trail access was blocked - we didn’t know why. We turned around to find a new parking spot. Then we figured out it was blocked off because there was a BLM March going on.  As we tried to go back the way we came in we were blocked by a mob of Trump and Confederate flag waving white people parking, and  trying to find parking for their trucks - The road was blocked because this mob had to get to the marchers to protest the protests. 
We had to sit there for half an hour, the cops arrived but didn’t try to move the trucks off the road. When the mob was done heckling they ran back to their trucks, a bunch of them jumped into the truckbeds and  took off. They acted like they would head to a new spot and repeat. 

 I guess in your world,  the white counter protesters were VIOLENT to block us. I should have just driven through the crowd and ran them over to get away. And then racists like you can blame all the dead bodies on BLM. 

But I’m not a white and stupid Trump supporting racist asshole.. No one was hurt that day.. Never heard any negative news about it.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that either or both side's examples of violence or rioting is primarily caused by pretenders,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think that at all. I never did and I never will. So what is your point? Why did you bring it up?
> ....
Click to expand...


YOU brought it up, in response to my pointing out all the violence from the left. 

The implication is clear. You were trying to shift blame.


NOw that I refute your point, you deny that it was your point, but make no effort to explain what your point "really" was then. 


And you go so far as to cut everything down, to bury what you actually said. 


The riot on 1/6 was one riot. It pales in comparison to the widespread rioting from your side over the last 5 years.

You libs want to pretend that the 1/6 riot was worse than the hundreds of riots from your side, to justify your next round of escalation. 


Thus, all the rhetorical bullshit you are doing here.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a crowd blocks a road, especially trapping cars in traffic, that is a threat of violence. THe drivers of the cars are presented with a choice of being held prisoner in place or facing the violence of the mob OR if they manage to escape beign arrested by the police at the orders of dem mayors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Last summer, My wife, the dog and I were headed to get on the W&OD railroad bike path just outside of Leesburg VA when our usual parking spot was blocked by police barricades. The road to the trail access was blocked - we didn’t know why. We turned around to find a new parking spot. Then we figured out it was blocked off because there was a BLM March going on.  As we tried to go back the way we came in we were blocked by a mob of Trump and Confederate flag waving white people parking, and  trying to find parking for their trucks - The road was blocked because this mob had to get to the marchers to protest the protests.
> We had to sit there for half an hour, the cops arrived but didn’t try to move the trucks off the road. When the mob was done heckling they ran back to their trucks, a bunch of them jumped into the truckbeds and  took off. They acted like they would head to a new spot and repeat.
> 
> I guess in your world,  the white counter protesters were VIOLENT to block us. I should have just driven through the crowd and ran them over to get away. And then racists like you can blame all the dead bodies on BLM.
> 
> But I’m not a white and stupid Trump supporting racist asshole.. No one was hurt that day.. Never heard any negative news about it.
Click to expand...



Why did you mention that the Trump supporters were white?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Black lives should matter 26645427, reply to 26645050


Correll said:


> Why did you mention that the Trump supporters were white?



It is the most critical part and FACT of the story. And unlike you, I keep to the facts and will explain so you can understand why.

There was a peaceful protest going on having a slogan that *BLACK* lives matter. Had I (a *WHITE* man) known earlier,  I would have shown my support and marched with them. But my wife was with me at the time and she works for the Department of Defense as a civilian so she is quite leery of getting involved in anything such as that. Plus she is an Epidemiologist and would have resisted being in a crowd where proper social distancing would not be possible.

I mentioned the TRUMP mob was *WHITE* because they were solidly white as a group. And I could be wrong but I do not believe they were hunting down BLM marchers on the bike path to demonstrate support.

Unlike you I think it is imperative that we white people show support if they believe that *BLACK lives *matter* and be  *treated as equals by law enforcement and our entire Justice system. And I’m grateful and extremely proud of all the good white real Americans that support the peaceful BLM movement.

So, to answer your question, I mentioned *WHITE* because I perceive the white people we encountered, with their Trump flags flying, and mob like anger on their faces,  are opposed to the slogan and idea  that *BLACK* Lives Matter. My interpretation of that opposition is that they are white people who clearly and openly believe that *BLACK* *lives do not matter* when it comes to our law enforcement and justice system.

The fact that Trump supporters as a group are a highly snd predominantly white group. That to me is very relevant to the story of race relations in this country if ours.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Comparing peaceful protest to peaceful protest. Not comparing peaceful protest to 
riots following peaceful protest.  26645527 reply to 26645024




Correll said:


> The riot on 1/6 was one riot. It pales in comparison to the widespread rioting from your side over the last 5 years.
> 
> You libs want to pretend that the 1/6 riot was worse than the hundreds of riots from your side, to justify your next round of escalation.



You are too fucking stupid to understand that we are not comparing a Trump riot to a BLM riot because you have insisted that Trump is not responsible in any way for the 1/6 riot in DC. Trump called for a peaceful protest and is not responsible for the violent attempt to stop the certification of Joe Biden’s victory - that is your claim.

We are comparing for the record TrumpQ’s  call for a peaceful protest to BLM’s call for peaceful protests. However you have chosen and insist that BLM is responsible for violence that breaks out at their peaceful protest. There’s a double standard driving that and cannot and must not exist in this argument.

And as long as you maintain that double standard detrimental towards Black people I must assume that it is an outpouring of your racist views on the entire subject and you just can’t help yourself.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

You might like

*titled “The GOP Is Horny for Another Insurrection,” here:

*


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Black lives should matter 26645427, reply to 26645050
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why did you mention that the Trump supporters were white?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is the most critical part and FACT of the story. And unlike you, I keep to the facts and will explain so you can understand why.
> 
> There was a peaceful protest going on having a slogan that *BLACK* lives matter. Had I (a *WHITE* man) known earlier,  I would have shown my support and marched with them. But my wife was with me at the time and she works for the Department of Defense as a civilian so she is quite leery of getting involved in anything such as that. Plus she is an Epidemiologist and would have resisted being in a crowd where proper social distancing would not be possible.
> 
> I mentioned the TRUMP mob was *WHITE* because they were solidly white as a group. And I could be wrong but I do not believe they were hunting down BLM marchers on the bike path to demonstrate support.
> 
> Unlike you I think it is imperative that we white people show support if they believe that *BLACK lives *matter* and be  *treated as equals by law enforcement and our entire Justice system. And I’m grateful and extremely proud of all the good white real Americans that support the peaceful BLM movement.
> 
> So, to answer your question, I mentioned *WHITE* because I perceive the white people we encountered, with their Trump flags flying, and mob like anger on their faces,  are opposed to the slogan and idea  that *BLACK* Lives Matter. My interpretation of that opposition is that they are white people who clearly and openly believe that *BLACK* *lives do not matter* when it comes to our law enforcement and justice system.
> 
> The fact that Trump supporters as a group are a highly snd predominantly white group. That to me is very relevant to the story of race relations in this country if ours.
Click to expand...




Your judgement that Whites as a group have a special responsibility, an "imperative" based on their race to show support for a political organization, or policy,


is racism. 


You are judging them on their race and putting on them, because of their race, special onuses, based on the actions of other people who happen to share a skin tone with them.


That is pure racism. 



It is worth noting, because I am not sure you are able to comprehend this without having it beaten into your head, that those Trump supporters disagree with your premise about BLM, which, in the context of that march, was not a slogan, but an organization with a whole lot of ideas and goals, beyond, "black lives mattering".


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> It is worth noting, because I am not sure you are able to comprehend this without having it beaten into your head, that those Trump supporters disagree with your premise about BLM, which, in the context of that march, was not a slogan, but an organization with a whole lot of ideas and goals, beyond, "black lives mattering".



What ideas and goals, beyond, "black lives mattering" are you blubbering about?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is worth noting, because I am not sure you are able to comprehend this without having it beaten into your head, that those Trump supporters disagree with your premise about BLM, which, in the context of that march, was not a slogan, but an organization with a whole lot of ideas and goals, beyond, "black lives mattering".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What ideas and goals, beyond, "black lives mattering" are you blubbering about?
Click to expand...



Are you seriously pretending to think that "black lives" are all they are fighting for?


----------



## MadChemist

NotfooledbyW said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, my lack of information and analysis is why I don't comment on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you say “who cares”?
> 
> Every person in that building cares. The families of the people that were killed care. I care because those MFers flying Trump Flags tried to violently overturn the election and take away my vote - render voting meaningless for millions.
> 
> If you don’t care; too lazy to learn some facts about it,  just leave everybody who does care alone.
Click to expand...


No they don't.  You don't speak for them.  And that is not in dispute.  

No, they didn't try to take away your vote..  They thought theirs was taken away.  Whether I agree with them or not, does not matter.  Your rendering of the situation is nothing but an opinion on your part.  

Stop posting as if you have "facts" becasuse you don't.


----------



## MadChemist

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is worth noting, because I am not sure you are able to comprehend this without having it beaten into your head, that those Trump supporters disagree with your premise about BLM, which, in the context of that march, was not a slogan, but an organization with a whole lot of ideas and goals, beyond, "black lives mattering".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What ideas and goals, beyond, "black lives mattering" are you blubbering about?
Click to expand...


Blame Trump.


----------



## MadChemist

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, my lack of information and analysis is why I don't comment on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you say “who cares”?
> 
> Every person in that building cares. The families of the people that were killed care. I care because those MFers flying Trump Flags tried to violently overturn the election and take away my vote - render voting meaningless for millions.
> 
> If you don’t care; too lazy to learn some facts about it,  just leave everybody who does care alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But you don't care about all  the people killed by your side's riots, cause "wacism".
Click to expand...


I would not be so quick to make that claim.  

He might care.  Why don't you ask him.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Antfia and blm have been rioting for years



You are a liar. BLM is a peaceful organization. When you quit lying about BLM  I will straighten you out regarding ANTIFA.


----------



## Correll

MadChemist said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, my lack of information and analysis is why I don't comment on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you say “who cares”?
> 
> Every person in that building cares. The families of the people that were killed care. I care because those MFers flying Trump Flags tried to violently overturn the election and take away my vote - render voting meaningless for millions.
> 
> If you don’t care; too lazy to learn some facts about it,  just leave everybody who does care alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But you don't care about all  the people killed by your side's riots, cause "wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would not be so quick to make that claim.
> 
> He might care.  Why don't you ask him.
Click to expand...



I've been talking to him for a while. 


Every time he whines about the violence on 1/6, I point out the much more violence from the left.

His response is to pivot and deflect, often with comments about "wacial justice". 


I am confident in my read on his feelings.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Antfia and blm have been rioting for years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar. BLM is a peaceful organization. When you quit lying about BLM  I will straighten you out regarding ANTIFA.
Click to expand...



Your claim is absurd. YOu just revealed yourself to be an utterly dishonest partisan hack and a troll.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Your claim is absurd



Back it up you liar. You say the Trump political organization, Trump, the MAGA Movement, Republican Party are not at all responsible for the violence during  the January 6 peaceful protest turned insurrection to overturn the election that Trump lost and still lies and  lies sand lies  that he won.

So what is good for the goose is good for the gander, unless you’re a racist and apply separate rules for black politics on movements and organization.

It’s your choice to be a racist.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your claim is absurd
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back it up you liar. You say the Trump political organization, Trump, the MAGA Movement, Republican Party are not at all responsible for the violence during  the January 6 peaceful protest turned insurrection to overturn the election that Trump lost and still lies and  lies sand lies  that he won.
> 
> So what is good for the goose is good for the gander, unless you’re a racist and apply separate rules for black politics on movements and organization.
> 
> It’s your choice to be a racist.
Click to expand...



I already addressed the difference. repeatedly. 


Are you pretending to have memory loss? Or are you just stonewalling?


LOL!!! Trick question. See what I did there? HILARIOUS!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I already addressed the difference. repeatedly.



You never - You are a liar. If Trump calls for a peaceful demonstration and it turns into a riot there is no difference if BLM leaders call for a peaceful demonstration and it turns into a riot. There is no difference there can be no difference. The phony difference you cite is one is black one is white and you’re Trump loving racist citing that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

You PEOPLE


Correll said:


> I already addressed the difference. repeatedly.



“You People” “You People” “You People”

post: 26533648 





Correll said:


> Trump was upset about losing and riled up a crowd for a day. You people have been tearing this nation apart for years.



You damn BLM people. Tearing the nation apart just because some crackhead can’t handle a good cop’s knee on his neck for 8 minutes - just doing his job ....

Its your damn fault you damn nasty ungrateful black people that Trump could not emotionally handle that you black people in Detroit Philly Atlanta Milwaukee rejected him and fraudulently voted for Biden using mail in ballots and voting early.

Don’t be mad at Trump for getting a mob riled up on just one day to go to the Capitol in order to toss all your damn phony black votes out.

Just one day out of 1500 days - for crap sakes - Trump is the victim here - you’ve been so nasty - just ask Herman. He will tell you.

QUOTE="Correll, post: 26535102, member: 53993"] The American People were lied to, by people like you, for 5 years. [/QUOTE]

you people    You people



Correll said:


> The peaceful transfer of power tradition ended when you people refused to respect Trump's 2016 victory.



You people   You bad people

You people are so Evil....


Correll said:


> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.
> That some people were able to use that to spark a riot, is on those people that did that.



yes you are so evil - you people - when you call for a peaceful demonstration that becomes violent the violence is on you people who that do that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

This is @Correll’s universal rule of riot responsibility: *Trump called for a demonstration not a riot so the riot is on the actual people that riot, not Trump or his supporters *26559879


Correll said:


> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.
> That some people were able to use that to spark a riot, is on those people that did that.


Correll does not apply that rule at all to BLM organizers that call for peaceful protest when in less than five percent of 
organized protests involve violence. 

Trump called Pence a coward. 26530257


Correll said:


> FOr example, Trump called Pence a coward. Ok fine. But then you assume that he was directing it to specific people, with a specific intent, without any support.



During that demonstration on 1/6 and after Trump had first hand knowledge that “some people were able to use that to spark a riot” Trump sent a message to his followers on Twitter that Mike Pence did not have the courage to give Trump the election that he rightfully won - the steal will not stopped.

Correll accused me of assuming that Trump was directing it to specific people, with a specific intent, without any support.

That is @Correll’s defense of Trump’s most despicable tweet amidst a riotous assault on our Capitol and every elected official inside including the Vice President.

I’m missing somehow that TRUMP’s intent to post that tweet at that moment had some other intent than to arouse anger in the crowd and nationwide at Pence for being a coward?

I’d  like to hear what the purpose of the TWEET was fifteen minutes after McCarthy called Trump and asked him pleaded with him to call off the rioters.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

whaddabout,butt,buuhh,buttizm First in Show!!!! 





Correll said:


> Trump was upset about losing and riled up a crowd for a day.
> 
> You people have been tearing this nation apart for years.



You people You people. are evil -dark-up to no good tearing our nation apart - My people are saints, the bright light shining on the hill, the  beacon of truth loyalty and the American and Christian Way. 

Is Officer Derek Chauvin your people or my people? How many BLM protests evolve had Chauvin taken his knee off George Floyd’s neck when he hears pleas  “I can’t breathe”?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already addressed the difference. repeatedly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You never - You are a liar. If Trump calls for a peaceful demonstration and it turns into a riot there is no difference if BLM leaders call for a peaceful demonstration and it turns into a riot. There is no difference there can be no difference....
Click to expand...


iF Trump called for a peaceful demonstration, hundreds of times over 5 years, and it led to widespread riots and over a billion in damages, 

I would not be giving him a pass. 


ONCE? Yes. Hundreds of times NO. 


Do you understand that the numbers ONE and the number 700 are DIFFERENT NUMBERS?


This is a simple point NOT. It is one thing to disagree with me. It is another to pretend that I did not raise it repeatedly.


To be clear, IT IS YOU LYING. 


Why do you lying so much?  Because you know that your position is FALSE. 


Your stated reasons, your stated goals, are a LIES.


You support the lefty riots because you support the use of violence in politics.

You pretend otherwise to justify the next level of escalation in your side's  war on us.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> This is @Correll’s universal rule of riot responsibility: *Trump called for a demonstration not a riot so the riot is on the actual people that riot, not Trump or his supporters *26559879
> 
> 
> 
> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.
> That some people were able to use that to spark a riot, is on those people that did that.
> 
> 
> 
> @Correll does not apply that rule at all to BLM organizers that call for peaceful protest when in less than five percent of
> organized protests involve violence.
Click to expand...




I repeatedly addressed teh difference. You are lying about that.


You lie because you don't want to admit the truth. 


You support the use of political violence from your side, and your pretense of outrage over 1/6 is to justify your side's next round of escalation in your war on us.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> whaddabout,butt,buuhh,buttizm First in Show!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was upset about losing and riled up a crowd for a day.
> 
> You people have been tearing this nation apart for years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You people You people. are evil -dark-up to no good tearing our nation apart - My people are saints, the bright light shining on the hill, the  beacon of truth loyalty and the American and Christian Way.
> 
> Is Officer Derek Chauvin your people or my people? How many BLM protests evolve had Chauvin taken his knee off George Floyd’s neck when he hears pleas  “I can’t breathe”?
Click to expand...



I haven't heard a lot of personal information on the guy, which leads me to believe he is one of yours, and the media thus has no interest in publishing it, because it does not support the narrative.


You know, libs that have to deal with "Ghetto blacks" get kind of tired of them too. 


You have many white lib friends that did the "white flight" thing? I got a couple.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I haven't heard a lot of personal information on the guy, which leads me to believe he is one of yours,



You sure have your racist world view covered well. When a white cop needlessly kills a black person, that needless violence is blamed on black people for being there, and you blame Democrats and liberals as they are everything you fear and hate for wanting needless violence stopped 

And when BLM peacefully demonstrates against police violence you blame that on black people and the left also. You are a perfect racist.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't heard a lot of personal information on the guy, which leads me to believe he is one of yours,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure have your racist world view covered well. When a white cop needlessly kills a black person, that needless violence is blamed on black people for being there, and you blame Democrats and liberals as they are everything you fear and hate for wanting needless violence stopped
> 
> And when BLM peacefully demonstrates against police violence you blame that on black people and the left also. You are a perfect racist.
Click to expand...



Odd, what happened to your previous point about the cop? You just dropped it. Was that just a handful of poo you were throwing against the wall to see if it would stick and when it didn't, reach around for some more?


1. Blah, blah, blah, wacist. YOu are a wace baiting asshole. 

2. No one says that. YOu are lying.

3. I blame dems and liberals when they are at fault for a problem or at fault for preventing addressing the problem. Which is often.

4. When blm or antifa " do anything, they are responsible for their actions. That they have an excuse, is irrelevant. That they feel justified is irrelevant. 

5. Blah, blah, blah, wacist. YOu are a wace baiting asshole.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Odd, what happened to your previous point about the cop? You just dropped it.



You are a liar. I did not drop the point about the cop. You answer that question. Your answer proves you are a racist.Here’s what I said about your answer.

“You sure have your racist world view covered well. When a white cop needlessly kills a black person, that needless violence is blamed on black people for being there,”​​In other words you view violence through rose colored Trump sunglasses which has led you to the opinion that all violence is derived from the left in one way or another.

So you are a liar. And when you lie like that why should we believe anything you say.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Odd, what happened to your previous point about the cop? You just dropped it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar. I did not drop the point about the cop. You answer that question. Your answer proves you are a racist.Here’s what I said about your answer.
> ​“You sure have your racist world view covered well. When a white cop needlessly kills a black person, that needless violence is blamed on black people for being there,”​​In other words you view violence through rose colored Trump sunglasses which has led you to the opinion that all violence is derived from the left in one way or another.
> 
> So you are a liar. And when you lie like that why should we believe anything you say.
Click to expand...




Your previous point was to imply that he was "one of my side".

I challenged that, and you dropped it.

You then reached around for another handful, and tried the wace card play.


Blah, blah, blah, wace. 


SO, my question stands. you are just dropping  your previous point about the cop?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Your previous point was to imply that he was "one of my side".    I challenged that, and you dropped it.



You are a damn fool. I asked you a questionI didn’t imply anything. My position is that people who commit violence should not be attributed to one ideology or another. They are criminals and people on both sides would condemn them for an act like a police officer holding a knee on his suspects neck for eight minutes.

But your response was not to condemn that officer. Your response was to attribute that to the ideology that you hate.

Your worldview is one based on hatred and tainted by racial prejudice.

Your words prove it.

I do realize that you do know how to not attribute violence to an ideology. Because you do it with Trump and his supporters. Trump can call for a protest but when it turns violent Trump is not responsible. So I see you know how it works.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your previous point was to imply that he was "one of my side".    I challenged that, and you dropped it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a damn fool. I asked you a questionI didn’t imply anything. My position is that people who commit violence should not be attributed to one ideology or another. They are criminals and people on both sides would condemn them for an act like a police officer holding a knee on his suspects neck for eight minutes.
> 
> But your response was not to condemn that officer. Your response was to attribute that to the ideology that you hate.
> 
> Your worldview is one based on hatred and tainted by racial prejudice.
> 
> Your words prove it.
> 
> I do realize that you do know how to not attribute violence to an ideology. Because you do it with Trump and his supporters. Trump can call for a protest but when it turns violent Trump is not responsible. So I see you know how it works.
Click to expand...



ONe riot that was not called for nor supported by a side, does not define that side.

Hundreds of riots, called for and supported by a side, does define that side.


That is my position on this. Address that. .This pretense where you pretend to be too retarded to understand my clear position, is boring.


edit: almost forgot. And shove your wace baiting up your ass.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Hundreds of riots, called for and supported by a side, does define that side.



You are a liar. The side you hate does not ever ‘call for riots’ or ‘support riots’.

Zero percent of over 8000 BLM protests and crowds killed a cop.

100% of Trump protests killed a cop.

That’s a fact.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hundreds of riots, called for and supported by a side, does define that side.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar. The side you hate does not ever ‘call for riots’ or ‘support riots’.
> 
> Zero percent of over 8000 BLM protests and crowds killed a cop.
> 
> 100% of Trump protests killed a cop.
> 
> That’s a fact.
Click to expand...



Everything you said there was not true. 


My point stands. 


One riot, not supported does not define a side. 


Hundreds of riots, called for and supported, does define a side.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Everything you said there was not true.



You are a liar so taking your word for anything is not a good idea.

You have provided nothing to challenge the fact that BLM is a peaceful organization and stresses that they do not condone or approve of violence in any way.

You are a liar every time you make that hate mongering and racist unsupported claim that BLM calls for riots and looting at any demonstrations they organize.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everything you said there was not true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar so taking your word for anything is not a good idea.
> 
> You have provided nothing to challenge the fact that BLM is a peaceful organization and stresses that they do not condone or approve of violence in any way.
> 
> You are a liar every time you make that hate mongering and racist unsupported claim that BLM calls for riots and looting at any demonstrations they organize.
Click to expand...



Antifa and BLM are violent, criminal, terrorists organizations that, at the very least have engaged in violent riots for 5 years, killing dozens and causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damage and untold human suffering. 

That you wace bait in defense of them, especially of the lily white antifa is just you being a partisan zealot and a liar.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...


Nice opening argument, and I am sorry that I am so late to the discussion - I was distracted by my impending death. I have seen you around here, but I never noticed such a well written introduction from you before - I hope there are more.



Tom Paine 1949 said:


> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.


I think I was impressed by the House Democrats' arguments, but I think the Constitution is designed for a less sophisticated society; but never the less, I am always in favor of impeachment trials, because I want people to recognize the inadequacies of the improperly deployed organization of the government; and I think impeachment trials are more conductive to that ambition.



Tom Paine 1949 said:


> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.


It is amazing how much control the demented Donald Trump has over these people. I don't think any Democrat could lead people to do something like that, and I will bet that Speaker Pelosi, and that representative that tried to incite her supporters to confront Republicans and conservatives in semi-private settings of their private gatherings, are jealous of Trump's charisma.

I know, I am - how about you???



Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.


How about working towards "unity," or tranquility, at all levels of humanity?

Why didn't those impeachments happen??? You are not the only one disappointed in that. The reason those impeachments did not happen is because the government is irreversibly corrupt, because the systematics of the "checks and balances" are inadequate for the expanded government and diversity of population that the (social) system has evolved to.



Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.


Oh no, no, no . . . what are we going to do?

Eventually, someone will introduce a plan for reordering the government chartering system, and the honest lawyers will recognize the benefits towards a more orderly social justice system, including a peerless checks and balances that will complete eliminate corruption. The honest will be inclined to pursue adopting the better system, because it will render their profession under the flawed subsisting system to be a farce. Like any profession, it would be absurd to insist that the old technology is adequate for the advanced sophistication that the society has evolved to.



Tom Paine 1949 said:


> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it will go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.


Okay, so Trump was not repudiated; Biden is is making comments in his speeches that he is confused, doesn't know the names of his hosts, and inadvertently said, "******," but he's okay, because we know he is not a racist like Trump was - and Trump is, of course, one of those smart crooks who know how to control their mouth unlike the honest and brilliant Uncle Joe Biden - right???

Can you see that Joe Biden does not meet our unspecified qualification standards for what the president should be??? A better organized government will lead to a better quality of representation - guaranteed.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Antifa and BLM are violent, criminal, terrorists organizations that, at the very least have engaged in violent riots for 5 years, killing dozens and causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damage and untold human suffering.



What is your source for that full blown paragraph of utter bullshit? The Grand Wizard of your local chapter? Is it Trump?

The DJTQ -1/6 RIOT included a planned assault on the US Capitol while in session by hard core Trump Supporting right wing racists and* a backup mob who all thought they were doing what Trump wanted done.* Give him four more years.

You cannot refute those facts.

The DJTQ-1/6 RIOT came about because Trump told the huge lie that he won in a landslide; that the lawmakers in Congress on 1/6 were certifying the election that was  stolen from him; that certification had to be stopped.

You cannot come up with a single Democratic Party high ranking leader that was involved in any of the 7500 protests who directly or indirectly or accidentally or maybe said something that would make anyone in all honesty believe that they called for riots saved looting save destruction of property.

You can’t even come up with a BLM organizational leader that calls for rioting and looting and destruction of property.

You bring zero facts to support your accusations. You’re just lying. You lie as if it’s some kind of patriotic thing you have to do.

An analysis of more than 7,750 demonstrations in 2,400 locations across the country found that 93% happened with no violence, according to the US Crisis Monitor, a joint effort by Princeton University and the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project.​
You have been asked before and I’ll ask again to provide the names and the places and the dates when *a high-ranking DEM Party official called for something to happen like STOP THE STEAL that would lead agitated violent people to believe that they needed to riot and destroy property and kill people to get that something done to please at Democratic Leader.*

We have the facts and everything that Trump said, and his big lie about election fraud, and we know exactly why his riot happened and what they wanted to accomplish. On the other hand we got nothing from you on the summer protests Just your general feeling that BLM is a criminal violent terrorist organization.

Where is your back up? What is your source?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Antifa and BLM are violent, criminal, terrorists organizations that, at the very least have engaged in violent riots for 5 years, killing dozens and causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damage and untold human suffering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your source for that full blown paragraph of utter bullshit? The Grand Wizard of your local chapter? Is it Trump?
> 
> The DJTQ -1/6 RIOT included a planned assault on the US Capitol while in session by hard core Trump Supporting right wing racists and a backup mob who all thought they v were doing what Trump wanted done. Give him four more years.
> 
> You cannot refute those facts.
> 
> The DJTQ-1/6 RIOT came about because Trump told the huge lie that he won in a landslide; that the lawmakers in Congress on 1/6 were certifying the election that was  stolen from him; that certification had to be stopped.
> 
> You cannot come up with a single Democratic Party high ranking leader that was involved in any of the 8000 protests who directly or indirectly or accidentally or maybe said something that would make anyone in all honesty believe that they called for riots saved looting save destruction of property.
> 
> You can’t even come up with a BLM organizational leader that calls for rioting and looting and destruction of property.
> 
> You bring zero facts to support your accusations. You’re just lying. You lie as if it’s some kind of patriotic thing you have to do.
> 
> An analysis of more than 7,750 demonstrations in 2,400 locations across the country found that 93% happened with no violence, according to the US Crisis Monitor, a joint effort by Princeton University and the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project.​
> You have been asked before and I’ll ask again to provide the names and the places and the dates when a high-ranking DEM Party official called for something to happen like STOP THE STEAL that would lead agitated violent people to believe that they needed to riot and destroy property and kill people to get that something done to please at Democratic Leader.
> 
> We have the facts and everything that Trump said, and his big lie about election fraud, and we know exactly why the riot happened and what they wanted to accomplish. On the other hand we got nothing from you on the c summer protests Just your general feeling that BLM is a criminal violent terrorist organization.
> 
> Where is your back up? What is your source?
Click to expand...



1. Your pretense of being unaware of the events of the last 5 years, is absurd. Dismissed.

2. Discussing the actions of antifa and blm in no way denies or excuses the riot on 1/6. Your pretense that it does is absurd. Dismissed.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I would think that after the disaster on Jan. 6th carried out by lunatics talking about “civil war” to “take back the country” (some carrying Confederate flags), you would have learned a lesson. Wild accusations about “the other side” provoking civil war while your own side gins up its thugs for a “trial by combat” won’t fly anymore.
> 
> We’ve heard this talk all year long, before, during and after Trump was defeated. Hearing it _*now *_when what is necessary is fulsome denunciation of lunatic attempts at violent insurrection and domestic terrorism ... only makes you look like a hardcore Trump fanatic. Talk like this will only succeed in encouraging the “Security State” to pass draconian new domestic security legislation, and bring down more state repression ... on everyone.


It was not an insurrection - they walked out doing limited damage, and had to be captured in their "home" states. They had no plan to take control of the government. They foolishly believed that they could intimidate the politicians to "follow" their flawed understanding of the erroneous Constitution. It is a very disordered situation we are enduring, and the "fall" of the government prompting a reordering of the constitution is the best thing that could happen.

We will not fall into an anarchy. There are way too many police and intellectuals that will keep things under control. And of course, we have me, the person who has the reordering plan: US4CC


----------



## Correll

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> Nice opening argument, and I am sorry that I am so late to the discussion - I was distracted by my impending death. I have seen you around here,




Are you actually dying, and if so, I am sorry to hear it.


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile

Correll said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice opening argument, and I am sorry that I am so late to the discussion - I was distracted by my impending death. I have seen you around here,
> 
> 
> 
> Are you actually dying, and if so, I am sorry to hear it.
Click to expand...

Not immediately 



Tom Paine 1949 said:


> All these ridiculous partisan explanations of how we supposedly “lost the Republic” on a — name your choice — _specific date, _just like the “personality politics” of Trumpsters in general, can not disguise the fact that something historically unprecedented, violent and anti-Constitutional happened on Jan. 6th.


Are you going to argue the merits of the Oath of Office???

A reliable checks and balances would not need an oath of office. The oath of office is proof that the composers and advocates of the constitution recognized its inadequacies. President Adams said it was good for religious and moral people only, and that it is inadequate for any other people; which is what we are - I don't care how religious you claim to be, the Constitution lead to the disorderly secularization of communities.



Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I have long argued that _*several*_ of our past Presidents (of both parties) should have been impeached and prosecuted for crimes committed in office. They and their henchman have generally escaped and usually remain feted “senior statesmen” of our Republic. That was because the legal and institutional processes of Congress, the Court system, the two-party system, the corruption of both parties by big money and corporations — these have frustrated action that I and many others would like to see. But none of this means we no longer _even have_ a Republic, a representative democracy, or the basic freedoms that they allow.


What it does mean is that the checks and balances do not work, and the fact that the government is too big to fail obscures your's and everybody else's, except me, to see the need for a new constitution.



Tom Paine 1949 said:


> What Trump wanted to do by disregarding the confirmed results of the election he lost would have caused a civil war, a military coup, or led directly to imposed martial law. Our Republican system and representative democracy, not to mention our court system and “rule of law,” might never have recovered.
> But all this must be done *legally, *and not as the result of mob action. One day there may well be a genuine coup, a bonapartist or authoritarian dictatorship like Trump seemed determined to impose. If such succeeds it will be too late for effective normal parliamentary and political action. _*Only*_ _*then *_the kind of violent extra-parliamentary action that occurred in D.C. on Jan. 6th may be justifiable.


You are a victim of fear mongering partisan punditry. And what is really sad, is that the pundits are not smart enough to realize that the organization of the government deliberate institutions of legislation are erroneous, because the racist slave owners that designed the system did not have all of the information necessary for designing a government that could be expanded in an orderly manner as the population increased and diversified, and this that and the other.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> 1. Your pretense of being unaware of the events of the last 5 years, is absurd. Dismissed.



I am aware of the violence that took place in the past five years. I’m just not aware of where you get the idea That BLM is a violent, criminal, terrorists organizations that have engaged in violent riots for 5 years, killing dozens and causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damage and untold human suffering.

Im exposing the fact that you are a liar because you cannot back any of that lie up.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> It was not an insurrection



There is no reason not to label the DJTQ 1/6
RIOT an insurrection - a violent uprising against the government and the peaceful transfer of power - with the apparent blessing of the sitting but lame duck sore loser President who watched on tv and did nothing to try to stop it. 

FBI director Christopher Wray has said the bureau views the Capitol *insurrection* as a clear act of domestic terrorism. Speaking during a Senate hearing on the 6 January riots, Wray said: ‘That attack, that siege, was criminal behaviour, plain and simple, and it’s behaviour that we, the FBI, view as domestic terrorism’

​


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> 2. Discussing the actions of antifa and blm in no way denies or excuses the riot on 1/6.



You are not discussing BLM. You are lying about BLM being a violent criminal terrorist organization. You are lying that ANTIFA violence is condoned by high ranking Democratic officials and or me.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

“There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes or was in any way compromised.” 26533807,


Correll said:


> I have no faith in an "election day" that is really several weeks.



Of course you don’t.  Its user friendly and more secure. The long lines in high populated areas cause more people to give up and don’t vote. You vote for the Party that can’t win by popular vote so you need the rural electoral college advantage to even have a chance at winning a presidential race.

Of course you don’t you must still be waiting for batshit crazy Sydney Powell to unleash the Kracken and blow the election  fraud shit wide open.

Repudiating Trump, officials say election ‘most secure’ By ERIC TUCKER and FRANK BAJAK November 13, 2020 WASHINGTON (AP) — It’s hard to put it any more bluntly: “There is no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes or was in any way compromised.” 
Rejecting President Donald Trump’s persistent claims and complaints, a broad coalition of top government and industry officials is declaring that the Nov. 3 voting and the following count unfolded smoothly with no more than the usual minor hiccups. 
It was, they declare, resorting to Trump’s sort of dramatic language, “the most secure in American history.” 
The statement late Thursday by the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency amounted to the most direct repudiation to date of Trump’s efforts to undermine the integrity of the contest, and echoed repeated assertions by election experts and state officials​


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Trump tweets to his rioting mob that Pence is a coward 26541022, 





Correll said:


> 1. I'm not justify anything. I'm disagreeing that Trump incited violence.


 We know from the impeachment trial that Trump ignored requests for help from members in the path  of an assault by a violent Trump flag flying mob. One request was to call the mob off. Call off the attack to stop the Steal.

We know that Trump could not be bothered to stop the insurrection because he had more important business for his Twitter finger to do. Trump needed to tweet to his rioting mob that Pence is a coward.

I wonder what ignoring pleas for help while posting that message to a rioting mob is if not inciting violence..


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense of being unaware of the events of the last 5 years, is absurd. Dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am aware of the violence that took place in the past five years. I’m just not aware of where you get the idea That BLM is a violent, criminal, terrorists organizations that have engaged in violent riots for 5 years, killing dozens and causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damage and untold human suffering.
> 
> Im exposing the fact that you are a liar because you cannot back any of that lie up.
Click to expand...



I said antifa and blm. I'm not sure why you keep dropping antifa. Probably to support your narrative that I am wacist.


I am not going to pretend that your pretense of being unaware of the wide spread riots of the last 5 years is anything other than you playing full retard.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Discussing the actions of antifa and blm in no way denies or excuses the riot on 1/6.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are not discussing BLM. You are lying about BLM being a violent criminal terrorist organization. You are lying that ANTIFA violence is condoned by high ranking Democratic officials and or me.
Click to expand...



I am not going to dignify your silliness with a  response. 

My point stands. 

Discussing the actions of antifa and blm in no way denies or excuses the riot on 1/6.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Trump tweets to his rioting mob that Pence is a coward 26541022,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I'm not justify anything. I'm disagreeing that Trump incited violence.
> 
> 
> 
> We know from the impeachment trial that Trump ignored requests for help from members in the path  of an assault by a violent Trump flag flying mob. One request was to call the mob off. Call off the attack to stop the Steal.
> 
> We know that Trump could not be bothered to stop the insurrection because he had more important business for his Twitter finger to do. Trump needed to tweet to his rioting mob that Pence is a coward.
> 
> I wonder what ignoring pleas for help while posting that message to a rioting mob is if not inciting violence..
Click to expand...



inciting violence requires that he say or do something that incites violence. 


Doing NOTHING, is not that. 


Your pretense of confusion is you pretending to be insane.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Doing NOTHING, is not that



You idiot, Trump did nothing to respond to the plea to call off his rioters. But he did not continue to do nothing after that call. He fucking puts out a message that Trump is a coward so they could know that in the middle of a riot he was watching on tv like some reality show he dreamed up.

You have no soul. You have no morality to defend that tweet the way you do.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doing NOTHING, is not that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You idiot, Trump did nothing to respond to the plea to call off his rioters. But he did not continue to do nothing after that call. He fucking puts out a message that Trump is a coward so they could know that in the middle of a riot he was watching on tv like some reality show he dreamed up.
> 
> You have no soul. You have no morality to defend that tweet the way you do.
Click to expand...




Dude. You are trying to gin up the ONE riot from our side, to distract from FIVE years of riots from your side. 


HUNDREDS OF RIOTS, DOZENS DEAD, THOUSANDS INJURIED, OVER A BILLION IN DAMANGES.


Your side has devolved to the point of using brownshirts. 


Are you sure about this? Have you taken even a moment to really think about what you are doing?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I said antifa and blm.



I said quit lying about BLM and will put your mind at ease about ANTIFA. I don’t not support ANTIFA but I do support BLM because they are a peaceful organization in the spirit of MLK and GHANDI.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said antifa and blm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said quit lying about BLM and will put your mind at ease about ANTIFA. I don’t not support ANTIFA but I do support BLM because they are a peaceful organization in the spirit of MLK and GHANDI.
Click to expand...



Your opinion of mlk and ghandi might be different than mine.


My points about antifa and blm being violent criminal thugs, stands.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> My points about antifa and blm being violent criminal thugs, stands.



On your pile of shit.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> My points about antifa and blm being violent criminal thugs, stands.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On your pile of shit.
Click to expand...



ON the history over the last 5 years of them rioting and killing and destroying. 


Your denial of this, is absurd.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> ON the history over the last 5 years of them rioting and killing and destroying.



You have no history of BLM calling for riots and looting and violence. They call for peaceful demonstrations like you said Trump did.

There is a history of riots and violence over the past five years but BLM is not responsible for it just like Trump is not responsible you say for the riot in DC on January 6 to overturn the election so Trump could stay in power for four more years like a fascist even though he lost by seven million votes.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

worst domestic terrorist anti democracy riot ever 26563259



Correll said:


> 2. If you truly condemned all the political violence over the last 5 years, you would not be pretending that the one small riot in dc, is the worst of it.



You need to quit using the words “pretend and “pretending” in your goofy-assed attempts to make logical replies.

I condemn the violence by all sides for whatever ideology or cause or just senseless violence.  What I think about the DJTQ1/6RIOT has nothing to do with my condemnation of all violence; not just the past five years but all senseless violence.

DJTQ1/6RIOT’s worst ever list:
Worst domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol Building Property.

Worst domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol Building POLICE killing one. Injuring over 100.

Worst domestic terrorist attack on a joint session of Congress with the Vice President presiding in a Constitutional Role.

Worst domestic terrorist attack on the peaceful transfer of power.

Worst domestic terrorist attack on the US GOVERNMENT by white supremacists.

Worst domestic terrorist attack on the Capitol Building Property and members of Congress and Capitol police snd staff and government employees when the mob  was carrying out the attack under flags emblazoned with the name of the POTUS on them. 

Only ‘same as above’  where the President of the United States sat idly by watching the violence on tv and tweeted to the mob that the Vice President is a coward.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> ON the history over the last 5 years of them rioting and killing and destroying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have no history of BLM calling for riots and looting and violence. They call for peaceful demonstrations like you said Trump did.
> 
> There is a history of riots and violence over the past five years but BLM is not responsible for it just like Trump is not responsible you say for the riot in DC on January 6 to overturn the election so Trump could stay in power for four more years like a fascist even though he lost by seven million votes.
Click to expand...



You call for a demonstration and it gets out of control ONCE, that is believable. 


YOu do it twice and you are being  reckless.


You  do it several hundred times, and it is obvious that when you say "demonstration" you mean, "riot".


The rest of your post is even dumber than your pretense of not remembering that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

@Correll’s authoritarian RULE for REDRESS of GRIEVANCES       26671726 reply to    26670831


Correll said:


> You call for a demonstration and it gets out of control ONCE, that is believable.
> 
> YOu do it twice and you are being reckless.
> 
> You do it several hundred times, and it is obvious that when you say "demonstration" you mean, "riot".



I see you have abolished the peaceful assembly part of the First Amendment to the Constitution. at least for black Americans. 

Congress shall make no law prohibiting or abridging the freedom of speech or the right of the *people peaceably to assemble*, and *to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.*

There were said to be 35,000 Americans that showed up at the CAPITOL on January 6, 2021 to peaceably assemble for a redress of the grievance because they truly believe what the President of The United States told them about what needed to happen on that day.  Trump has that assembly of his devoted supporters  truly believing that he had actually won the 2020 election by a landslide (Stupid, I know, but nevertheless) that the election was going to be officially stolen from him and them and all Americans on that very historic day. So they were there to stop it.

That peaceful demonstration turned extremely violent when about one thousand of those demonstrators staged an unprecedented violent attack upon the US Capitol building and all the members of the legislative branch of the US government as well as Vice President Mike Pence who were inside to certify the true will of the people or the stolen election. The latter, if one is able to believe everything that Donald J Trump tells them. 

Because of 1000 out of 35,000 Trump election fraud protesters according to @Correll’s RULE for REDRESS of GRIEVANCES, Being in effect, 34,000 of those Trump protesters, following one day of protest, no longer will be justifiably able to gather to assemble to bring their grievance about the election fraud before the government.

It’s over!  There can be no protest regarding the  2020 election fraud..........ever again. 

But wait. The January 6 election fraud protest was not the first time where violence broke out.

Correll has for forgotten entirely about previous election fraud protests that turned violent. 

Such a convenient short memory when it comes to white people causes.





I guess TrumpQ’s duped protesters get a Mulligan because they are stupid or some bullshit excuse like that, will be coming our way shortly.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> @Correll’s authoritarian RULE for REDRESS of GRIEVANCES       26671726 reply to    26670831
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You call for a demonstration and it gets out of control ONCE, that is believable.
> 
> YOu do it twice and you are being reckless.
> 
> You do it several hundred times, and it is obvious that when you say "demonstration" you mean, "riot".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you have abolished the peaceful assembly part of the First Amendment to the Constitution. at least for black Americans.
> ....
Click to expand...



1. No, I did not. 

2. Blah, blah, blah, wace. Dismissed.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> 1. No, I did not.



1

 You surely have.

If a local, city, state or the federal government, or a counter protest group, or any non-aligned criminal element responds to take advantage of a peaceful protest over  a grievance against the Government, thereby causing violence to break out under @Correll’s authoritarian RULE for REDRESS of GRIEVANCES 26671726 the aforementioned protest must cease and desist and never to be assembled again anywhere in the country. 

The intent to peacefully protest is nevermore in your authoritarian society.

You you have essentially eliminated the opportunity for peaceful protest by empowering the  government, opposition to the protest, or a criminal element to put and end to it simply by committing violence in the vicinity or directly against the protest. 

You are a goddamn fool for not thinking you’re anti-protest rule through.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. No, I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1
> 
> You surely have.
> 
> If a local, city, state or the federal government, or a counter protest group, or any non-aligned criminal element responds to take advantage of a peaceful protest over  a grievance against the Government, thereby causing violence to break out under @Correll’s authoritarian RULE for REDRESS of GRIEVANCES 26671726 the aforementioned protest must cease and desist and never to be assembled again anywhere in the country.
> 
> The intent to peacefully protest is nevermore in your authoritarian society.
> 
> You you have essentially eliminated the opportunity for peaceful protest by empowering the  government, opposition to the protest, or a criminal element to put and end to it simply by committing violence in the vicinity or directly against the protest.
> 
> You are a goddamn fool for not thinking you’re anti-protest rule through.
Click to expand...




That is not what I said. Nor any reasonable interpretation of how what I said should be applied.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> That is not what I said. Nor any reasonable interpretation of how what I said should be applied.



You are saying that anyone who organizes a peaceful protest is responsible if violence breaks out the first time and that  they are Responsible for all and any violence if they protest ever again. It does not matter to you who or what or what why the violence came up. They need to stop protesting so therefore their first amendment rights have been canceled.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is not what I said. Nor any reasonable interpretation of how what I said should be applied.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are saying that anyone who organizes a peaceful protest is responsible if violence breaks out the first time and that  they are Responsible for all and any violence if they protest ever again. It does not matter to you who or what or what why the violence came up. They need to stop protesting so therefore their first amendment rights have been canceled.
Click to expand...



I specifically said that if antifa or BLM called for a peaceful protest and violent riot broke out ONCE, that would be credible.


If it happened TWICE, that would be reckless


If it happened over and over again, then their denials would not be credible. 

Ask me what I would think that the next step should be, say, when it became less and less credible that they were truly calling for peaceful protests.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I specifically said that if antifa or BLM called for a peaceful protest and violent riot broke out ONCE, that would be credible.
> 
> If it happened TWICE, that would be reckless
> 
> If it happened over and over again, then their denials would not be credible.



When violence breaks out the first time there is no need for denial.

When violence breaks out the second time there still is no need for denial.

When violence breaks out on the third time there still is no need for tonight. And on and on and on.

They are not responsible for the first time and they are not responsible for it ever.

If they are as you say then what is their recourse. . They must stop. 

The violent people win in your authoritarian society.

There is no other logical reasonable or intelligent scenario.

Much of the violence over the summer was in response to the George Floyd killing. There is no early organizing. Those who commit violence are criminals and should be caught and prosecuted that’s it. Those committed to peaceful protest or not.

You have no way to separate the two.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I specifically said that if antifa or BLM called for a peaceful protest and violent riot broke out ONCE, that would be credible.
> 
> If it happened TWICE, that would be reckless
> 
> If it happened over and over again, then their denials would not be credible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When violence breaks out the first time there is no need for denial.
> 
> When violence breaks out the second time there still is no need for denial.
> 
> When violence breaks out on the third time there still is no need for tonight. And on and on and on.
> 
> They are not responsible for the first time and they are not responsible for it ever.
> 
> If they are as you say then what is their recourse. . They must stop.
> 
> The violent people win in your authoritarian society.
> 
> There is no other logical reasonable or intelligent scenario.
> 
> Much of the violence over the summer was in response to the George Floyd killing. There is no early organizing. Those who commit violence are criminals and should be caught and prosecuted that’s it. Those committed to peaceful protest or not.
> 
> You have no way to separate the two.
Click to expand...



Nothing I said justifies your response. AND, I specifically told you to ask me my "next step" and instead you cut that from my post, so that you could instead address a strawman.


That shows that you know that you have to misrepresent my position to try to make your position look like the more reasonable one.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Nothing I said justifies your response. AND, I specifically told you to ask me my "next step" and instead you cut that from my post, so that you could instead address a strawman.




You are a liar. I made a point you need to deal with before I get to the rest of your racist vomit.

And I see you didn’t respond to this  point all.

“When violence breaks out the first time there is no need for denial.​
When violence breaks out the second time there still is no need for denial.​
When violence breaks out on the third time there still is no need for tonight. And on and on and on.”​


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing I said justifies your response. AND, I specifically told you to ask me my "next step" and instead you cut that from my post, so that you could instead address a strawman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar. I made a point you need to deal with before I get to the rest of your racist vomit.
> ....
Click to expand...



I like that you feel a need to keep pretending that I have not lumped antifa and blm together. It indicates a rare desire on your part to have your wace baiting to have some relation to reality.

Being concerned that the rioters I condemn should be mostly black before you accuse me of wacism, shows a level of concern your slurs to NOT look like nothing but a handful of monkey shit thrown by a ill mannered and brain damaged monkey, 


is something you don't normally see with liberals. 


Good for you.


My point stands of course.  You have some collection of assholes, call for "peaceful demonstrations" that just happen to turn into riots hundreds of times, and their pretense of surprise has no credibility.


What would you do, if say, TRUMP, instead of calling for ONE demonstration that burst into a riot, had called for HUNDREDS, that caused over a billion dollars in damages and killed dozens of people, over his entire term?


Would you really just give him a pass, because of some words he said?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Nothing I said justifies your response.



You don’t get to dismiss my response with no explanation.  If BLM calls for a peaceful protest and violent riot breaks out ONCE, you say that they would be a credible peaceful organization. If it happens three times or more they are a violent organization. That is bullshit because you assign guilt on BLM based on forces that are not under BLM’s control and with no consideration as to who causes the violence at that first protest. 

The organizer is not obligated to establish credibility for persons outside of their organization.  Youare ignorant when you say they are.  

For example BLM is not responsible for criminals who decide to take advantage of the protest activities because police are preoccupied with the protesters. 

Same goes for second protest  and the third  for as long takes.

And you’re full of shit anyway because 96% of BLM protest I’ve been found to be peaceful. You run from that fact too. 

So how in the fuck are they supposed to know When the Boogaloo boys, or rioters, or police with an intent to commit violence on them  are going to show up?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I like that you feel a need to keep pretending that I have not lumped antifa and blm together. I



Do you want them together because you’re a racist.

I have already told you I support BLM. I do not support antifa. You only love ANTIFA most likely because they have a scary sounding name. Like OBAMA  like MAFIA like PELOSI like Al QAEDA. M

There are no connections between the two groups and no shared goal.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> What would you do, if say, TRUMP, instead of calling for ONE demonstration that burst into a riot, had called for HUNDREDS, that caused over a billion dollars in damages and killed dozens of people, over his entire term?



There is no counterpart like trump in the BLM movement. You’re an idiot, your arguments are stupid, and all you are trying to do is somehow justify your freaking racism.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I like that you feel a need to keep pretending that I have not lumped antifa and blm together. It indicates a rare desire on your part to have your wace baiting to have some relation to reality.



ANTIFA is not a peaceful protest movement. BLM is . Why you lump them together is your problem. But your need to link a peaceful protest movement to one that is not tells me all I need to know about your dishonesty.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> My point stands of course. You have some collection of assholes, call for "peaceful demonstrations" that just happen to turn into riots hundreds of times, and their pretense of surprise has no credibility.



The burden of proof is on you asshole. You need to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that every organizer of every one of the 7000 BLM peaceful protests nationwide rather intended that the protests include initiating violence and encouraging looting and other forms of mayhem that would harm the cause that necessitates the protests in the first place.. You don’t have a single suspect who called for violence yet you label the entire BLM movement as a criminal and violent.

And you absurdly dismiss legitimate studies that found about 3% violent..

And you wonder why you are identified as a racist.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> My point stands of course. You have some collection of assholes, call for "peaceful demonstrations" that just happen to turn into riots hundreds of times, and their pretense of surprise has no credibility.



The burden of proof is on you asshole. You need to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that every organizer of every one of the 7000 BLM peaceful protests nationwide rather intended that the protests include initiating violence and encouraging looting and other forms of mayhem that would harm the cause that necessitates the protests in the first place.. You don’t have a single suspect who called for violence yet you label the entire BLM movement as a criminal and violent.

And you absurdly dismiss legitimate studies that found about 3% of BLM protests turned violent..

And you wonder why you are identified as a racist.





Was the January 6 Trump protest wreckless conduct from Trump.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> What would you do, if say, TRUMP, instead of calling for ONE demonstration that burst into a riot, had called for HUNDREDS, that caused over a billion dollars in damages and killed dozens of people, over his entire term?



Do you really think Trump has enough white supremacists, Militant anti-government types and just plain stupid cult followers to assault the Capitol Bldg hundreds of times more?

They are already like going - Where was Trump? He told us he was coming to the Capitol too - The man has no balls And now he is out golfing while we are having our stupid stop-the-steal asses arrested.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing I said justifies your response.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don’t get to dismiss my response with no explanation.  If BLM calls for a peaceful protest and violent riot breaks out ONCE, you say that they would be a credible peaceful organization. If it happens three times or more they are a violent organization. That is bullshit because you assign guilt on BLM based on forces that are not under BLM’s control and with no consideration as to who causes the violence at that first protest.
> 
> The organizer is not obligated to establish credibility for persons outside of their organization.  Youare ignorant when you say they are.
> 
> For example BLM is not responsible for criminals who decide to take advantage of the protest activities because police are preoccupied with the protesters.
> 
> Same goes for second protest  and the third  for as long takes.
> 
> And you’re full of shit anyway because 96% of BLM protest I’ve been found to be peaceful. You run from that fact too.
> 
> So how in the fuck are they supposed to know When the Boogaloo boys, or rioters, or police with an intent to commit violence on them  are going to show up?
Click to expand...




Do you think that the hundreds of riots under the direction of antifa and blm should be investigated by the FBI for any signs of purposefully organizing the riots?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like that you feel a need to keep pretending that I have not lumped antifa and blm together. I
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want them together because you’re a racist.
> 
> I have already told you I support BLM. I do not support antifa. You only love ANTIFA most likely because they have a scary sounding name. Like OBAMA  like MAFIA like PELOSI like Al QAEDA. M
> 
> There are no connections between the two groups and no shared goal.
Click to expand...



I lump them together because they are both far left organizations responsible for hundreds of riots, over the last 5 years.

Your wace baiting is about you being a bad person. It has nothing to do with me.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would you do, if say, TRUMP, instead of calling for ONE demonstration that burst into a riot, had called for HUNDREDS, that caused over a billion dollars in damages and killed dozens of people, over his entire term?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no counterpart like trump in the BLM movement. You’re an idiot, your arguments are stupid, and all you are trying to do is somehow justify your freaking racism.
Click to expand...



There is a leadership of BLM. Someone or someones, is/are making these calls. 

That you pretend otherwise is you being silly.


That you are increasingly wace baiting, is you realizing how badly you have lost this debate.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like that you feel a need to keep pretending that I have not lumped antifa and blm together. It indicates a rare desire on your part to have your wace baiting to have some relation to reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ANTIFA is not a peaceful protest movement. BLM is . Why you lump them together is your problem. But your need to link a peaceful protest movement to one that is not tells me all I need to know about your dishonesty.
Click to expand...



I honestly consider both blm and antifa to be violent far left organizations. 


It would make sense for you to calll me "wrong" and demand that I support my claims about blm. 


To call me a liar, though, is fucked in the head of you.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands of course. You have some collection of assholes, call for "peaceful demonstrations" that just happen to turn into riots hundreds of times, and their pretense of surprise has no credibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The burden of proof is on you asshole. You need to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that every organizer of every one of the 7000 BLM peaceful protests nationwide rather intended that the protests include initiating violence and encouraging looting and other forms of mayhem that would harm the cause that necessitates the protests in the first place.. You don’t have a single suspect who called for violence yet you label the entire BLM movement as a criminal and violent.
> 
> And you absurdly dismiss legitimate studies that found about 3% violent..
> 
> And you wonder why you are identified as a racist.
Click to expand...



1. Nice standard of proof you have there. We have seen hundreds of antifa and blm riots over the last 5 years. Your denial is silly.

2. The blm movement is a far left violent and criminal organization. 

3. I know why I am identified as a wacist. Because people like you are terrified of anyone who is not cowed.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> What would you do, if say, TRUMP, instead of calling for ONE demonstration that burst into a riot, had called for HUNDREDS, that caused over a billion dollars in damages and killed dozens of people, over his entire term?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think Trump has enough white supremacists, Militant anti-government types and just plain stupid cult followers to assault the Capitol Bldg hundreds of times more?
> 
> They are already like going - Where was Trump? He told us he was coming to the Capitol too - The man has no balls And now he is out golfing while we are having our stupid stop-the-steal asses arrested.
Click to expand...




This is not about Trump. This is about Traditional Americans who are tried of being sidelined. Trump is just the one that stood forth to speak out for US.

And we are just getting started. 


You need to seriously think about what you want to have happen moving forward.


Do you want more or less violence?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> This is not about Trump.



This thread is about Trump. You asked me a question about Trump. So I answered as if it all was about Trump.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> This is about Traditional Americans who are tried of being sidelined



If by traditional Americans do you mean those traditional Americans who think it’s a good tradition for cops to be able to shoot Black people when they feel like it? y’all need to be sidelined.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> This is about Traditional Americans who are tried of being sidelined.


m

Cry me a river. Loser!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> This is about Traditional Americans who are tried of being sidelined.



White Christian Americans are sidelining  themselves. They quit procreating and reproducing themselves and their religion isn’t that attractive anymore because they don’t practice what the founder taught.

Instead they worship things like Trump. So you see it is about Trump


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> This is not about Trump.



I am encouraged because your diversion could mean that Trump does not have enough white supremacists, Militant anti-government types and just plain stupid cult followers to assault the Capitol Bldg hundreds of times over and over again?

The idiot traditional Americans, at least some of them, I woke up.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> You need to seriously think about what you want to have happen moving forward.



I just don’t want 60 million ignorant Americans believing everything an asshole tells them such as that he won the election by a landslide when he lost it by 7 million votes. That’s all I want for now.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> 1. Nice standard of proof you have there. We have seen hundreds of antifa and blm riots over the last 5 years. Your denial is silly.



You are a liar. We have seen zero BLM riots.ENTIFA is an anti-fascist movement. They do not claim to be a peaceful protest movement. Therefore I do not agree with their use of violence. Know if you were going to everyone of these antifa versus right wing militia melees that ever occur and you know and you can tell me who threw the first punch, or rock and then we can talk about it. But for now you need to focus on BLM because you are flat out lying every time you call them a violentCriminal organization and that they are responsible for rioting and looting that takes place. You’re a liar. You’re a racist liar. And you cannot talk about BLM separately because you are a liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Nice standard of proof you have there.



I realize that people who lie about a black organization dedicated to peaceful protest Would have major difficulties with a standard of proof. It’s a good standard why don’t you try to live up to a decent moral standard for once in your life.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> 2. The blm movement is a far left violent and criminal organization.



Sorry. White supremacy does not allow white folks to say things about a black organization dedicated to peaceful protest that are not true. Not even vaguely close to being true. You are a liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> . I know why I am identified as a wacist. Because people like you are terrified of anyone who is not cowed.



I am not terrified by the likes of you. Specifically now that the great white hope big Kahuna of all the racists in this country has lost and has been humiliated. HE is off golfing while his racist supporters that stormed the Capitol are being arrested and  will be put on trial by v by the society they seek to destroy.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Do you think that the hundreds of riots under the direction of antifa and blm should be investigated by the FBI



Sure. Find one were you suspect that’s what happened and I will sign a letter with you to the FBI to be investigated.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I lump them together because they are both far left organizations responsible for hundreds of riots, over the last 5 years.



You lump them together because you can’t find any evidence to support your accusations on each one separately. Maybe you should focus on trying to find some. In the meantime stop your damn lying.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I honestly consider both blm and antifa to be violent far left organization



I honestly know without a shadow of a doubt that your consideration that both blm and antifa are violent far left organizations without a shared of evidence to support it means you are a racist and a liar.

You need to try to base such impactful ‘considerations’ on facts and evidence.

I posted two studies that found 8000 BLM protests to involve violence at 3 to 4 percent of them.

Yet you have concluded they call for violence and looting 100% of the time - based on some fee-wings you have.  Just be a racist a live with yourself and your sad feelings.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> This is about Traditional Americans who are tried of being sidelined.



You mean sidelined like the way GEORGE FLOYD was sidelined?

You need to realize that the George Floyd killing and subsequent violence and recognition of the problems has become a pivotal point in American history - your ‘traditional’ scare tactics about rioting blacks has failed you in the traditional politics that you long for.

Millions of white Americans and even Corporate leaders in most industries are no longer standing by in the traditional sense. They are much more aggressively about involved on the BLM side if you have not noticed.

Your side or the mob violence scare tactics politically in Wisconsin to no avail. Trump lost Wisconsin. Racism could not help trump win Wisconsin.

I am overjoyed for that.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Connecting facts to recognize a reality is opposed by Correll  26596567


Correll said:


> Because you are stating "facts" in conjunction as though they are connected or as though they mean what you want them to mean, generally with little cause other than your deep hatred of President Trump and teh GOP.



What does it mean when it is a fact that Trump responded to a request for help by tweeting nothing for fifteen minutes as the rioters continued ransacking the Capitol snd then tweeted that Pence was too cowardly to stop the steal? What does it mean?  Was it right it was it wrong for Trump to ignore a call for help by someone  under attack by people flying Trump flags yelling “fight for Trump”


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Jesus saves! god, guns & guts made america, let’s keep all three. 26680911


Correll said:


> Traditional Americans who are tried of being sidelined.



Is this them?  And are these warriors in your impending civil war?

*A Christian Insurrection*​Many of those who mobbed the Capitol on Wednesday claimed to be enacting God’s will.EMMA GREEN JANUARY 8, 2021​







WIN MCNAMEE / GETTY

_Updated 1:36 p.m. Eastern on January 8, 2020._​The name of God was everywhere during Wednesday’s insurrection against the American government. The mob carried signs and flag declaring Jesus saves! and god, guns & guts made america, let’s keep all three. Some were participants in the Jericho March, a gathering of Christians to “pray, march, fast, and rally for election integrity.” After calling on God to “save the republic” during rallies at state capitols and in D.C. over the past two months, the marchers returned to Washington with flourish. On the National Mall, one man waved the flag of Israel above a sign begging passersby to say yes to jesus. “Shout if you love Jesus!” someone yelled, and the crowd cheered. “Shout if you love Trump!” The crowd cheered louder. The group’s name is drawn from the biblical story of Jericho, “a city of false gods and corruption,” the march’s website says. Just as God instructed Joshua to march around Jericho seven times with priests blowing trumpets, Christians gathered in D.C., blowing shofars, the ram’s horn typically used in Jewish worship, to banish the “darkness of election fraud” and ensure that “the walls of corruption crumble.”​


			https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/617591/
		


Do you know of a mob of black Christians ever violently storming the US Capitol because their candidate for President claims he won an election that he lost by seven MILLION votes and he wanted his loyal mob help to keep a loser in office or the white Christian Nation that God himself put on earth for his Chosen People?


*Mass Delusion in America*​What I heard from insurrectionists on their march to the Capitol​JEFFREY GOLDBERGJANUARY 6, 2021​

JON CHERRY / GETTY​Insurrection Day, 12:40 p.m.: A group of about 80 lumpen Trumpists were gathered outside the Commerce Department, near the White House. They organized themselves in a large circle, and stared at a boombox rigged to a megaphone. Their leader and, for some, savior—a number of them would profess to me their belief that the 45th president is an agent of God and his son, Jesus Christ—was rehearsing his pitiful list of grievances, and also fomenting a rebellion against, among others, the klatch of treacherous Republicans who had aligned themselves with the Constitution and against him.​

			https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/01/among-insurrectionists/617580/
		
​


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not about Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is about Trump. You asked me a question about Trump. So I answered as if it all was about Trump.
Click to expand...



Aw, cute. I made a more general point and you cut everything so you could get in a little partisan jab. 


What is it like to know that you have to play such games to pretend to not be getting your ass kicked?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is about Traditional Americans who are tried of being sidelined
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If by traditional Americans do you mean those traditional Americans who think it’s a good tradition for cops to be able to shoot Black people when they feel like it? y’all need to be sidelined.
Click to expand...



Nope. That is not what I mean. ANd you are a dick for asking such a question.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is about Traditional Americans who are tried of being sidelined.
> 
> 
> 
> m
> 
> Cry me a river. Loser!
Click to expand...



I am sad about it. But, the context of this thread is you people pretending that my side tried to overthrow the government.


So, for you to minimize our anger, is actually undermining your own position.


Did you forget that your position was that my side was a violent movement that has been and/or is committed to ruling over you and... well, I'm not sure what you pretend fears were, but, 



YOu seem to have lost the thread of your own argument, if you are minimizing our anger. 


Mmm, was that an accidental flash of honesty, where you revealed that you know that your position is complete bullshit?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is about Traditional Americans who are tried of being sidelined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> White Christian Americans are sidelining  themselves. They quit procreating and reproducing themselves and their religion isn’t that attractive anymore because they don’t practice what the founder taught.
> 
> Instead they worship things like Trump. So you see it is about Trump
Click to expand...



Except that is none of that is true. 

Religious white Americans are doing ok with maintain population size. It is you libs that are not having kids or interbreeding. 


And we are doing fine with living up to our beliefs.  


That you are projection the way you look onto your political leaders onto us, is just you being stupid.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not about Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am encouraged because your diversion could mean that Trump does not have enough white supremacists, Militant anti-government types and just plain stupid cult followers to assault the Capitol Bldg hundreds of times over and over again?
> 
> The idiot traditional Americans, at least some of them, I woke up.
Click to expand...





ws are an insignificant fringe and only an asshole would pretend otherwise.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to seriously think about what you want to have happen moving forward.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just don’t want 60 million ignorant Americans believing everything an asshole tells them such as that he won the election by a landslide when he lost it by 7 million votes. That’s all I want for now.
Click to expand...



We are not ignorant, you arrogant ass. 

We count. We have a right to have our voices heard and our interests represented. 


You deny us that, and there will be trouble.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Nice standard of proof you have there. We have seen hundreds of antifa and blm riots over the last 5 years. Your denial is silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar. We have seen zero BLM riots.ENTIFA is an anti-fascist movement. They do not claim to be a peaceful protest movement. Therefore I do not agree with their use of violence. Know if you were going to everyone of these antifa versus right wing militia melees that ever occur and you know and you can tell me who threw the first punch, or rock and then we can talk about it. But for now you need to focus on BLM because you are flat out lying every time you call them a violentCriminal organization and that they are responsible for rioting and looting that takes place. You’re a liar. You’re a racist liar. And you cannot talk about BLM separately because you are a liar.
Click to expand...



If I was wacist, as you claim like a retard. Why would that mean that I could not talk about how a group of blacks are violent and criminal?

Your claim, as always, is retarded.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice standard of proof you have there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I realize that people who lie about a black organization dedicated to peaceful protest Would have major difficulties with a standard of proof. It’s a good standard why don’t you try to live up to a decent moral standard for once in your life.
Click to expand...



We have been watching antifa and blm mobs rioting for years, killing dozens, and hurting thousands and destroying hundreds of millions of dollars of property.


That you would ask for proof of this, is you being a stonewalling, gas lighting, dishonest partisan hack.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The blm movement is a far left violent and criminal organization.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry. White supremacy does not allow white folks to say things about a black organization dedicated to peaceful protest that are not true. Not even vaguely close to being true. You are a liar.
Click to expand...



ws is a insignificant fringe. They don't set any rules in our society.


You are a wace baiting asshole for pretending that they do.


My point stands. BLM is a far left, violent and criminal organization.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> I honestly know without a shadow of a doubt that your consideration that both blm and antifa are violent far left organizations without a shared of evidence to support it means you are a racist and a liar.




If I honestly believe it, then I am telling the truth as I see it, when I say that. 


Are you pretending to be too stupid to know that meaning of the word lie, or are you just being a standard lib monkey throwing shit at the wall and hoping something sticks?


ALSO, if I believe that both antifa and blm are far left organizations and are violent, "without a shred of evidence", even if true, that does not mean that I am a wacist, as you claim like a retard. It would more likely mean that I am deeply biased against leftist organizations.


Of course, we have seen years of riots from both antifa and blm, so your claim of no evidence is retarded.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Connecting facts to recognize a reality is opposed by Correll  26596567
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because you are stating "facts" in conjunction as though they are connected or as though they mean what you want them to mean, generally with little cause other than your deep hatred of President Trump and teh GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What does it mean when it is a fact that Trump responded to a request for help by tweeting nothing for fifteen minutes as the rioters continued ransacking the Capitol snd then tweeted that Pence was too cowardly to stop the steal? What does it mean?  Was it right it was it wrong for Trump to ignore a call for help by someone  under attack by people flying Trump flags yelling “fight for Trump”
Click to expand...



It could mean a lot of things. 


You are assuming the worst [possible motive of a man you hate and pretending your assumption is the only possible explanation.


Or you really believe it. In which case you are just a blindly partisan hack.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Jesus saves! god, guns & guts made america, let’s keep all three. 26680911
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Traditional Americans who are tried of being sidelined.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this them?  And are these warriors in your impending civil war?
> 
> *A Christian Insurrection*​Many of those who mobbed the Capitol on Wednesday claimed to be enacting God’s will.....​
> 
> https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2021/01/among-insurrectionists/617580/
> 
> ​
Click to expand...



An odd question. Do you really not know if Christian Americans are part of Traditional America?


Oh, wait, that wasn't a real question was it? That was just an excuse to post some lib talking shit about them. 



My point stands. YOu keep up shit like that, and you are actively walking a path toward increasing violence and civil war.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> An odd question.



I know all the questions you don’t want to answer. Were the Christians that stormed  the Capitol  traditional Christian?

That’s what I asked.

And now I am responsible for their violence? Jesus H. Christ!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> It could mean a lot of things.



Beside you saying that Trump is not in the chain of command and McCarthy needed to call the chief of police or somebody, what does it mean?

If it is virtuous or normal decent human behavior to react to learning about people,  some of his friends and their families, being in harms way and there was something he could try to do to help them,  what does it mean when he doesn’t do anything except further incite violence?

I can’t find a way for it to mean that Trump wanted the violence to stop. Tell me why that is wrong.

We learn from the Senate hearing that Trump knew about the violence going on for about an hour his big concern was to call Senator Tommy Tubberville wanting him to delay further the certification of the votes. WTF dude? Why are you defending the abominable behavior from the president of United States during a violent riot in the US Capitol building?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> An odd question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know all the questions you don’t want to answer. Where are the questions that storm the Capitol  traditional Christian?
> 
> And now I am responsible for their violence? Jesus H. Christ!
Click to expand...



I'm happy to answer the question. Yes. Christian Americans are a huge part of Traditional America.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> I can’t find a way for it to mean that Trump wanted the violence to stop. Tell me why that is wrong.




It could mean that Trump was confident that the capitol police were doing all that they could and that any attempt from him to interfere would just distract them at a critical time. 


BOOM. Right there your pretense that your self serving assumption is the only possible answer, is revealed to be wrong.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> If I honestly believe it, then I am telling the truth as I see it, when I say that.



I understand we all use mental shortcuts to honestly believe things such as the earth is a sphere that orbits around the sun without researching the science and physics of the entire phenomenon.

The mental shortcut leading to a belief that the earth is flat and the sun sinks into the ocean every night has no place in society.

But when you bring your unfounded belief that BLM is a violent organization that calls for mayhem and looting to further their cause for social justice, you need to leave your mental shortcuts (not to be bothered with the facts) at the door when you show up in a discussion forum to establish truth and facts about things.

It’s just common courtesy to leave your mental shortcuts behind.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I'm happy to answer the question.



But you still didn’t answer the question happy or not? Were the Christians den in that photo and as described in my post the “traditional” Christians that you were talking about.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Why would that mean that I could not talk about how a group of blacks are violent and criminal?



Talk about individuals and groups of blacks that are violent and criminals all you want.

Just don’t talk about a peaceful protest organization that is not violent and criminal.

Specifically when you can’t even name names or identify cases where the organizers have called for looting or called for initiating violence against police during a peaceful demonstration.

And more specifically when the peaceful protest organization has held over 8000 protest nationwide and only had about 3% of them did violence break out. And you don’t know what was the cause or who initiated the violence when it broke out at 3% of those peaceful protests.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I honestly believe it, then I am telling the truth as I see it, when I say that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand we all use mental shortcuts to honestly believe things such as the earth is a sphere that orbits around the sun without researching the science and physics of the entire phenomenon.
> 
> The mental shortcut leading to a belief that the earth is flat and the sun sinks into the ocean every night has no place in society.
> 
> But when you bring your unfounded belief that BLM is a violent organization that calls for mayhem and looting to further their cause for social justice, you need to leave your mental shortcuts (not to be bothered with the facts) at the door when you show up in a discussion forum to establish truth and facts about things.
> 
> It’s just common courtesy to leave your mental shortcuts behind.
Click to expand...



If someone says something you disagree with, you disagree with them.

The next obvious step in a place like this, ie a discussion forum is to discuss why you think that they are wrong or why you are right.


Just calling them a "liar" based on saying something that you disagree with, is you being unreasonable.


BLM is a violent and criminal organization who's members and supporters have been rioting and looting and killing for years.


You have been very vocal and strong in your defense of them. 


Your excuse for calling me a "liar" when you know I believe it,  is interesting in that it reveals how dysfunctional your thought processes are.


Thank you for sharing.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> But, the context of this thread is you people pretending that my side tried to overthrow the government.



WE are not pretending anything. I saw people carrying Trump flags as they stormed the capital, beat up cops, ransacked the building, hunted down lawmakers, hunted down the vice president to hang him,  stopped the certification of the vote as it  was in progress.  The  sum total of all that is an insurrection.

Of course they didn’t succeed and they probably never could have succeeded but the reality is they tried. And had they succeeded they would’ve overturned  an election by throwing out the votes where a high number of the voters are black who live in cities like Detroit Philadelphia Atlanta Milwaukee Phoenix and Las Vegas.

I am not saying that your entire side one of that mob of 1000 of trump flag flying violent losers, I am saying that that mob did actually stop the machinery of government for about eight hours with the intent to overthrow the election. And overthrowing on election is overthrowing the government. I’m sorry that you just think it was just a little riot.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm happy to answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But you still didn’t answer the question happy or not? Were the Christians den in that photo and as described in my post the “traditional” Christians that you were talking about.
Click to expand...




Yes, of course. 

What point are you making other than posting that to put forth the anti-Christian smears in the article?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Just calling them a "liar" based on saying something that you disagree with, is you being unreasonable



you are a liar because you are labeling BLM as a violent criminal organization based on nothing but sheer obvious racist prejudice because you do not cite fax or anything to back up your disgusting lie about BLM. You just told me that you believe it’s true so you
are not lying because you believe it true.

That is so absurd I’m still laughing.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, the context of this thread is you people pretending that my side tried to overthrow the government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WE are not pretending anything. I saw ....
Click to expand...



Yes, yes, yes, blah, blah, blah.


My point stands. You can't have it both ways. If we are that dangerous, then dismissing our anger as harmless makes no sense.

You have to chose. Are we dangerous? Or harmless?


That you want to have it both ways, shows that your pretend shock and outrage over the supposed coup, is ginned up bulshit.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> What point are you making other than posting that to put forth the anti-Christian smears in the article?



I am opposed to all violent assholes storming the capital to overthrow an election to cancel my vote and the vote of 80 million other Americans. If some of those assholes profess to be Christians it is not anti-Christian to condemn them. It’s an insult to Christianity to participate in violence and attack on the government of the United States while flying a Jesus flag and caring a cross.

And you do it like Christians like to do hide behind the skirt of religion when engaging in despicable acts.

There is no anti-Christian smear in that article. The man I voted for president is a Christian. Our new vice president is a Christian. I don’t recall ever voting for any president in my lifetime that was not a Christian. I probably would’ve done that had I voted for Trump however.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would that mean that I could not talk about how a group of blacks are violent and criminal?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Talk about individuals and groups of blacks that are violent and criminals all you want.
> 
> Just don’t talk about a peaceful protest organization that is not violent and criminal.
> ...
Click to expand...


You cut your point.

YOu made the claim that I could not talk about blm being violent and criminal because you believed, like a retard, that I was wacist.


THat makes no sense. A wacist person, would be happy to talk about a black group, without the context of a mostly white group, being violent and criminal.


So, your claim otherwise, was just you talking nonsense.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just calling them a "liar" based on saying something that you disagree with, is you being unreasonable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are a liar because you are labeling BLM as a violent criminal organization based on nothing but sheer obvious racist prejudice because you do not cite fax or anything to back up your disgusting lie about BLM. You just told me that you believe it’s true so you
> are not lying because you believe it true.
> 
> That is so absurd I’m still laughing.
Click to expand...



Lying is when someone claims something that they know is false. 

You've admitted that I believe what I say about blm.


Thus I am not lying. 


You could reasonably have the position that I am wrong or even deluded.

But your insistence that I am lying is you being retarded.


Here, btw, is your peaceful BLM rioting.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Yes, yes, yes, blah, blah, blah.



Define pretending. I watched it on TV. Are you saying the insurrection at the Capitol  never happened. It’s all fake news,  it all took place filmed in some secret government  Hollywood studio? WTF are you going blah blah blah blah about?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> What point are you making other than posting that to put forth the anti-Christian smears in the article?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am opposed to all violent assholes storming the capital...
Click to expand...



Which has nothing to do with what we were talking about. 

My point stands. 


This is not about Trump. This is about US, Traditional Americans, who have a right to have a voice and to have our interests represented.

You deny us that, and there will be trouble.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, yes, yes, blah, blah, blah.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Define pretending. I watched it on TV. Are you saying the insurrection at the Capitol  never happened. It’s all fake news,  it all took place filmed in some secret government  Hollywood studio? WTF are you going blah blah blah blah about?
Click to expand...



You dismissed our anger as just sadness and tears. Yet, you are also claiming to be shocked and appalled at the violence from us on 1/6. 


Those two positions are mutually contradictory. 


EIther our anger is a real threat, or it is not. YOu cannot both be afraid of our anger and not afraid of our anger, at the same time. 


In at least one of those times, you were lying. 


Which is your truth? 


Are you a man shocked and appalled and afraid of the violence your fellow citizens are capable of?


Or are you laughing at our impotent rage?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Lying is when someone claims something that they know is false.



Lying is also when someone claims that something is true but has been proven to be false. Just about every single murderer in prison will say they are innocent and they probably believe they are but there is a way to determine whether or not it is true or false. If the murderer in prison says he is innocent but the facts prove otherwise then  he is lying. You could argue that he’s nuts but if that’s what you want in your case I’ll take it.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lying is when someone claims something that they know is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lying is also when someone claims that something is true but has been proven to be false. Just about every single murderer in prison will say they are innocent and they probably believe they are but there is a way to determine whether or not it is true or false. If the murderer in prison says he is innocent but the facts prove otherwise then  he is lying. You could argue that he’s nuts but if that’s what you want in your case I’ll take it.
Click to expand...



I have never heard of that definition of lying before.  


I think that you are just so closed minded, that you cannot grasp that other people can reasonably disagree with you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I have never heard of that definition of lying before.



you are living in your own self-conceived reality. You are generally harmless, but when you make threats to those that must confront your fake reality with facts then you  are becoming dangerous  

like sixty million believe Trump win the last election. And like you who maintain that BLM    is a violent criminal organization with no proof.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have never heard of that definition of lying before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> you are living in your own self-conceived reality. You are generally harmless, but when you make threats to those that must confront your fake reality with facts then you  are becoming dangerous
> 
> like sixty million believe Trump win the last election. And like you who maintain that BLM    is a violent criminal organization with no proof.
Click to expand...



Lying is teh intent to deceive. 


Without that, it is not lying. 


I believe that you believe what you are saying. Thus, you are not  lying, you are just wrong.


Unless you can prove your definition of lie.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Lying is teh intent to deceive.



That is exactly why you are lying that BLM is a violent criminal organization.

One motive is to justify your racism. Black Lives don’t matter - look how violent they are.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Yet, you are also claiming to be shocked and appalled at the violence from us on 1/6.



I am shocked at the purpose of your violence. The purpose of your violence was to overturn an election for very horrible and loathsome man who convinced you that it was rightfully his.

The cause for which “traditional” Americans for Trump will become violent or condone it  is incredibly disgusting.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> The Left's Plan to Rule, is based on the marginalization and oppression of the largest single ethnic group in the country



How will they oppress you? Take your Dr Suess books away?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lying is teh intent to deceive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly why you are lying that BLM is a violent criminal organization.
> 
> One motive is to justify your racism. Black Lives don’t matter - look how violent they are.
Click to expand...



Except that you admit that I believe it.


Part of ACTUAL racism, not the nonsense wacism you accuse me of, is having unreasonably biases against people.


Believing the worse of a group, with little evidence, would be expected of an actual racist.


If you believed that I was racist, you would not be surprised to find that I had a negative view of a mostly black group.


What you are doing here is showing how little thought you give to the leftist claptrap you spew.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, you are also claiming to be shocked and appalled at the violence from us on 1/6.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am shocked at the purpose of your violence. The purpose of your violence was to overturn an election for very horrible and loathsome man who convinced you that it was rightfully his.
> 
> The cause for which “traditional” Americans for Trump will become violent or condone it  is incredibly disgusting.
Click to expand...



1. The purpose was to stop the certification of a count without any investigation into credible accusations of fraud.

2. Trump was fine man. Better than than what came before him or after him for certain. Your hysteria over losing, is a flaw with you, not him.


3. My point stands. Traditional Americans count and when you try to deny that, you invite trouble.

4. So, what was all that about Christian Americans? I answered your question and  you dropped it. Seems that all that "question" was was an excuse to post those anti-Christians smears. Like I said. And you denied. Does that make you a liar? An anti-Christian bigot?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Left's Plan to Rule, is based on the marginalization and oppression of the largest single ethnic group in the country
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How will they oppress you? Take your Dr Suess books away?
Click to expand...



Right now, what they have done is create the idea that people like me, having a turn, is taboo and to be prevented at all costs. 


Trump was our turn. We played by the rules adn won big. That should have meant that we got to see if our ideas worked for US.


But you people criminally resisted constantly and excessively to the point that our turn was at least somewhat denied. 


Especially as the initial results were looking good. 


That is very upsetting. 


Why should we respect a game, when our turns are denied? Especially when you are obviously working the system to make sure we never get a turn again?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> 3. My point stands. Traditional Americans count




What point stands? You are a liar. Of course Traditional Americans count. I never said they did not?

in fact if you mean the ones that live in Red States like Wyoming they have a huge advantage in being counted - they have two Senators and California has two Senators.

Today, the country’s largest state, California, has 68 times the population of the smallest one, Wyoming, yet they have the same number of seats in the Senate. That means individual voters in deep-red Wyoming have far more influence over the Senate than voters in deep blue California.​


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. My point stands. Traditional Americans count
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What point stands? You are a liar. Of course Traditional Americans count. I never said they did not?
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


Your actions show that you do not think that they do. 

Trump as our turn, and at every step of hte way, you people have made it clear that you considered his administration an aberration to be fought with every fiber of your being.


There is a thread on this site right now, Biden, making America normal again".


US having a turn was ABnormal? That only makes sense if in your world the plan was for US to never have a turn.


My point stands.  Traditional Americans count and as far as your plan to permanently sideline US, that will not lead to a good outcome for any of us.


----------



## Correll

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, you are also claiming to be shocked and appalled at the violence from us on 1/6.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am shocked at the purpose of your violence. The purpose of your violence was to overturn an election for very horrible and loathsome man who convinced you that it was rightfully his.
> 
> The cause for which “traditional” Americans for Trump will become violent or condone it  is incredibly disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. The purpose was to stop the certification of a count without any investigation into credible accusations of fraud.
> 
> 2. Trump was fine man. Better than than what came before him or after him for certain. Your hysteria over losing, is a flaw with you, not him.
> 
> 
> 3. My point stands. Traditional Americans count and when you try to deny that, you invite trouble.
> 
> 4. So, what was all that about Christian Americans? I answered your question and  you dropped it. Seems that all that "question" was was an excuse to post those anti-Christians smears. Like I said. And you denied. Does that make you a liar? An anti-Christian bigot?
Click to expand...



NotfooledbyW?

Seriously. NOt a rhetorical question. What was the point of asking if Christians were part of Traditional Americans?

You asked that, I answered. 


I also suggested that the only reason you asked the "question" was to post all the anti-Christian smears in the article. 


You denied that.


But there was no follow up point at all. 


So, we see that is really was, as I said, NOT a question at all, but just a rhetorical device to post some anti-Christian bigotry. 


You are a bigot.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Your actions show that you do not think that they do.



What Actions you lying piece of crap?

I just I just don’t know what happened to traditional conservatives having turninto authoritarians with no respect for democracy.

Thankfully the brainy side of traditional conservatism will help the Democrats put out the authoritarian fire that is Trumpism


"Why have a group of conservatives who not many years ago were prepared to happily vote for the likes of Ted Cruz come to embrace a cause that few of them displayed any interest in?" Chait proposed. "For political elites, Trump's unconcealed desire to follow the path of figures like Orban, Erdogan, and Putin became the primary stakes of the era's political conflict. Their activism put them in touch with scholars of authoritarianism and democracy who studied democratic backsliding, and the insights of those thinkers became increasingly evident in the Never Trumpers' polemics."









						Republicans who left the party due to Trump aren't returning until Trumpism is dead: report
					

According to a column from longtime political observer Jonathan Chait, conservatives who abandoned the Republican Party as it turned more authoritarian under Donald Trump have no intention of returning just because he lost the 2020 presidential election to now-President Joe Biden.Trump is...




					www.rawstory.com


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> What was the point of asking if Christians were part of Traditional Americans?



That was not my question you lying piece of crap


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your actions show that you do not think that they do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What Actions you lying piece of crap?
> 
> I just I just don’t know what happened to traditional conservatives having turninto authoritarians with no respect for democracy.
> ....
Click to expand...



When you pretend that us getting a turn, was some horrific disaster, you are showing that we are, in your mind, not supposed to ever get a turn.


That is the end of democracy, right there.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was the point of asking if Christians were part of Traditional Americans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was not my question you lying piece of crap
Click to expand...



Don't quibble. Explain what your point was, if it was not to just, AS I SAID AND YOU DENIED, to just put out the anti-Christian smears in that article. 


OR, show some balls and admit that you were just being a bigot.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Is this them? 26690077


Correll said:


> What was the point of asking if Christians were part of Traditional Americans?
> 
> You asked that, I answered.



liar,

*Is this them? *And are these warriors in your impending civil war?

A Christian Insurrection






Many of those who mobbed the Capitol on Wednesday claimed to be enacting God’s will.EMMA GREEN JANUARY 8, 2021


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Explain what your point was, if it was not to just, AS I SAID AND YOU DENIED, to just put out the anti-Christian smears in that article.



There is no anti-Christian Smear in that article?

I’m not anti-Christian. I have voted for Christians my entire life and am happy that they have that spiritual and moral guidance in their service to the country and to we the people that elect them. My opinion is that Christian Democrats are more Christlike than Republicans in the way they vote and support policies. 

So clench your effin teeth and shut the F up about me being anti-Christian.

I don’t believe in the hocus pocus junk in organized Christianity as Thomas Jefferson described it, so I’m not a Christian. But there is not an anti-Christian bone in my body.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> This is not about Trump. This is about US, Traditional Americans, who have a right to have a voice and to have our interests represented.





Correll said:


> Or are you laughing at our impotent rage?





Correll said:


> 2. Trump was fine man.





Correll said:


> There is a thread on this site right now, Biden, making America normal again".



Did you send money to the RNC  to get your name on the  THANK YOU to TrumpQ CARD?

"On Friday, the RNC sent out two emails asking supporters to donate as a way to add their name to a 'thank you' card for Trump," said the report. "'President Trump will ALWAYS stand up for the American People, and I just thought of the perfect way for you to show that you support him!' the email states. 'As one of President Trump's MOST LOYAL supporters, I think that YOU, deserve the great honor of adding your name to the Official Trump "Thank You' Card.' A follow-up email was sent hours later to 'President Trump's TOP supporters' warning of a deadline of 10 hours to get their names on the card."









						Trump slaps GOP with cease and desist order so that they'll stop using his name
					

On Saturday, POLITICO  	reported that former president Donald Trump sent cease-and-desist letters to key Republican Party fundraising arms warning them to stop using his name and likeness.  	The targeted GOP organizations include the Republican National Committee, the National Republican...




					www.rawstory.com
				




Laughing my ass off if you did or didn’t.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Gotta stop thinking everybody you hate is pretending everything 26690154


Correll said:


> When you pretend that us getting a turn, was some horrific disaster, you are showing that we are, in your mind, not supposed to ever get a turn.



Your turn was a disaster. No pretending. It
was a fucked up disaster on top of being extremely embarrassing that Americans would put a complete idiot like DJT in the White House.

Besides helping a virus kill half a million Americans there is the Trump Economic Disaster  26385748


postman said:


> Today is as good a day as any to do the before and afters.  What the economy was doing when Biden left office, and what the economy is doing as Biden enters office.
> 
> Quite a difference in 4 years, and not in a good way.
> 
> Unemployment went from 4.7% to 6.7%
> The federal deficit went from $584 billion to $3.3 trillion
> The debt went from $19.9 trillion to $27.7 trillion
> And the DOW went from 19,827 to  31,080
> 
> Well one thing got better


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Trump called for a demonstration to make him a winner of an election that he clearly lost /  Jacob Blake’s parents called for  peaceful protests to support a belief that their son’s life matters.  26559879



Correll said:


> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.
> That some people were able to use that to spark a riot, is on those people that did that.



Let’s compare the Trump riot on January 6 to what happened in Kenosha the week starting Sunday night August 23 2020

What started the Kenosha riots?
​“Protests in Kenosha began on Sunday after video of the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old black man, went viral.”   Kenosha mayor admits he did 'not have enough people' to stop riots​
Blake was shot seven times in the back by police as his sons watched. They said he had had a knife.

There was spontaneous violence Sunday night right after the shooting,  but unlike the Trump riot,  no one in the Democratic Party or Black Lives Matter organization called for an organized protest on Sunday evening when the worst of the rioting took place.

So, Correll how is it that you blame the spontaneous violence that happened right after the shooting of Jacob Blake on Black Lives Matter and Democrats? They had nothing to do with it.

And what is really sick and pathetic coming from you Correll is your blanket condemnation of all black people when you say that the parents of Jacob Blake must be held responsibly for the looting and property damage for going on TV and saying such a hateful thing as their *Black Son’s  Life MATTERS. *

www.washingtonpost.com
'My son matters': Jacob Blake's family calls for officer's arrest, peaceful protest

Aug 25, 2020 — In a highly emotional appearance two days after the shooting, Jacob Blake Jr.'s parents and siblings called for healing and peace


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Doc7505 said:


> Which was the insurrgency?



The riot which had the insurrectionist goal to  appoint TrumpQ the winner of the 2020 election that he clearly lost by seven million votes..

not one of the 275 riots was organized to benefit one single Dem Party politician.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Is this them? 26690077
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> What was the point of asking if Christians were part of Traditional Americans?
> 
> You asked that, I answered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> liar,
> 
> *Is this them? *And are these warriors in your impending civil war?
> 
> A Christian Insurrectio...
Click to expand...



And I said "yes".  So, what was the point?


I think I know what the point is.  Faith looks weird to people without it, and with closed minds. 


You are being demagogic. You are trying for an emotional reaction because you can't support your agenda of denying US our turn, based on any logic. 


We are angry. And with good cause. You people have been violent bullies and assholes for years now. And now that we fought back, a LITTLE, compared to the provocations, 

you are acting like it is the end of the fucking world. 


So, you have to gin up an emotional reaction to justify your antics.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain what your point was, if it was not to just, AS I SAID AND YOU DENIED, to just put out the anti-Christian smears in that article.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no anti-Christian Smear in that article?
> 
> I’m not anti-Christian. I have voted for Christians my entire life and am happy that they have that spiritual and moral guidance in their service to the country and to we the people that elect them. My opinion is that Christian Democrats are more Christlike than Republicans in the way they vote and support policies.
> 
> So clench your effin teeth and shut the F up about me being anti-Christian.
> 
> I don’t believe in the hocus pocus junk in organized Christianity as Thomas Jefferson described it, so I’m not a Christian. But there is not an anti-Christian bone in my body.
Click to expand...



I asked you what your point was in posting that article and asking that question, if it was just to smear Christians.



You deny that it was to smear Christians. 


You did not offer any explanation as to what the point was of the question. 



I ask again, what was the point of the question, if not to smear Christians?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not about Trump. This is about US, Traditional Americans, who have a right to have a voice and to have our interests represented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Or are you laughing at our impotent rage?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Trump was fine man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a thread on this site right now, Biden, making America normal again".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you send money to the RNC  to get your name on the  THANK YOU to TrumpQ CARD?
> 
> "On Friday, the RNC sent out two emails asking supporters to donate as a way to add their name to a 'thank you' card for Trump," said the report. "'President Trump will ALWAYS stand up for the American People, and I just thought of the perfect way for you to show that you support him!' the email states. 'As one of President Trump's MOST LOYAL supporters, I think that YOU, deserve the great honor of adding your name to the Official Trump "Thank You' Card.' A follow-up email was sent hours later to 'President Trump's TOP supporters' warning of a deadline of 10 hours to get their names on the card."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump slaps GOP with cease and desist order so that they'll stop using his name
> 
> 
> On Saturday, POLITICO  	reported that former president Donald Trump sent cease-and-desist letters to key Republican Party fundraising arms warning them to stop using his name and likeness.  	The targeted GOP organizations include the Republican National Committee, the National Republican...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.rawstory.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laughing my ass off if you did or didn’t.
Click to expand...



nothing in that bit about quanon. So why you lie? 

Oh, right. Because you know that the Truth doesn't work for you.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Gotta stop thinking everybody you hate is pretending everything 26690154
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you pretend that us getting a turn, was some horrific disaster, you are showing that we are, in your mind, not supposed to ever get a turn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your turn was a disaster. No pretending. It
> .....
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]

And once again, you pretend to be miss my point.

I did not say that you were "pretending our turn was a disaster", I said you were pretending that our "GETTING  A TURN" was a disaster.


Disagreeing on policy is normal. Flipping out that we get a turn, is a whole next level kind of thing.


You are undermining the very concept of democracy here. 


And the more demagogic you get about it, the more you reveal that you are not prepared to be the Loyal Opposition to US, when it is our turn, that you are supposed to be.


You see US not as your fellow citizens who you disagree with, but as your enemy.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Trump called for a demonstration to make him a winner of an election that he clearly lost /  Jacob Blake’s parents called for  peaceful protests to support a belief that their son’s life matters.  26559879
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress.
> That some people were able to use that to spark a riot, is on those people that did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s compare the Trump riot on January 6 to what happened in Kenosha the week starting Sunday night August 23 2020
> 
> What started the Kenosha riots?
> ​“Protests in Kenosha began on Sunday after video of the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a 29-year-old black man, went viral.”   Kenosha mayor admits he did 'not have enough people' to stop riots​
> Blake was shot seven times in the back by police as his sons watched. They said he had had a knife.
> 
> There was spontaneous violence Sunday night right after the shooting,  but unlike the Trump riot,  no one in the Democratic Party or Black Lives Matter organization called for an organized protest on Sunday evening when the worst of the rioting took place.
> 
> So, Correll how is it that you blame the spontaneous violence that happened right after the shooting of Jacob Blake on Black Lives Matter and Democrats? They had nothing to do with it.
> 
> And what is really sick and pathetic coming from you Correll is your blanket condemnation of all black people when you say that the parents of Jacob Blake must be held responsibly for the looting and property damage for going on TV and saying such a hateful thing as their *Black Son’s  Life MATTERS. *
> 
> www.washingtonpost.com
> 'My son matters': Jacob Blake's family calls for officer's arrest, peaceful protest
> 
> Aug 25, 2020 — In a highly emotional appearance two days after the shooting, Jacob Blake Jr.'s parents and siblings called for healing and peace
Click to expand...



1. Trump had the right to call for a protest. And considering the long history of peaceful protests by conservatives, every reason to believe it would be a peaceful protest.

2. Blake's parents had the right to call for a peaceful protest. But considering the recent history of riots in such situations, they had ever reason to suspect that it would turn into a riot, which iy did, in which there was much destruction of private property and people hurt, two actually dying. 


It looks like their son was a piece of shit, and got his ass shot. They should not have called for a protest. They might not be criminally liable, but they certainly did no one any good. 

Hey, think young black men will have a lot of good jobs in that burned out ruin of a community in the coming years?


The primary person who should have been thinking of the value of Blake's life, was BLAKE himself.


----------



## Blues Man

When I listen to politicians all I hear is this


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> 1. Trump had the right to call for a protest.



I don’t disagree. What is your point?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

As if @Correll’s MAGA hate groups were peaceful hate groups until January 6 - 26695014


Correll said:


> And considering the long history of peaceful protests by conservatives, every reason to believe it would be a peaceful protest.



Apparently a White House staffer was in contact with the proud boys in the days prior to the January 6 insurrection. More on that later.

The proud boys were involved in the deadly violence in Kenosha in August / September following the seven shot shooting in the back of Jacob BLAKE by police.  They were involved in much violence prior to that. The proud boys were involved in violence in DC at a “stop the steal” MAGA protest in November and another in December. They were certainly involved in the January 6 DJTQ insurrection to make DJYQ a winner when he was really a loser. that’s at least three.

So you’re a liar, there was no history of peaceful protest when a lot of the same militant white supremacy and rightwing asshole MAGA hate groups showed up.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> 2. Blake's parents had the right to call for a peaceful protest. But considering the recent history of riots in such situations, they had ever reason to suspect that it would turn into a riot, which iy did, in which there was much destruction of private property and people hurt, two actually dying.



Blake’s parents are “you people” that ignore violence and hate, cops, conservatives and Trump,  are they not?

It turned into a riot as soon as Blake!s parents got the news and saw the video on Sunday night. You just danced around the fact that you hold BLM organizers and the entire Democratic Party responsible for every act of race based violence that has happened in the past 5.5 years. That’s because you are a racist.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> It looks like their son was a piece of shit, and got his ass shot.



Do you know Jacob Blake personally.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Blake's parents had the right to call for a peaceful protest. But considering the recent history of riots in such situations, they had ever reason to suspect that it would turn into a riot, which iy did, in which there was much destruction of private property and people hurt, two actually dying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blake’s parents are “you people” that ignore violence and hate, cops, conservatives and Trump,  are they not?
> 
> It turned into a riot as soon as Blake!s parents got the news and saw the video on Sunday night. You just danced around the fact that you hold BLM organizers and the entire Democratic Party responsible for every act of race based violence that has happened in the past 5.5 years. That’s because you are a racist.
Click to expand...



I acknowledge the possibility that some of the riots might have been truly spontaneous events without any input from blm. 


You said wacist. That makes you the retard here. Stop being retarded.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It looks like their son was a piece of shit, and got his ass shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know Jacob Blake personally.
Click to expand...



Nope. My point stands. He looks to be a piece of shit and got his ass shot.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> They should not have called for a protest.



They called for a peaceful protest. Using the word “peaceful” is the right and proper and highly moral and ethical thing to do.

The fact of the matter is that violence broke out before anybody could even call for a protest, including the parents of the victim.

So your ignorance is clearly displayed as to what causes the violence that *immediately* follows a police shooting of thkind.

So instead of calling for more restraint by the police, especially in a domestic dispute situation, you attack the victim and blame the parents of that victim for the anonymous and senseless violence for which they have no control.

You complain against their first amendment right to publicly gather to express their grievances against the government. In this case for shooting their son seven times in the back in front of his kids.

 Your clear and precise kneejerk “blame the black victim” while never questioning the tactics and motives of the police, merit you being called a piece of shit racist. You earned it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I acknowledge the possibility that some of the riots might have been truly spontaneous events without any input from blm.



Then why do you condemn BLM for all the violence that has happened the past 5.5 years

When studies have shown that  only less than 4% of the protests organized by BLM turned out to be violent (which I would venture to guess a high percentage of thise where the violence was in fact spontaneous) I just don’t understand how you can condemn the entire BLM movement for all the racially charged violence that has occurred  over the past 5 1/2 years and in Trump’s watch.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Nope. My point stands. He looks to be a piece of shit and got his ass shot.



If you do not know him personally how do you know that Jacob Blake is a piece of shit which I must presume you have determined that he  deserved to be shot 7 times in the back in front of his kids.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> You said wacist. That makes you the retard here. Stop being retarded.



There is no correlation between honestly identifying you as a racist because of your message on race and my mental and societal and moral capabilities.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> We are angry. And with good cause.



Sorry, racist. Mass hysterical  submissiveness to conspiracy theories based on hatred of minorities in America is not a good cause. It never will be and you cannot make it so.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I did not say that you were "pretending our turn was a disaster", I said you were pretending that our "GETTING A TURN" was a disaster.



I’m not ‘pretending’ that entities.. you need c to stop complaining about what you imagine everybody you hate.   Work with reality. That’s what we do.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> They should not have called for a protest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They called for a peaceful protest. Using the word “peaceful” is the right and proper and highly moral and ethical thing to do.
> 
> The fact of the matter is that violence broke out before anybody could even call for a protest, including the parents of the victim.
> 
> So your ignorance is clearly displayed as to what causes the violence that *immediately* follows a police shooting of thkind.
> 
> So instead of calling for more restraint by the police, especially in a domestic dispute situation, you attack the victim and blame the parents of that victim for the anonymous and senseless violence for which they have no control.
> 
> You complain against their first amendment right to publicly gather to express their grievances against the government. In this case for shooting their son seven times in the back in front of his kids.
> 
> Your clear and precise kneejerk “blame the black victim” while never questioning the tactics and motives of the police, merit you being called a piece of shit racist. You earned it.
Click to expand...



When you admit that you cannot support your postion without calling people wacist, you admit that you cannot support your position at all. 


My point stands. Considering the last 5 years of riots, his parents should not have called for a "peaceful protest", that was likely and actually did turn  into a riot that caused massive damage and even deaths.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I acknowledge the possibility that some of the riots might have been truly spontaneous events without any input from blm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you condemn BLM for all the violence that has happened the past 5.5 years
> 
> When studies have shown that  only less than 4% of the protests organized by BLM turned out to be violent (which I would venture to guess a high percentage of thise where the violence was in fact spontaneous) I just don’t understand how you can condemn the entire BLM movement for all the racially charged violence that has occurred  over the past 5 1/2 years and in Trump’s watch.
Click to expand...



1. I dismiss those stats as garbage. 

2. I condemn BLM (and antifa) because they are behind so many violent riots.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. My point stands. He looks to be a piece of shit and got his ass shot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you do not know him personally how do you know that Jacob Blake is a piece of shit which I must presume you have determined that he  deserved to be shot 7 times in the back in front of his kids.
Click to expand...



From the reports on his criminal and violent treatment of women.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said wacist. That makes you the retard here. Stop being retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no correlation between honestly identifying you as a racist because of your message on race and my mental and societal and moral capabilities.
Click to expand...



Except I am not wacist. 


When you admit that you cannot make your case without calling people wace baiting names, you admit that you cannot make your case at all.


You lose.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> We are angry. And with good cause.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, racist. Mass hysterical  submissiveness to conspiracy theories based on hatred of minorities in America is not a good cause. It never will be and you cannot make it so.
Click to expand...



All you have is the Wace Card. That is you admitting that you got nothing. 


And you being an asshole.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not say that you were "pretending our turn was a disaster", I said you were pretending that our "GETTING A TURN" was a disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I’m not ‘pretending’ that entities.. you need c to stop complaining about what you imagine everybody you hate.   Work with reality. That’s what we do.
Click to expand...



So you truly believe it?

Ok. I stand corrected. 


The fact that you believe that our getting a turn is abnormal and something to be fought against, is  you shit canning our democracy.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> The fact that you believe that our getting a turn is abnormal and something to be fought against, is you shit canning our democracy.



You are nuts. I have not said you getting a turn is abnormal. We had an election in 2016 and you got your turn in a normal way. Its at the end of your turn where you really fucked up trying to extend your normal term in a very abnormal un-American and anti-democratic fascist way.

And hopefully you never get a fucking turn again with the likes of a fascist like Donald J Trump.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> All you have is the Wace Card. That is you admitting that you got nothing.



It’s not a card. It’s a determination from the messages of hate that you keep expressing.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Except I am not wacist.



Then why do you hold a different standard for Black Lives Matter organizers then you do with Trump?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you believe that our getting a turn is abnormal and something to be fought against, is you shit canning our democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are nuts. I have not said you getting a turn is abnormal. We had an election in 2016 and you got your turn in a normal way. ....
Click to expand...



no, we didn't. Your side declared a "RESIST" and abused power and lied to federal judges and rioted and censored and lied to the American people on a massive scale and arrested  people for self defense, ect ect ect. 


You side sabotaged our turn. ANd now you won and you want YOUR turn,  under the old rules were we play nice.



Tell me, seriously, this is not a rhetorical qustion.


Why should we play by the old rules when you don't?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have is the Wace Card. That is you admitting that you got nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It’s not a card. It’s a determination from the messages of hate that you keep expressing.
Click to expand...



It is bullshit. And when you do it, you admit that you cannot make your case based on anything besides name calling.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> From the reports on his criminal and violent treatment of women.



You are a lying piece of shit. More disgusting racist than I even thought in the first place

Blake has no criminal record regarding violent treatment of women. The warrant for his arrest was dropped because his girlfriend or ex girlfriend dropped the charges. Apparently he has three children with her and there’s some kind of domestic dispute.
Andyou agree with him being shot in the back seven times in front of his kids for that.

*Quick Take*​Posts on social media falsely claim that the man shot by police in Kenosha, Wisconsin, “wouldn’t have been shot if he was still in prison for raping the 14 year old.” There’s no evidence he was ever charged with such a crime — let alone convicted and imprisoned. Jacob Blake was charged in July with sexually assaulting an adult woman, but has not been convicted.​​







						Posts Distort Facts on Jacob Blake Charges - FactCheck.org
					

Posts on social media falsely claim that the man shot by police in Kenosha, Wisconsin, "wouldn't have been shot if he was still in prison for raping the 14 year old." There's no evidence he was ever charged with such a crime -- let alone convicted and imprisoned. Jacob Blake was charged in July...




					www.factcheck.org
				




*Full Story *​The Aug. 23 shooting of Jacob Blake by police in Kenosha, Wisconsin, set off protests against police brutality in the city — as well as distorted and unfounded claims on social media.​
One viral claim on Facebook targets Blake, who his family’s attorney says was paralyzed by the shooting, by altering the known facts about criminal charges against him. Specifically, the claim falsely suggests that he served time in prison for “raping the 14 year old.”​
“Jacob Blake is shot by police while resisting arrest,” a meme repeatedlyshared on Facebook — in one example by 11,000 users — claims. “He wouldn’t have been shot if he was still in prison for raping the 14 year old.”​
The posts offer no evidence for the claim, and the allegation doesn’t comport with publicly available records.​
Blake, 29, was in fact charged in a domestic abuse case in July with third-degree sexual assault, Wisconsin court records show. The state statute cited does not specify that the charge relates to sexually assaulting a minor. He was also charged with trespassing and disorderly conduct; he has not been convicted, let alone imprisoned. There was an active arrest warrant for Blake on those charges, which police officers were reportedly alerted to prior to the shooting.​
A criminal complaint shows that the charges relate to an incident with an adult woman; FactCheck.org is not providing other details about the victim because of the nature of the alleged crime.​
The actual charges, while no doubt serious, are therefore not proof that Blake “wouldn’t have been shot if he was still in prison for raping the 14 year old.”​
We could find no other evidence to support that claim. Wisconsin’s Sex Offender Registry offers no matches for his name. Other cases in Wisconsin’s court recordsinclude a traffic violation and the custody disputes.​


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except I am not wacist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you hold a different standard for Black Lives Matter organizers then you do with Trump?
Click to expand...



I don't. I explained very clearly, repeatedly how the actions of blm is different than the action of Trump when it comes to calling for "peaceful protests" that just happen to turn into riots. 


Did you really forget that? It was not that long ago. I did it over and over again. 


Mmm, if you are not lying, that is some serious Confirmation Bias that is warping your perceptions. 


LIke DEEP PARTISAN ZEALOT LEVEL shit.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I don't. I explained very clearly, repeatedly how the actions of blm is different than the action of Trump when it comes to calling for "peaceful protests" that just happen to turn into riots.



No you didn’t. You compare a one time protest organized by Trump which was 100% violent to the totality of protest that you can’t even prove whether or not the violence was related to the BLM movement let alone whether BLM had anything to do with initiating the violence. The proud boys were in Kenosha and other white supremacist groups,  and militia type Trump supporters. Have you studied that their presence mattered with regard to violence?

Kenosha proves that BLM has nothing to do with the violence. That’s why I’m pointing it out to you. BLM didn’t organize  protests that turned violent In Kenosha.  Three cops were involved shooting a black male in the back seven times and violence erupted  Spontaneously. There is a fact that you cannot deny.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't. I explained very clearly, repeatedly how the actions of blm is different than the action of Trump when it comes to calling for "peaceful protests" that just happen to turn into riots.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you didn’t. You compare a one time protest organized by Trump which was 100% violent to the totality of protest that you can’t even prove whether or not the violence was related to the BLM movement let alone whether BLM had anything to do with initiating the violence. The proud boys were in Kenosha and other white supremacist groups,  and militia type Trump supporters. Have you studied that their presence mattered with regard to violence?
> 
> Kenosha proves that BLM has nothing to do with the violence. That’s why I’m pointing it out to you. BLM didn’t organize  protests that turned violent In Kenosha.  Three cops were involved shooting a black male in the back seven times and violence erupted  Spontaneously. There is a fact that you cannot deny.
Click to expand...



1. Yes. I did. YOur denial is either dishonest or pathological. Deal with it.

2. Kenosha was more antifa. The Proud Boys were a. not there and b, are not ws. The militia types that were there, were not the cause of the violence.

3. Kenosha proves nothing about blm. That not all violence is directed by blm, does not prove that no violence is directed by blm.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> 2. Kenosha was more antifa



Violence broke out Sunday night immediately following the shooting. How did antifa know to be there? Provide the data that leads to your statement or just admit that you’re a liar.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> It is bullshit.


What is bullshit about it? I explain everything in detail. Why don’t you?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> 3. Kenosha proves nothing about blm. That not all violence is directed by blm, does not prove that no violence is directed by blm.



You are a liar. It proves violence broke out spontaneously after a police shooting and BLM had nothing to do with it in Kenosha.

It is also absolutely zero proof for you to run around lying that BLM calls for violence and looting anywhere at any time.

You have not ever named one single place that proves BLM directed protesters to commit violence.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> From the reports on his criminal and violent treatment of women.



Maybe Jacob Blake should run for president.

"As regards women, as we famously remember, Donald Trump bragged about grabbing women by the crotch and has cases in court where he's accused of raping one woman and sticking his fingers inside another and other accusations."


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> The militia types that were there, were not the cause of the violence.



What sparked violence?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> The militia types that were there, were not the cause of the violence.



The militia types were in DC on January 6 to support trumps request to stop the STEAL.

What sparked the violence in DC on January 6?


----------



## MadChemist

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The militia types that were there, were not the cause of the violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The militia types were in DC on January 6 to support trumps request to stop the STEAL.
> 
> What sparked the violence in DC on January 6?
Click to expand...


Pray tell...please tell us.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MadChemist said:


> Pray tell...please tell us.



It was not Black Lives Matter.


----------



## MadChemist

NotfooledbyW said:


> MadChemist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pray tell...please tell us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was not Black Lives Matter.
Click to expand...


You asked the question.

Do you get an answer ?

And telling what it wasn't tells me nothing about what it was.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MadChemist said:


> You asked the question.



That’s right. What is your answer?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Kenosha was more antifa
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Violence broke out Sunday night immediately following the shooting. How did antifa know to be there? Provide the data that leads to your statement or just admit that you’re a liar.
Click to expand...




Antifa is a widespread movement. Who is to say that they did not have cells nearby ready for just this sort of opportunity?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> What is bullshit about it? I explain everything in detail. Why don’t you?
Click to expand...



Over a thousand posts in this thread and you cut EVERYTHING from a single post and ask me to expands on it? LOL!!!


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Over a thousand posts in this thread and you cut EVERYTHING from a single post and ask me to expands on it?


When you repeat the same baseless and detailed lie over and over again 1000 times it’s still no detail and I still a pack of lies.

You called this bullshit

“It’s not a card. It’s a determination from the messages of hate that you keep expressing.”

There are no posts that I know of addressing that. Explaining that. So why is it bullshit? Why did you dodge it?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Antifa is a widespread movement. Who is to say that they did not have cells nearby ready for just this sort of opportunity?



 What opportunity?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Kenosha proves nothing about blm. That not all violence is directed by blm, does not prove that no violence is directed by blm.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a liar. It proves violence broke out spontaneously after a police shooting and BLM had nothing to do with it in Kenosha.
> 
> It is also absolutely zero proof for you to run around lying that BLM calls for violence and looting anywhere at any time.
> 
> You have not ever named one single place that proves BLM directed protesters to commit violence.
Click to expand...



My position is the same, I reject your pretense that the last 5 years of riots, by antifa and blm did not happen or are somewhat justified or are "RACE", or what have you.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the reports on his criminal and violent treatment of women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe Jacob Blake should run for president.
> 
> "As regards women, as we famously remember, Donald Trump bragged about grabbing women by the crotch and has cases in court where he's accused of raping one woman and sticking his fingers inside another and other accusations."
Click to expand...



Your desperate attempts to change the subject are taken as an admission that you know you are getting your ass kicked.


My point stands. Blake was a piece of shit who got his ass shot and his parents were wrong to call for a demonstration that was likely to turn into a riot.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The militia types that were there, were not the cause of the violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What sparked violence?
Click to expand...



"Sparked"?  Violence was not "Sparked". People are not natural events or big piles of tinder that get set on fire. 


Some people saw a young man by himself and a pack decided to attack him. Their actions are on them.


In a sane world, their cell phone records would have been gone over with a fine tooth comb.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The militia types that were there, were not the cause of the violence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The militia types were in DC on January 6 to support trumps request to stop the STEAL.
> 
> What sparked the violence in DC on January 6?
Click to expand...



My understanding is that some people had plans ahead of time to use the demonstration as cover to start a violent confrontation. 


SO, nothing "Sparked" it. Some people chose to DO it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> "Sparked"? Violence was not "Sparked". People are not natural events or big piles of tinder that get set on fire.


No. what sparked the original spontaneous violence in Kenosha on Sunday night August 23, 2020?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Over a thousand posts in this thread and you cut EVERYTHING from a single post and ask me to expands on it?
> 
> 
> 
> When you repeat the same baseless and detailed lie over and over again 1000 times it’s still no detail and I still a pack of lies.
> 
> You called this bullshit
> 
> “It’s not a card. It’s a determination from the messages of hate that you keep expressing.”
> 
> There are no posts that I know of addressing that. Explaining that. So why is it bullshit? Why did you dodge it?
Click to expand...



No dodge. I accurately described the way that you and almost all libs use the Race Card.


You use it as a personal attack. Your definition of it seems to really mean, "asshole who won't kowtow so let's dogpile him", based on how you use it.


Because your use of it, never seems to actually line up with real racism.


Also, you are an asshole for calling me so many names when I have been happy to discuss this issue civilly and on the issues.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> My understanding is that some people had plans ahead of time to use the demonstration as cover to start a violent confrontation.
> 
> 
> SO, nothing "Sparked" it. Some people chose to DO it.



So do you have any evidence that any of the leaders of the BLM organization had plans ahead of time at any of their demonstrations to use the demonstration as cover to start violence?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Antifa is a widespread movement. Who is to say that they did not have cells nearby ready for just this sort of opportunity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What opportunity?
Click to expand...



Black guy shot.


----------



## MadChemist

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Antifa is a widespread movement. Who is to say that they did not have cells nearby ready for just this sort of opportunity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What opportunity?
Click to expand...


To stoke a riot.  

I have a friend who was there who says they were encouraged by several people to "get violent" by others.


----------



## MadChemist

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that some people had plans ahead of time to use the demonstration as cover to start a violent confrontation.
> 
> 
> SO, nothing "Sparked" it. Some people chose to DO it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So do you have any evidence that any of the leaders of the BLM organization had plans ahead of time at any of their demonstrations to use the demonstration as cover to start violence?
Click to expand...


No.

And apparently you don't have any evidence on who got it rolling.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Correll said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you believe that our getting a turn is abnormal and something to be fought against, is you shit canning our democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> You are nuts. I have not said you getting a turn is abnormal. We had an election in 2016 and you got your turn in a normal way. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, we didn't. Your side declared a "RESIST" and abused power and lied to federal judges and rioted and censored and lied to the American people on a massive scale and arrested  people for self defense, ect ect ect.
> 
> You side sabotaged our turn. ANd now you won and you want YOUR turn,  under the old rules were we play nice.
> Tell me, seriously, this is not a rhetorical qustion.
> Why should we play by the old rules when you don't?
Click to expand...

“_Why should we play by the old rules when you don't?_”

Because if you don’t, if you try to overthrow this Republic and our centuries-old institutions to establish a cult leader like Trump in power illegally, your asses will end up in jail. Or else you will succeed and destroy everything that has made this country great.

And let’s get one thing straight: “your side” has been playing your little “wacist” games ... for ages. Who the fuck is “your” side anyway? Trump fanatics? Republicans but not “RINOs”? Workers? White ethnics? Apologists for the Confederacy? This “your side” and “our side” dichotomy — which YOU push as much as any “TDS liberal”  — is getting VERY tiresome.

If you are talking about elites or economics, CAPITALISTS have been playing these globalized profit-seeking games for generations, with enthusiastic Republican support. Since the start of “the American Century” and certainly after WWII, most white American workers (and virtually all Democratic & Republican leaders) supported U.S. global corporate and military expansion. The resulting U.S. “empire” for a long time benefited the U.S. worker — at least white workers — but kept them in a childish ideological and emotional state enthralled to “the American Dream.”

That “Dream” was always also something of a nightmare for many. Now the “new normal” of the world capitalist economy means for many more ordinary working people the special economic privileges of being a U.S. citizen can no longer be maintained. But our people and elites —  including fakers like Trump with his fake religion and “patriotism” and  “military strengthening” and dream of going backwards to MAGA — refuse to abandon their illusions in “U.S. exceptionalism” and (to use the official lingo) “full spectrum global dominance.”

One of the great and really exceptional things about our society is its democratic and multi-ethnic immigrant culture, its long-established Republican institutions — and these are what “we” who love this country are trying to maintain through these dark days.

I just wanted to jump in, since this was my thread originally, and you, Correll, have been turning it into something very different than it was intended to be. I am not at all interested in debating with you. This thread asked “What are you thinking about as you hear the Senate arguments.” Those arguments have long since been presented. I thought I’d offer “what I’ve been thinking about” as I read your many (to me depressing and even “deplorable”) comments.


----------



## Correll

MadChemist said:


> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Antifa is a widespread movement. Who is to say that they did not have cells nearby ready for just this sort of opportunity?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What opportunity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To stoke a riot.
> 
> I have a friend who was there who says they were encouraged by several people to "get violent" by others.
Click to expand...



What a shock.


----------



## Correll

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NotfooledbyW said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you believe that our getting a turn is abnormal and something to be fought against, is you shit canning our democracy.
> 
> 
> 
> You are nuts. I have not said you getting a turn is abnormal. We had an election in 2016 and you got your turn in a normal way. ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> no, we didn't. Your side declared a "RESIST" and abused power and lied to federal judges and rioted and censored and lied to the American people on a massive scale and arrested  people for self defense, ect ect ect.
> 
> You side sabotaged our turn. ANd now you won and you want YOUR turn,  under the old rules were we play nice.
> Tell me, seriously, this is not a rhetorical qustion.
> Why should we play by the old rules when you don't?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “_Why should we play by the old rules when you don't?_”
> 
> Because if you don’t, if you try to overthrow this Republic and our centuries-old institutions to establish a cult leader like Trump in power illegally, your asses will end up in jail. Or else you will succeed and destroy everything that has made this country great.
> 
> And let’s get one thing straight: “your side” has been playing your little “wacist” games ... for ages. Who the fuck is “your” side anyway? Trump fanatics? Republicans but not “RINOs”? Workers? White ethnics? Apologists for the Confederacy? This “your side” and “our side” dichotomy — which YOU push as much as any “TDS liberal”  — is getting VERY tiresome.
> 
> If you are talking about elites or economics, CAPITALISTS have been playing these globalized profit-seeking games for generations, with enthusiastic Republican support. Since the start of “the American Century” and certainly after WWII, most white American workers (and virtually all Democratic & Republican leaders) supported U.S. global corporate and military expansion. The resulting U.S. “empire” for a long time benefited the U.S. worker — at least white workers — but kept them in a childish ideological and emotional state enthralled to “the American Dream.”
> 
> That “Dream” was always also something of a nightmare for many. Now the “new normal” of the world capitalist economy means for many more ordinary working people the special economic privileges of being a U.S. citizen can no longer be maintained. But our people and elites —  including fakers like Trump with his fake religion and “patriotism” and  “military strengthening” and dream of going backwards to MAGA — refuse to abandon their illusions in “U.S. exceptionalism” and (to use the official lingo) “full spectrum global dominance.”
> 
> One of the great and really exceptional things about our society is its democratic and multi-ethnic immigrant culture, its long-established Republican institutions — and these are what “we” who love this country are trying to maintain through these dark days.
> 
> I just wanted to jump in, since this was my thread originally, and you, Correll, have been turning it into something very different than it was intended to be. I am not at all interested in debating with you. This thread asked “What are you thinking about as you hear the Senate arguments.” Those arguments have long since been presented. I thought I’d offer “what I’ve been thinking about” as I read your many (to me depressing and even “deplorable”) comments.
Click to expand...





1. Got it. You


Tom Paine 1949 said:


> “_Why should we play by the old rules when you don't?_”
> 
> Because if you don’t, if you try to overthrow this Republic and our centuries-old institutions to establish a cult leader like Trump in power illegally, your asses will end up in jail. Or else you will succeed and destroy everything that has made this country great.




You do not get to sabotage our turn and then pretend like we are the bad guys for playing by your new rules. 


Well, you can. But only if you want a civil war.


----------



## Correll

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> And let’s get one thing straight: “your side” has been playing your little “wacist” games ... for ages. Who the fuck is “your” side anyway?




Save it. You don't get to demonize US for 5 fucking years and then whine because we notice that you are against us.


----------



## Correll

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> That “Dream” was always also something of a nightmare for many.




Save your anti-American claptrap. This great nation has always been the best place to be just about anyone, from rich powerful men to poor black farmers.  Sure, other places had their success stories, but none had the great masses of people that got to work and keep most of that they created and live in relative safety and peace.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

....the spark that ignited the DC riot -
"Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us," Trump said, "and if he doesn't, it's a sad day for our country."

Pence didn’t come through. 26698940



MadChemist said:


> And apparently you don't have any evidence on who got it rolling.



KENOSHA IS EASY. The cops shot a black man in the back and spontaneous violence broke out that night.

The DJTQ riot in DC was sparked by Trump’s two months of lying that he won the election.  Those lies led to the last chance to stop the election from being stolen from Trump who still insists that he won.

....It looked on the day of the riot for the the first time in four years, Mike Pence found his balls and put his country’s democracy before Donald Trump’s personal interests.

here’s  the facts:


WASHINGTON (AP) — Defying President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence said Wednesday that he does not have the power to discard electoral votes that will make Democrat Joe Biden the next president on Jan. 20.​​Pence said in a statement issued minutes before he was to begin presiding over a joint session of Congress to count those votes that it was "my considered judgement that my oath to support and defend the Constitution constrains me from claiming unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not."​​In the days before the joint session, Trump has pressured his vice president to toss electors from battleground states that voted for Biden to overturn the will of voters in a desperate and futile bid to undo President-elect Joe Biden's victory in the November election.​"If Mike Pence does the right thing we win the election," Trump told thousands of supporters who rallied Wednesday on the Ellipse, just south of the White House, an hour before the count in Congress was to begin.​
"All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people," Trump said, repeating a falsehood he has been promoting leading up to the congressional session.

Trump repeatedly pressured Pence to act during his more than 75-minute speech to supporters. "Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us," Trump said, "and if he doesn't, it's a sad day for our country."

Shortly before the 1 p.m. start of the joint session and even as Trump continued his verbal haranguing, Pence made clear in a three-page letter that he would follow the Constitution, not the commander in chief. While Trump was speaking, Pence's motorcade carried him through a heavily-secured Washington toward the Capitol, where thousands of Trump supporters were marching.









						Read Pence's full letter saying he can't claim 'unilateral authority’ to reject electoral votes
					

Defying President Donald Trump, Vice President Mike Pence said Wednesday that he does not have the power to discard electoral votes that will make Democrat Joe Biden the next president on Jan. 20.




					www.google.com
				




​


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> You side sabotaged our turn.



Barack and Joe left Donnie and Mike a real nice economy. 75% of ISIS was obliterated and surrounded by coalition forces and trapped in Mosul.  Barack did all he could to make the transition as smooth as possible. All Trump had to do was golf and count his money. But no. 









						The Michael Flynn Scandal Just Got A Lot Worse
					

New information about the ex-national security adviser's troubling work with Turkey could put President Trump in the hot seat.




					fortune.com
				




The Michael Flynn Scandal Just Got A Lot Worse BY  ANDREW KENT March 27, 2017 2:28 PM 

The Wall Street Journal recently reported stunning new information about retired U.S Army Gen. Michael Flynn, who was briefly the National Security Adviser to President Donald Trump before being fired for lying about his troubling contacts with the Russian ambassador to Washington. Because of those communications and other contacts with the Putin government, Flynn is already at the center of the storm of the Russia-Trump investigations being conducted by Congress and the FBI. But now it is not just Russia ties that are dogging Flynn and, by extension, his former boss, the President. Flynn’s work for the government of Turkey is now also a serious issue.

It has been known for months that Flynn did some consulting work for a Turkish company with links to the Turkish government, while also serving as one of the most important members of Trump’s campaign team. But the nature and extent of this work was not publicly known. But now, according to The Journal, we learn that Flynn’s work involved a meeting on September 19, 2016 with senior Turkish government officials to discuss how to remove a Turkish dissident from the United States without going through judicial or other legal processes—actions that could violate U.S. criminal laws and that certainly raise anew serious questions about Flynn’s judgment and ethics.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> You don't get to demonize US for 5 fucking years



If you didn’t want to be demonized you should not have put a demon in the White House who will eternally lie that he won a second term in a landslide when he lost by seven million votes.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MadChemist said:


> To stoke a riot.



What was the opportunity in Kenosha to stoke a riot Sunday night on August 23 2020? 

Something must have happened in Kenosha that day? It must be hard to stoke a riot because a dog chased a squirrel up a tree if something.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> SO, nothing "Sparked" it. Some people chose to DO it.



Nothing? Some Republicans just decided for kicks to storm the Capitol and hang the Good Christian Republican VP Mike Pence for no reason - maybe take some selfie’s to share on Facebook with some friends.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

MadChemist said:


> I have a friend who was there who says they were encouraged by several people to "get violent" by others.



Oh, No l!!    Not the “others”.

I would unfriend any idiot stupid enough to turn to violence for any reason except self defense.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> ...the spark that ignited the DC riot -
> "Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us," Trump said, "and if he doesn't, it's a sad day for our country."




Funny, didn't the feds charge several people with conspiring BEFORE that even occurred? So, if those charges are not bullshit, then the plans were already made.


NO "spark" needed.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Barack and Joe left Donnie and Mike a real nice economy. 75% of ISIS was obliterated and surrounded by coalition forces and trapped in Mosul. Barack did all he could to make the transition as smooth as possible. All Trump had to do was golf and count his money. But no.




That would have been a good answer, if I had not made it clear repeatedly what I was referring to with the sabotage comment.


That you put forth a strawman instead of addressing what you know I was referring to, 


is a tacit admission that you know your side did sabotage our turn. 


A game where only one side gets a turn, is a game that is ending.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't get to demonize US for 5 fucking years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you didn’t want to be demonized you should not have put a demon in the White House who will eternally lie that he won a second term in a landslide when he lost by seven million votes.
Click to expand...



Interesting. The excuse you use for the demonization is something that happened AFTER the demonization.


But thanks for not denying your actions.  


Actions which had the intent and result of sabotaging our turn.


A game where only one side gets a turn, is a game that is ending.



And the consequences are of that are on you and yours.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> SO, nothing "Sparked" it. Some people chose to DO it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing? Some Republicans just decided for kicks to storm the Capitol and hang the Good Christian Republican VP Mike Pence for no reason - maybe take some selfie’s to share on Facebook with some friends.
Click to expand...



You would have to ask them their motives. But they are people who make choices. They are not piles of tinder that outside forces happen to. 


Your difficulty understanding this, is very credible. It is normal with liberals.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> is a tacit admission that you know your side did sabotage our turn.


What sabotage are you talking about?GOP got their big debt loser tax cut passed and their right wing nut supreme court justices.

Not the Democrats fault dumbass Trump and Congress cant I come up with a healthcare plan better than Obama care.

What does the Democrats stop trump from doing?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> A game where only one side gets a turn, is a game that is ending



You had your turn. What the hell was four years with Trump. It’s nobody’s fault but yours. Its Trump’s failure and he is a piss poor loser and an embarrassment to the entire world. He ruined the economy and he caused a lot of people to die needlessly

Trump came in like a clown and went out  like a fascist.

No one could out do trumps ability to sabotage his own presidency and fuck up the country and raise hundreds of millions of dollars from idiots like you.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> is a tacit admission that you know your side did sabotage our turn.
> 
> 
> 
> What sabotage are you talking about?GOP got their big debt loser tax cut passed and their right wing nut supreme court justices.
> 
> Not the Democrats fault dumbass Trump and Congress cant I come up with a healthcare plan better than Obama care.
> 
> What does the Democrats stop trump from doing?
Click to expand...



We will never know what Trump could have done, if your side had not bogged him down with so much bullshit from RESIST, to a political impeachment to the "very fine people" lie.


That is the cost of your sabotage.  No, that was the PRIZE of your sabotage.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> A game where only one side gets a turn, is a game that is ending
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You had your turn. What the hell was four years with Trump. It’s nobody’s fault but yours. Its Trump’s failure and he is a piss poor loser and an embarrassment to the entire world. He ruined the economy and he caused a lot of people to die needlessly
> 
> Trump came in like a clown and went out  like a fascist.
> 
> No one could out do trumps ability to sabotage his own presidency and fuck up the country and raise hundreds of millions of dollars from idiots like you.
Click to expand...



A turn involves being allowed to do stuff. You people broke the rules and broke the game. 

You really should have thought this through before you did it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> We will never know what Trump could have done,



He was corrupt enough with resistance. His insurrection to stay in power at the end was quite horrific. I wish the resistance had more teeth against that monster.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll do to know what the biggest Trump lie is in this tweet that kicked off the big insurrection on January 6 2021? 

January 6, 2021 8:17 a.m.: Trump tweets: "States want to correct their votes, which they now know were based on irregularities and fraud, plus corrupt process never received legislative approval. All Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage!"


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> We will never know what Trump could have done,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was corrupt enough with resistance. His insurrection to stay in power at the end was quite horrific. I wish the resistance had more teeth against that monster.
Click to expand...



Unemployment at an all time low, wages rising, no new wars. 


And that was with you people being "ungovernable".


We will never know what Trump could have done, if you people were still playing Democracy.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll do to know what the biggest Trump lie is in this tweet that kicked off the big insurrection on January 6 2021?
> 
> January 6, 2021 8:17 a.m.: Trump tweets: "States want to correct their votes, which they now know were based on irregularities and fraud, plus corrupt process never received legislative approval. All Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage!"




The Charlottesville Lie is bigger and far worse. The media watched Trump say, "ws are bad people" and told the American voters that he said that "ws are very fine people".


What would the vote have been if the media had not convinced the majority of people that the President was ws? 


That was a lie that stole the election, right there.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*NFBW wrote*: Those of you out there still defending your two votes for DJT to be the highest law enforcement officer in the land, under oath, to defend and protect the Constitution, please tell the forum what DJT meant when he told the “Stop the Steal” crowd that *“very different rules” *applied on January 6, 2021.  21NOV24-POST#1072

“”” Trump told the crowd that ‘*very different rules’* applied. 21JAN06-DJTincite-05
Incitement to Riot? What Trump Told Supporters Before Mob Stormed Capitol
“*When you catch somebody in a fraud*, *you are allowed to go by very different rules.* So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do, and I hope he doesn’t listen to the RINOs and the stupid people that he’s listening to.” “””

*Correll  wrote: *I don't think that the election was fair, *nor do I know what the level of cheating was*. 21FEB11-POST#156

*NFBW wrote: *If you did not know on Feb11 Correll what the level of cheating was why do you still accept DJT telling an already angry crowd in front of the White House about five weeks prior that he has ‘*caught*’ his opponent cheating, so therefore *new rules* apply? *What rules apply Correll ?   *21NOV24-POST#1072

*Correll  wrote: *Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress. 21FEB14-POST#340

*NFBW wrote: *So Trump called for a demonstration ( a “going to be wild” rally ) to put pressure on Congress *according to new rules based on the claim that his opponent has been “caught” cheating* to win. Do you agree Correll or any of you DJTvoterrs who oppose questioning whether or not DJT incited or even inspired the violence by his supporters on Jan6  21NOV24-POST#1072

*AzogtheDefiler  wrote:* Trump didn't incite Jan 6th. The media did.  21NOV18-POST#200

*ThisIsMe wrote*:  Even I agree, I think its time for trump to pack it up. Regardless of whether or not he has a legitimate case, we are seeing that the courts are not going to rule in his favor. This latest scotus ruling seems to be a telegraph that they are not having any of it.    - - -  He should show everyone he can be the bigger man and go ahead and conceed, for the benefit of a smooth transition. He doesn't need to be defiant til the end. When you see that things are not going to go your way, you can keep running into brick walls, or face reality and try to make it easier on yourself, and everyone else.  20DEC06-POST#209

*Lastamender wrote*: It is just the truth. The election was stolen. Man up and admit it. 21MAR22-POST#11

*Flash wrote: *President Dufus stole the election but a really large number of Useful Idiots voted for him. 21MAR13-POST#1

*PoliticalChic wrote*: (DJT’s Jan96) "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." 21NOV17-POST#118


*BasicHumanUnit wrote: *There are two types of Patriots........
1). Paper Tiger Patriots
2). Real Men who make real plans to deal with real threats to their rights and freedoms  - - -  If all you do is play victim on forums and have not actively joined a local militia, you are the Paper Tiger Type  21DEC20-POLICE ST#12

*Death Angel wrote*: We all know they ( Pelosi and Schumer ) instigated it, along with a few useful idiot pawns of the Democrats, including the Democrat activist who carried the Confederate flag 21NOV11-POST#981

*Godboy wrote:* Telling lies isnt against the law, nor does it equate to telling someone to cause violence. 21FEB12-POST#189

*kyzr wrote: *By definition, doesn't an insurrection need to be coordinated? The whole purpose of an insurrection is to take control of the government. If its not coordinated, its just a protest, with no intent to replace the government. 21AUG21-POST#8

*Oldestyle wrote*: Let me see if I follow your "logic", Notfooled! You think a peaceful rally is to blame for the violence that occurred when the Capital Police were woefully unprepared for a small number of protesters that decided they should occupy the Capital building? 21OCT25-POST#308

*struth  wrote*: …so what? Folks helped plan a rally....we know that...who cares? 21OCT24-POST#299

*toobfreak wrote*: 1/6 was a revolt against the government for flagrantly stealing a presidential election. 21OCT26-POST#402


----------



## BasicHumanUnit




----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW wrote*: Those of you out there still defending your two votes for DJT to be the highest law enforcement officer in the land, under oath, to defend and protect the Constitution, please tell the forum what DJT meant when he told the “Stop the Steal” crowd that *“very different rules” *applied on January 6, 2021.  21NOV24-POST#1072
> 
> “”” Trump told the crowd that ‘*very different rules’* applied. 21JAN06-DJTincite-05
> Incitement to Riot? What Trump Told Supporters Before Mob Stormed Capitol
> “*When you catch somebody in a fraud*, *you are allowed to go by very different rules.* So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do, and I hope he doesn’t listen to the RINOs and the stupid people that he’s listening to.” “””
> 
> *Correll  wrote: *I don't think that the election was fair, *nor do I know what the level of cheating was*. 21FEB11-POST#156
> 
> *NFBW wrote: *If you did not know on Feb11 Correll what the level of cheating was why do you still accept DJT telling an already angry crowd in front of the White House about five weeks prior that he has ‘*caught*’ his opponent cheating, so therefore *new rules* apply? *What rules apply Correll ?   *21NOV24-POST#1072




"Accept"?  What do you mean? That word seems to have no meaning in this context. Trump said something. I don't have to take an action to "Accept" it. 


I have stated that I support his right to call for that protest and the right of those people to protest. I have stated that I opposed the small group of protestors that crossed the line and became rioters. I have stated that I want equal treatment before the law, for those rioters compared to all the other rioters of the last 5 years.

None of this is unclear or confusing.  If you have a point just get to it. 






NotfooledbyW said:


> *Correll  wrote: *Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress. 21FEB14-POST#340
> 
> *NFBW wrote: *So Trump called for a demonstration ( a “going to be wild” rally ) to put pressure on Congress *according to new rules based on the claim that his opponent has been “caught” cheating* to win. Do you agree Correll or any of you DJTvoterrs who oppose questioning whether or not DJT incited or even inspired the violence by his supporters on Jan6  21NOV24-POST#1072




"Going to be wild"? Is that the basis for your claim that he was inciting a riot?

LOL!!! Such language, and far worse, is commonly used to fire up crowds at normal, COMPLETETLY PEACEFUL, demonstrations. IF that is  your "smoking gun" then you have JACK SHIT.


The pretense that you have anything other than jack shit, is just you lefties spouting shit to distract from  your far worse and more extensive violence over the last 5 years.


And going forward.


----------



## AzogtheDefiler

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW wrote*: Those of you out there still defending your two votes for DJT to be the highest law enforcement officer in the land, under oath, to defend and protect the Constitution, please tell the forum what DJT meant when he told the “Stop the Steal” crowd that *“very different rules” *applied on January 6, 2021.  21NOV24-POST#1072
> 
> “”” Trump told the crowd that ‘*very different rules’* applied. 21JAN06-DJTincite-05
> Incitement to Riot? What Trump Told Supporters Before Mob Stormed Capitol
> “*When you catch somebody in a fraud*, *you are allowed to go by very different rules.* So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do, and I hope he doesn’t listen to the RINOs and the stupid people that he’s listening to.” “””
> 
> *Correll  wrote: *I don't think that the election was fair, *nor do I know what the level of cheating was*. 21FEB11-POST#156
> 
> *NFBW wrote: *If you did not know on Feb11 Correll what the level of cheating was why do you still accept DJT telling an already angry crowd in front of the White House about five weeks prior that he has ‘*caught*’ his opponent cheating, so therefore *new rules* apply? *What rules apply Correll ?   *21NOV24-POST#1072
> 
> *Correll  wrote: *Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress. 21FEB14-POST#340
> 
> *NFBW wrote: *So Trump called for a demonstration ( a “going to be wild” rally ) to put pressure on Congress *according to new rules based on the claim that his opponent has been “caught” cheating* to win. Do you agree Correll or any of you DJTvoterrs who oppose questioning whether or not DJT incited or even inspired the violence by his supporters on Jan6  21NOV24-POST#1072
> 
> *AzogtheDefiler  wrote:* Trump didn't incite Jan 6th. The media did.  21NOV18-POST#200
> 
> *ThisIsMe wrote*:  Even I agree, I think its time for trump to pack it up. Regardless of whether or not he has a legitimate case, we are seeing that the courts are not going to rule in his favor. This latest scotus ruling seems to be a telegraph that they are not having any of it.    - - -  He should show everyone he can be the bigger man and go ahead and conceed, for the benefit of a smooth transition. He doesn't need to be defiant til the end. When you see that things are not going to go your way, you can keep running into brick walls, or face reality and try to make it easier on yourself, and everyone else.  20DEC06-POST#209
> 
> *Lastamender wrote*: It is just the truth. The election was stolen. Man up and admit it. 21MAR22-POST#11
> 
> *Flash wrote: *President Dufus stole the election but a really large number of Useful Idiots voted for him. 21MAR13-POST#1
> 
> *PoliticalChic wrote*: (DJT’s Jan96) "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." 21NOV17-POST#118
> 
> 
> *BasicHumanUnit wrote: *There are two types of Patriots........
> 1). Paper Tiger Patriots
> 2). Real Men who make real plans to deal with real threats to their rights and freedoms  - - -  If all you do is play victim on forums and have not actively joined a local militia, you are the Paper Tiger Type  21DEC20-POLICE ST#12
> 
> *Death Angel wrote*: We all know they ( Pelosi and Schumer ) instigated it, along with a few useful idiot pawns of the Democrats, including the Democrat activist who carried the Confederate flag 21NOV11-POST#981
> 
> *Godboy wrote:* Telling lies isnt against the law, nor does it equate to telling someone to cause violence. 21FEB12-POST#189
> 
> *kyzr wrote: *By definition, doesn't an insurrection need to be coordinated? The whole purpose of an insurrection is to take control of the government. If its not coordinated, its just a protest, with no intent to replace the government. 21AUG21-POST#8
> 
> *Oldestyle wrote*: Let me see if I follow your "logic", Notfooled! You think a peaceful rally is to blame for the violence that occurred when the Capital Police were woefully unprepared for a small number of protesters that decided they should occupy the Capital building? 21OCT25-POST#308
> 
> *struth  wrote*: …so what? Folks helped plan a rally....we know that...who cares? 21OCT24-POST#299
> 
> *toobfreak wrote*: 1/6 was a revolt against the government for flagrantly stealing a presidential election. 21OCT26-POST#402


Impossible to follow. Are you mentally ill? What are you doing?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

to give approval to
to endure without protest
to regard as proper, normal
to recognize as true : BELIEVE
to make a favorable response
*Correll wrote*:  “Accept"? What do you mean? That word seems to have no meaning in this context. Trump said something. I don't have to take an action to "Accept" it. 21NOV24-POST#1074

*NFBW wrote; *You have already accepted this statement by DJT when you claim nothing he had said or did couid incite or inspire the Jan6 violence. 21NOV24-POST#1076

“When you *catch* somebody in a fraud, you are *allowed* to go by *very different rules.

NFBW point one: *Accirding to your writing, you did not actually believe or regard as true DJT’s word on Jan6 when the sitting President, whom you voted for twice, the top law enforcement officer in the land, who saw his attorney general William Barr essentially resign after telling DJT that the Justice had not “caught” anybody“ in a fraud that could overturn a landslide election win by 8 million votes. - - -  You revealed you did not accept DJT’s false claim that he caught Biden in a fraud to steal the election. - - -   I know you know Correll that DJT was lying when he directly and intimately told that to his most loyal and fired up supporters on the day of the riot with the goal to keep power for himself, when you wrote this specific post. 21NOV24-POST#1076

*Correll wrote*: I don't think that the election was fair, nor do I know what the level of cheating was. 21FEB11-POST#156

*NFBW point one cont’d*: I will take it slow to allow your mind to process and keep up Correll .  Are you with me so far? DJT lied to his angry supporters in DC On Jan6 when he told them he caught Biden in a fraud.* Do you know that is a lie.* I need you in the record before moving to point two. 21NOV24-POST#1076


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> to give approval to
> to endure without protest
> to regard as proper, normal
> to recognize as true : BELIEVE
> to make a favorable response
> *Correll wrote*:  “Accept"? What do you mean? That word seems to have no meaning in this context. Trump said something. I don't have to take an action to "Accept" it. 21NOV24-POST#1074
> 
> *NFBW wrote; *You have already accepted this statement by DJT when you claim nothing he had said or did couid incite or inspire the Jan6 violence. 21NOV24-POST#
> 
> “When you *catch* somebody in a fraud, you are *allowed* to go by *very different rules.
> 
> NFBW point one: *Accirding to your writing, you did not accept, believe, regard as true DJT’s word on Jan6 when the sitting President, whom you voted for twice, the top law enforcement officer in the land, who saw his attorney general William Barr essentially resign after telling DJT that the Justice had not “caught” anybody“ in a fraud that could overturn a landslide election win by 8 million votes. - - -  You revealed you did not accept DJT’s false claim that he caught Biden in a fraud to steal the election. - - -   I know you know Correll that DJT was lying when he directly and intimately told that to his most loyal and fired up supporters on the day of the riot with the goal to keep power fir himself, when you wrote this specific post.
> 
> *Correll wrote*: I don't think that the election was fair, nor do I know what the level of cheating was. 21FEB11-POST#156
> 
> *NFBW point one cont’d*: I will take it slow to allow your mind to process and keep up Correll .  Are you with me so far? DJT lied to his angry supporters in DC On Jan6 when he told them he caught Biden in a fraud.* Do you know that is a lie.* I need you in the record before moving to point two. 21NOV24-POST#




The fact that you don't believe it, does not mean that Donald Trump does not believe it. 

IMO, the idea that the election, operated under vastly unusual rules, with massive mail in ballots and in a hyper partisan atmosphere, was "fraudulent" is relatively reasonable. 


We have discussed before, your weird belief that other people agree with you on your view of the world.


Your utter inability to understand that there even ARE other points of view, is a serious handicap. 


There is something seriously wrong with you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*Correll wrote*:  The fact that you don't believe it, does not mean that Donald Trump does not believe it.  21NOV24-POST#1077

*NFBW wrote*: I’ll repeat the question that you obviously do not want to go on record with an answer. - - - DJT lied to his angry supporters in DC On Jan6 when he told them he caught Biden in a fraud. *Do you know that is a lie.* I need your answer for the record before moving to point two. 21NOV24-POST#1078

*NFBW wrote:* I am not asking you Correll if DJT believes that he actually *“caught”* Biden in a fraud to steal the win. DJT was not speculating this or that may have been fraud. DJT claims that the culprit(s) have been apprehended as if they were caught trying to smuggle cigarettes across the border. Its a past participle of catch. It happened. It happened according to DJT. My question to you Correll was and still is *Do you know that is a lie when DJT said that he actually caught someone or something in a fraud that cost him the election?  If NO, point us in the direction of who it was and where were they caught and what they were caught doing. *21NOV24-POST#1078


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> *Correll wrote*:  The fact that you don't believe it, does not mean that Donald Trump does not believe it.  21NOV24-POST#1077
> 
> *NFBW wrote*: I’ll repeat the question that you obviously do not want to go on record with an answer. - - - DJT lied to his angry supporters in DC On Jan6 when he told them he caught Biden in a fraud. *Do you know that is a lie.* I need your answer for the record before moving to point two. 21NOV24-POST#1078
> 
> *NFBW wrote:* I am not asking you Correll if DJT believes that he actually *“caught”* Biden in a fraud to steal the win. DJT was not speculating this or that may have been fraud. DJT claims that the culprit(s) have been apprehended as if they were caught trying to smuggle cigarettes across the border. Its a past participle of catch. It happened. It happened according to DJT. My question to you Correll was and still is *Do you know that is a lie when DJT said that he actually caught someone or something in a fraud that cost him the election?  If NO, point us in the direction of who it was and where were they caught and what they were caught doing. *21NOV24-POST#1078




I do not know that it is a lie. IMO, Donald Trump believes that the election was stolen and believes that that has been amply demonstrated. 


I have been clear about this.


What this is about, is your inability to understand that other people have different views than you. 


There is something seriously wrong with you.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I do not know that it is a lie



Then you know that someone, somewhere or some group, some organizations, something *was caught *committing election fraud in several states sufficient to remove enough states from the electoral count sufficuent to give DJT the win.  So where is this going on, Who are they, if they’ve been caught   Where are the Indictments? DJ T was stirring up a crowd when he told them that he caught the culprits that committed election fraud against him. Where are they?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> IMO, the idea that the election, operated under vastly unusual rules, with massive mail in ballots and in a hyper partisan atmosphere, was "fraudulent" is relatively reasonable.


That is not what DJ T told the riled up mob on January 6. He said he caught the thieves . He did not say that he lost because the rules were different on Nivember 3


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Then you know that someone, somewhere or some group, some organizations, something *was caught *committing election fraud in several states sufficient to remove enough states from the electoral count sufficuent to give DJT the win.  So where is this going on, Who are they, if they’ve been caught   Where are the Indictments? DJ T was stirring up a crowd when he told them that he caught the culprits that committed election fraud against him. Where are they?




Nope. I have not been following it that closely for reasons we have discussed before. It is not a.... big interest of mine.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> That is not what DJ T told the riled up mob on January 6. He said he caught the thieves . He did not say that he lost because the rules were different on Nivember 3




Correct. It is my thoughts on the matter. What part of that do you not  understand?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Correct. It is my thoughts on the matter. What part of that do you not understand?



I am not asking you for your thoughts on the matter. I asked you whether a specific statement by Donald J Trump was either a lie or the truth.  You said you do not know so therefore you must have knowledge about whoever was caught committing fraud in the election sufficient to overturn it . However you are unable to produce anything that came confirm that DJT was telling the truth.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> I am not asking you for your thoughts on the matter. I asked you whether a specific statement by Donald J Trump was either a lie or the truth.  You said you do not know so therefore you must have knowledge about whoever was caught committing fraud in the election sufficient to overturn it . However you are unable to produce anything that came confirm that DJT was telling the truth.




And again, you think of ONE possible explanation and then you assign it to me, as though your thought, is MY THOUGHT.


That is crazy of you. 


There are other options. 


Here is an idea. Ask a real question, without stuffing full of your insane, literally insane filler and spin shit.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Nope. I have not been following it that closely for reasons we have discussed before. It is not a.... big interest of mine.


If that is no interest to you then why do you defend trump running around telling the big lie that the election was stolen from him. If you cannot be bothered to find some obvious facts your only response on the big lie should be no comment. But I can tell you this:  DJT did not catch any election fraud anywhere any place by anybody ever.  There is nothing in existence in the entire world that you need to study or investigate to know that no such thing ever happened.

“When you catch somebody in a fraud, you are allowed to go by *very different rules.

DJT’s lied that he caught somebody in a fraud which now allowed him to become president in a second term by some kind of new rules. What do you think those new rules are and where did they come from Correll ??????*


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> If that is not of no interest to you then why do you defend trump running around telling the big lie that the election was stolen from him.




I defend him when you libs say shit that is not true. Or when you attack him for doing shit that he has a right to do. Such as calling for a protest. 






NotfooledbyW said:


> If you cannot be bothered to find some obvious facts your only response on the big lie should be no comment. But I can tell you this DJ T did not catch any election fraud anywhere any place by anybody ever.  There is nothing In existence in the entire world that you need to study or investigate to know that no such thing happened.
> 
> “When you catch somebody in a fraud, you are allowed to go by *very different rules.
> 
> DJT’s lied that he caught somebody in a fraud which now allowed him to be calm president in a second term buy some kind of new rules. What do you think those new rules are and where did they come from Correll ??????*




I assume he was talking about how it is justified to use extreme political pressure to get officials to do the Right Thing.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> I defend him when you libs say shit that is not true.“When you catch somebody in a fraud,



DJT lied when he said   “When you catch somebody in a fraud” . Then You suddenly  don’t know anything about anything having to do with election fraud. And that way you defend him. Sticking your head in the sand whe he lies.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> DJT lied when he said   “When you catch somebody in a fraud” . Then You suddenly  don’t know anything about anything having to do with election fraud. And that way you defend him. Sticking your head in the sand whe he lies.




On other issues, that I care more about, I am happy to get more in depth and discuss more details. 

This one, not so much. 


SOrry if that wigs you out, NOT.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*Correll wrote regarding DJT’s big lie that he won 2020:* On other issues, that I care more about, I am happy to get more in depth and discuss more details. - - - This one, not so much 21NOV24-POST#1089.

*NFBW wrote*: No knowledge of election fraud but enough know-nothing-ness to know Trump won, therefore Biden is not legitimately there, 21NOV24-POST#1090

*Correll wrote:* I am not respecting the peaceful transfer of power either. I do not consider BIden's election to be legitimate nor do I consider him to be a legitimate President.  21FEB12-POST#287

*NFBW wrote*: DJT gets away with his big election fraud lies and plot to overturn the results of the election because DJTvoterrs like Correll admit that they are not interested in DJT’s lying and plotting. Correll says he has no interest in facts that would show him that DJT’s Jan6 scheme if Pence goes along would have to eliminate millions of votes in states with large (_stop reading here can’t talk about blacks being shit on by DJT’s scheme to hang on to Power ) _black majorities in big cities. - - -  So in Correll world black votes don’t matter if the Republican candidate died not win. . If black votes don’t matter to DJT Faithful black lives don’t matter either.  21NOV24-POST#1090


----------



## Leo123

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW wrote*: Those of you out there still defending your two votes for DJT to be the highest law enforcement officer in the land, under oath, to defend and protect the Constitution, please tell the forum what DJT meant when he told the “Stop the Steal” crowd that *“very different rules” *applied on January 6, 2021.  21NOV24-POST#1072
> 
> “”” Trump told the crowd that ‘*very different rules’* applied. 21JAN06-DJTincite-05
> Incitement to Riot? What Trump Told Supporters Before Mob Stormed Capitol
> “*When you catch somebody in a fraud*, *you are allowed to go by very different rules.* So I hope Mike has the courage to do what he has to do, and I hope he doesn’t listen to the RINOs and the stupid people that he’s listening to.” “””
> 
> *Correll  wrote: *I don't think that the election was fair, *nor do I know what the level of cheating was*. 21FEB11-POST#156
> 
> *NFBW wrote: *If you did not know on Feb11 Correll what the level of cheating was why do you still accept DJT telling an already angry crowd in front of the White House about five weeks prior that he has ‘*caught*’ his opponent cheating, so therefore *new rules* apply? *What rules apply Correll ?   *21NOV24-POST#1072
> 
> *Correll  wrote: *Trump called for a demonstration to put pressure on Congress. 21FEB14-POST#340
> 
> *NFBW wrote: *So Trump called for a demonstration ( a “going to be wild” rally ) to put pressure on Congress *according to new rules based on the claim that his opponent has been “caught” cheating* to win. Do you agree Correll or any of you DJTvoterrs who oppose questioning whether or not DJT incited or even inspired the violence by his supporters on Jan6  21NOV24-POST#1072
> 
> *AzogtheDefiler  wrote:* Trump didn't incite Jan 6th. The media did.  21NOV18-POST#200
> 
> *ThisIsMe wrote*:  Even I agree, I think its time for trump to pack it up. Regardless of whether or not he has a legitimate case, we are seeing that the courts are not going to rule in his favor. This latest scotus ruling seems to be a telegraph that they are not having any of it.    - - -  He should show everyone he can be the bigger man and go ahead and conceed, for the benefit of a smooth transition. He doesn't need to be defiant til the end. When you see that things are not going to go your way, you can keep running into brick walls, or face reality and try to make it easier on yourself, and everyone else.  20DEC06-POST#209
> 
> *Lastamender wrote*: It is just the truth. The election was stolen. Man up and admit it. 21MAR22-POST#11
> 
> *Flash wrote: *President Dufus stole the election but a really large number of Useful Idiots voted for him. 21MAR13-POST#1
> 
> *PoliticalChic wrote*: (DJT’s Jan96) "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." 21NOV17-POST#118
> 
> 
> *BasicHumanUnit wrote: *There are two types of Patriots........
> 1). Paper Tiger Patriots
> 2). Real Men who make real plans to deal with real threats to their rights and freedoms  - - -  If all you do is play victim on forums and have not actively joined a local militia, you are the Paper Tiger Type  21DEC20-POLICE ST#12
> 
> *Death Angel wrote*: We all know they ( Pelosi and Schumer ) instigated it, along with a few useful idiot pawns of the Democrats, including the Democrat activist who carried the Confederate flag 21NOV11-POST#981
> 
> *Godboy wrote:* Telling lies isnt against the law, nor does it equate to telling someone to cause violence. 21FEB12-POST#189
> 
> *kyzr wrote: *By definition, doesn't an insurrection need to be coordinated? The whole purpose of an insurrection is to take control of the government. If its not coordinated, its just a protest, with no intent to replace the government. 21AUG21-POST#8
> 
> *Oldestyle wrote*: Let me see if I follow your "logic", Notfooled! You think a peaceful rally is to blame for the violence that occurred when the Capital Police were woefully unprepared for a small number of protesters that decided they should occupy the Capital building? 21OCT25-POST#308
> 
> *struth  wrote*: …so what? Folks helped plan a rally....we know that...who cares? 21OCT24-POST#299
> 
> *toobfreak wrote*: 1/6 was a revolt against the government for flagrantly stealing a presidential election. 21OCT26-POST#402


Worst post of the year ^^^


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Leo123 said:


> Worst post of the year ^^^


We will see. Not my problem you prefer fiction.

*Leo123 wrote: *The FBI was there to CAUSE a riot. It didn't work but they got an unarmed woman protester shot and killed. We are not into the coverup that is being exposed. BTW have you asked yourself why BLM and Antifa are not being investigated like the Proud Boys?  21NOV24-POST#63

*NFBW wrote*: Why would the FBI investigate BLM? Kyle “libslayer” Rittenhouse supports BLM you dumbass. 21NOV24-POST#1092,


"I'm not a racist person. *I support the BLM movement,* I support peacefully demonstrating,"
Kyle Rittenhouse says he's 'not a racist person,' backs Black Lives Matter in Fox News appearance
Rittenhouse tells Carlson in excerpts of the interview released by Fox News ahead of its airing


----------



## Leo123

NotfooledbyW said:


> We will see. Not my problem you prefer fiction.
> 
> *Leo123 wrote: *The FBI was there to CAUSE a riot. It didn't work but they got an unarmed woman protester shot and killed. We are not into the coverup that is being exposed. BTW have you asked yourself why BLM and Antifa are not being investigated like the Proud Boys?  21NOV24-POST#63
> 
> *NFBW wrote*: Why would the FBI investigate BLM? Kyle “libslayer” Rittenhouse supports BLM you dumbass. 21NOV24-POST#1092,
> 
> 
> "I'm not a racist person. *I support the BLM movement,* I support peacefully demonstrating,"
> Kyle Rittenhouse says he's 'not a racist person,' backs Black Lives Matter in Fox News appearance
> Rittenhouse tells Carlson in excerpts of the interview released by Fox News ahead of its airing


Do you have any point?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*Correll wrote: *IMO, the idea that the election, operated under vastly unusual rules, with massive mail in ballots and in a hyper partisan atmosphere, was "fraudulent" is relatively reasonable. 21NOV24-POST#1077

NFBW wrote: Do you know what “safe harbor” is in reference to when the subject is the presidential election and the state’s certification of their electors? Wouid you expect a first term president to know about “safe harbor” when he is challenging the election that he just lost? 21NOV24-POST#1094


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Leo123 said:


> Do you have any point?


Yes!


----------



## Leo123

NotfooledbyW said:


> Yes!


Well...What is it?


----------



## Stann

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I just listened to the Senate Trial Presentations and have a few thoughts. Others will disagree, even violently. Listen to my thoughts, and then I’ll listen to yours...
> 
> The “House Managers” just refuted what I thought were preposterous Republican arguments that the Constitution won’t even allow for a trial of impeached ex-president Trump. I come away more than ever impressed with the Constitutional importance of what is now at stake.
> 
> This is not a ridiculous impeachment over lying about sex, or a hearing over the tragedy in Benghazi. This is about taking a stand against an out-of-control lame-duck President who tried to keep himself in office. This trial is about dealing with an attack on our whole democratic electoral system, on the Capitol itself. It is about re-asserting the power of Congress to stand against a mad President.
> 
> I personally have sometimes dreamt of seeing the impeachment and conviction of Presidents (of both parties) who lied and led us into murderous and totally unnecessary overseas military adventures. Of course these impeachments never happened. Yet now in D.C., in the heartland of our Republic and “empire,” political marketing and “America First” demagogy has succeeded ... in dividing the minds and hearts of Americans ... rather than Iraqis, Russians or Chinese.
> 
> Many of our own obsessions as a nation led to Jan. 6th, and its shadow will lie over our Republic for a long time. I think if this Senate doesn’t make an example of our most dangerous and outrageous recent demagogue we will be guaranteeing further more serious political mob action and even coup adventures in the future.
> 
> This is not a “show trial.” Well, just perhaps it _will_ go down in history as a “show trial” ... if our people and politicians treat it as one. If few Republicans rise to the occasion and do their duty, if Donald Trump is not repudiated in the most severe Constitutional manner possible, then we are “showing” that we treat our great Republic and its institutions as crap.
> 
> It’s our Republic ... if we can keep it.


The Stone isn't called to testify, I don't think they're going to get to the bottom of this. While trump was psyching up the mob at the White House, Stone was coordinating the attack plan with the heads of the militias at the Capitol. Those people, hiding in plain sight, egged the crowd on. trump and those far-right leaders used those fools as a front for their assault on our democracy.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Leo123 said:


> Well...What



*NFBW wrote*: After reading your fiction I looked up where you once had asked Leo123 the following question 21NOV25-POST#1098

*Leo123 wrote: *BTW have you asked yourself why BLM and Antifa are not being investigated like the Proud Boys? 21SEP26-POST#63

*NFBW wrote*: I asked you the following question Leo123     21NOV25-POST#1098

*NFBW wrote:* Why would the FBI investigate BLM? Kyle “libslayer” Rittenhouse supports BLM you dumbass. 21NOV24-POST#1092,

*NFBW wrote*: ANTIFA is being investigated per the following Reuters report. 21NOV25-POST#1098

*NFBW wrota:  You *can read about Antifa being investigated   Leo123 here 21NOV25-POST#1098

*REUTERS  THU SEP 24, 2020 /* 3:08 PM EDT - - - FBI chief says U.S. 'Antifa' demonstrators are targets of multiple probes Mark Hosenball and Sarah N. Lynch
FBI chief says U.S. 'Antifa' demonstrators are targets of multiple probes
President Donald Trump and his allies have sought here to blame what they calls left-wing extremists for violence and looting at U.S. protests over police brutality, while local authorities and watchdog groups have often pointed to the threat posed by right-wing movements

*NFBW wrote*:  My point was about BLM because Kyle Rittenhouse did not say he supports ANTIFA. He said he supports BLM. The FBI has no reason to investigate an organization identified as BLM because they cannot prosecute a slogan. The FBI cannot prosecute an organized movement that does not condone or commit violence or crimes. It is not illegal to scare white men who are running  around carrying assault “cool looking” rifles because some day all those black and brown and ‘other’ kind of people will outnumber white Christian Americans because the commie libs keep letting murderers and rapists of color in around the Trump wall. 21NOV25-POST#1098

*NFBW wrote*: And here is the kicker Leo123 Why would the FBI INVESTIGATE an organization identified as BLM that was publicly *supported on the Tucker Carlson Show by a rising star to the real WHITE Patriot defenders of America *at the early age of seventeen. One who already has two Lib Kills notched on the butt of his cool looking AR-15. And one who is free to kill more.  Kyle Rittenhouse supports BLM and he went to Mar A Lago to celebrate his kills with the actual President of angry white Americans  llike Correll  21NOV25-POST#1098  HAPPY TURKEY DAY white PATRIOTS everywhere Lib Slayer is free.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> *Correll wrote regarding DJT’s big lie that he won 2020:* On other issues, that I care more about, I am happy to get more in depth and discuss more details. - - - This one, not so much 21NOV24-POST#1089.
> 
> *NFBW wrote*: No knowledge of election fraud but enough know-nothing-ness to know Trump won, therefore Biden is not legitimately there, 21NOV24-POST#1090
> 
> *Correll wrote:* I am not respecting the peaceful transfer of power either. I do not consider BIden's election to be legitimate nor do I consider him to be a legitimate President.  21FEB12-POST#287
> 
> *NFBW wrote*: DJT gets away with his big election fraud lies and plot to overturn the results of the election because DJTvoterrs like Correll admit that they are not interested in DJT’s lying and plotting. Correll says he has no interest in facts that would show him that DJT’s Jan6 scheme if Pence goes along would have to eliminate millions of votes in states with large (_stop reading here can’t talk about blacks being shit on by DJT’s scheme to hang on to Power ) _black majorities in big cities. - - -  So in Correll world black votes don’t matter if the Republican candidate died not win. . If black votes don’t matter to DJT Faithful black lives don’t matter either.  21NOV24-POST#1090




1. YOu seem confused by the fact that Trump and I are different people, with separate brains that have different thoughts. I know that this seems alien to you.  YOu need to work on it more.

2. The American MSM told the American people that the President was a w.s. And made it stick. With a lie like that, as part of the Conventional Wisdom, the election was based on a Fraud committed on the America people, by the Media. That is my take on it. 

3. Trump was the GOP's best chance ever, to break the lock the dems have on the black vote. That it was spiked by the media, with a lie, is unforgivable. Your race baiting is part of the same project. You are a race baiting asshole.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> *Correll wrote: *IMO, the idea that the election, operated under vastly unusual rules, with massive mail in ballots and in a hyper partisan atmosphere, was "fraudulent" is relatively reasonable. 21NOV24-POST#1077
> 
> NFBW wrote: Do you know what “safe harbor” is in reference to when the subject is the presidential election and the state’s certification of their electors? Wouid you expect a first term president to know about “safe harbor” when he is challenging the election that he just lost? 21NOV24-POST#1094




i do not know what you are referring to with your "safe harbor" comment.


----------



## Leo123

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW wrote*: After reading your fiction I looked up where you once had asked Leo123 the following question 21NOV25-POST#1098
> 
> *Leo123 wrote: *BTW have you asked yourself why BLM and Antifa are not being investigated like the Proud Boys? 21SEP26-POST#63
> 
> *NFBW wrote*: I asked you the following question Leo123     21NOV25-POST#1098
> 
> *NFBW wrote:* Why would the FBI investigate BLM? Kyle “libslayer” Rittenhouse supports BLM you dumbass. 21NOV24-POST#1092,
> 
> *NFBW wrote*: ANTIFA is being investigated per the following Reuters report. 21NOV25-POST#1098
> 
> *NFBW wrota:  You *can read about Antifa being investigated   Leo123 here 21NOV25-POST#1098
> 
> *REUTERS  THU SEP 24, 2020 /* 3:08 PM EDT - - - FBI chief says U.S. 'Antifa' demonstrators are targets of multiple probes Mark Hosenball and Sarah N. Lynch
> FBI chief says U.S. 'Antifa' demonstrators are targets of multiple probes
> President Donald Trump and his allies have sought here to blame what they calls left-wing extremists for violence and looting at U.S. protests over police brutality, while local authorities and watchdog groups have often pointed to the threat posed by right-wing movements
> 
> *NFBW wrote*:  My point was about BLM because Kyle Rittenhouse did not say he supports ANTIFA. He said he supports BLM. The FBI has no reason to investigate an organization identified as BLM because they cannot prosecute a slogan. The FBI cannot prosecute an organized movement that does not condone or commit violence or crimes. It is not illegal to scare white men who are running  around carrying assault “cool looking” rifles because some day all those black and brown and ‘other’ kind of people will outnumber white Christian Americans because the commie libs keep letting murderers and rapists of color in around the Trump wall. 21NOV25-POST#1098
> 
> *NFBW wrote*: And here is the kicker Leo123 Why would the FBI INVESTIGATE an organization identified as BLM that was publicly *supported on the Tucker Carlson Show by a rising star to the real WHITE Patriot defenders of America *at the early age of seventeen. One who already has two Lib Kills notched on the butt of his cool looking AR-15. And one who is free to kill more.  Kyle Rittenhouse supports BLM and he went to Mar A Lago to celebrate his kills with the actual President of angry white Americans  llike Correll  21NOV25-POST#1098  HAPPY TURKEY DAY white PATRIOTS everywhere Lib Slayer is free.


Of course Kyle said he supports BLM he doesn’t want them stalking him.


----------



## Leo123

Stann said:


> The Stone isn't called to testify, I don't think they're going to get to the bottom of this. While trump was psyching up the mob at the White House, Stone was coordinating the attack plan with the heads of the militias at the Capitol. Those people, hiding in plain sight, egged the crowd on. trump and those far-right leaders used those fools as a front for their assault on our democracy.


That's a MSM fairy tale.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*Correll wrote: *I do not know what you are referring to with your "safe harbor" comment 21NOV25 -POST#1100

*NFBW wrote:* Do you really think there is the possibility that Mike Pence, *one special man*, not restrained by the rule of any law, had some constitutionally legitimate authority to cancel the national election selections of the president, Senators and Congressman etc in seven states, when Pence himself was on the losing losing ticket? 21NOV25 -POST#1103

*NFBW wrote: *Do you really think Correll for one second that Jan 6 was some kind of provision in the Constitution that would allow *one white man* to void, cancel, eliminate millions of votes from seven states that the *one white good Christian man* could not win and see that win placed into “safe harbor” on December 14. I’m sure Pence knows what safe harbor is. 21NOV25 -POST#1103

*NFBW wrote:* Do you think Correll that Mike Pence had the authority to satisfy DJT’s lust for power and the same for so many very white Republicans with scarce  exception to the whiteness, politicians, and the same for the mostly white mob that gathered at the Capitol on Jan6 by demand of DJT,  . . . Did Pence possess the authority to declare fraud in seven states where large portions of the votes against him came from a bloc of voters  wherein a large percentage were from the not white minority in this country of ours? 21NOV25 -POST#1103

*NFBW wrote:* Do you think Correll that Mike Pence, *one* white, good Christian patriotic Republican *special man* should have the power over millions of black voters to say their votes will not count because he “*believed*” without proof the machines were rigged against him, because he *believed* ballots made with bamboo were inserted for Biden flown in from China or because *he believed* that endless list of election fraud shit  from the likes of PoliticalChic 21NOV25 -POST#1103

*Correll wrote*: 1. Is it not Pence's job to make that call himself? 21OCT16-POST#887 - - - 2. IF Pence believed that the ballots were fraudulent, is that not what SHOULD have happened? 21OCT16-POST#887

*NFBW wrote*: You are in a fascist frame of mind Correll in favor of one man authoritarian rule when you asked “ _IF Pence “*believed”* that the ballots were fraudulent… “_  after the election results were placed in safe harbor in mid-December 2020. 21NOV25 -POST#1103


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> *Correll wrote: *I do not know what you are referring to with your "safe harbor" comment 21NOV25 -POST#1100
> 
> *NFBW wrote:* Do you really think there is the possibility that Mike Pence, *one special man*, not restrained by the rule of any law, had some constitutionally legitimate authority to cancel the national election selections of the president, Senators and Congressman etc in seven states, when Pence himself was on the losing losing ticket? 21NOV25 -POST#1103
> 
> *NFBW wrote: *Do you really think Correll for one second that Jan 6 was some kind of provision in the Constitution that would allow *one white man* to void, cancel, ....




I stopped reading here. I'm am not going to play along pretending to have a discussion, when all you are doing is spreading racist hate. 


If you want to discuss "Safe harbor", post it again, without the racism, you racist ass.


----------



## PoliticalChic

When forced to release the vids of the "insurrection," this is what we saw:




Now....who ya' gonna believe, the Democrats, or your lyin' eyes?????


----------



## NotfooledbyW

“”” About a quarter of voting members (23%) of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate are racial or ethnic minorities, *making the 117th Congress the most racially and ethnically diverse in history. *There has been a long-running trend toward higher numbers of non-White lawmakers on Capitol Hill:  - - /  *Overall, 124 lawmakers today identify as Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander or Native American*, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Congressional Research Service. This represents a 97% increase over the 107th Congress of 2001-03, which had 63 minority members. “”” see link below

*Correll wrote: *I do not know what you are referring to with your "safe harbor" comment 21NOV25 -POST#1100

*NFBW wrote: *According to PEW the 117th  Congress that was seated last January doubled the number of it’s members that identify as racial or ethnic minorities. That makes the 117th Congress the most racially and ethnically diverse in history. Is that FACT ok with you Correll  ? Can you keep reading? 21NOV26 -POST#1106

*NFBW wrote: *The historically diverse  117th Congress was on Jan6 under a severe threat to not be seated because the sitting first term president DJT demanded his VP to disregard the election results in seven state that were in what is commonly called *safe harbor *according to constitutionally required deadline dates that must be met for presidential elections and the subsequent peaceful transfer of power. January 6 is one of those dates.  21NOV26 -POST#1106

*NFBW wrote*: Mike Pence refused the pressure from DJT, DJT’s constitutional lawyer John Eastman, Republican members of Congress, and the right wing mob gathered outside the US Capitol at DJT’s request which was a sea of angry people at least 20,000 strong. 21NOV26 -POST#1106

*NFBW wrote: *I commend Mike Pence for refusing to follow orders from the outgoing Commander in Chief to torpedo the certified election results on Jan6  that were (all fifty ststes) in *safe harbor* since December 14. Do you Correll praise Mike Pence for upholding the Constitution when his partner on the losing presidential ticket did not. 21NOV26 -POST#1106

*NFBW wrote*: Further to all of the above I truly commend and respect Mike Pence who happens to be white, Christian and male for respecting safe harbor and the rule of law, but mostly for respecting  the democratic process and the will of millions of Americans who are identifiable as part of America’s ethnic and religious minority. 21NOV26 -POST#1106 

FT_21.01.25_RaceEthnicityCongress_feature.jpg.webp

Racial, ethnic diversity increases yet again with the 117th Congress 

BY KATHERINE SCHAEFFER  - - - About a quarter of voting members (23%) of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate are racial or ethnic minorities, making the 117th Congress the most racially and ethnically diverse in history. There has been a long-running trend toward higher numbers of non-White lawmakers on Capitol Hill: Overall, 124 lawmakers today identify as Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander or Native American, according to a Pew Research Center analysis of data from the Congressional Research Service. This represents a 97% increase over the 107th Congress of 2001-03, which had 63 minority members.

Among today’s senators and representatives, the overwhelming majority of racial and ethnic minority members are Democrats (83%), while 17% are Republicans. This represents a shift from the last Congress, when just 10% of non-White lawmakers were Republicans. Our analysis reflects the 532 voting members of Congress seated as of Jan. 26, 2021.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*Correll wrote:* I do not know what you are referring to with your "safe harbor" comment 21NOV25-POST#1100

*NFBW wrote*: Read the following conversation Correll it may clue you in. 21NOV27-POST#1107

*@ThisIsMe wrote*: If you read the Eastman memo, what it does is cite all the violations of election laws that the states in question had committed, and give an outline for what Pence could do in regards to only those states. - - - The memo outlines a plan based on *their thought* that the election had been stolen. It doesn't indicate that they knew they lost but plotted to send back the electors anyway in an effort to overturn the election. 21OCT30-POST#680

*@Faun wrote*: Two things... one, it would have been unconstitutional for Pence to unilaterally reject electors; widespread fraud which could have changed the outcome of the election had not been proven. 21NOV01-POST#681

*NFBW wrote:* Allow me to add to what Faun is explaining to further your edification on the CONSTITUTION that you are unwittingly kind of proving that DJT does not give a flying fuck about the Constitution and John Eastman was lying to his client the entire time. - - - Faun has it right and I will add the concept of “safe harbor” that let’s say *by mid December the safe harbor status “constitutionally” ends any chance for SORE losers (may I call them that **ThisIsMe** ) to legally challenge each states’ certification that is sealed *and is to be submitted to Congress. Hence a specific deadline is set to open and read them *no later than January 6*. I’m sure the founders in colonial times wanted to give the sealed documents time to make the journey to the Capitol. - - - If you were to read this I think you will be able to answer all your questions and not need the help of a hifallutin lawyer./ This part Aint complicated, even for a clueless moron like DJT.  21NOV01-POST#685

“”””” I_t may come and go without much fanfare, but on Tuesday, the U.S. will pass a key deadline cementing President-elect Joe Biden's victory as the 46th president
DJT _
_Biden's Victory Cemented As States Reach Key Electoral College Deadline_

_© 2020 npr    The day, Dec. 8, is known as the "safe harbor" deadline for states to certify their results, compelling Congress to accept those results_ “””””

*NFBW wrote:* I understand you may think NPR is part of the DEEP STATE out to destroy poor victim Trump but their explanation of “safe harbor” is factual and cannot be faked. 21NOV01-POST#685


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*Correll wrote:* I do not know what you are referring to with your "safe harbor" comment 21NOV25-POST#1100

*NFBW wrote*: Get it now  Correll 21NOV27-POST#1108


_Electoral College electors are scheduled to meet in states across the country on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (Dec. 14 this year) to cast their votes.


And if a state has finalized its results six days before then, according to the ECA, then those results qualify for "safe harbor" status — meaning Congress must treat them as the "conclusive" results, even if, for example, a state's legislature sends in a competing set of results.

Every state except Wisconsin appears to have met the deadline, according to The Associated Press. Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes are still expected to be cast for Biden on Monday; he won the state by just over 20,000 votes._

_Key Election Dates_​_*Dec. 8:* States finish vote certification
*Dec. 14:* Electors vote
*Jan. 6:* Congress formalizes the outcome
*Jan. 20:* Inauguration Day
*»Read a full timeline* from Election Day to Inauguration Day.
"If a state can conclude its process of appointing electors by that [safe harbor deadline] then Congress is bound by federal law to accept the slate of electors that is arrived upon by that date," said Rebecca Green, the co-director of the Election Law program at William and Mary_


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> About a quarter of voting members (23%) of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate are racial or ethnic minorities, *making the 117th Congress the most racially and ethnically diverse in history.*




Got it. All you want to do is spread racism and hate. You can talk to yourself then.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> *Correll wrote:* I do not know what you are referring to with your "safe harbor" comment 21NOV25-POST#1100
> 
> *NFBW wrote*: Read the following conversation Correll it may clue you in. 21NOV27-POST#1107
> 
> *@ThisIsMe wrote*: If you read the Eastman memo, what it does is cite all the violations of election laws that the states in question had committed, and give an outline for what Pence could do in regards to only those states. - - - The memo outlines a plan based on *their thought* that the election had been stolen. It doesn't indicate that they knew they lost but plotted to send back the electors anyway in an effort to overturn the election. 21OCT30-POST#680
> 
> *@Faun wrote*: Two things... one, it would have been unconstitutional for Pence to unilaterally reject electors; widespread fraud which could have changed the outcome of the election had not been proven. 21NOV01-POST#681
> 
> *NFBW wrote:* Allow me to add to what Faun is explaining to further your edification on the CONSTITUTION that you are unwittingly kind of proving that DJT does not give a flying fuck about the Constitution and John Eastman was lying to his client the entire time. - - - Faun has it right and I will add the concept of “safe harbor” that let’s say *by mid December the safe harbor status “constitutionally” ends any chance for SORE losers (may I call them that **ThisIsMe** ) to legally challenge each states’ certification that is sealed *and is to be submitted to Congress. Hence a specific deadline is set to open and read them *no later than January 6*. I’m sure the founders in colonial times wanted to give the sealed documents time to make the journey to the Capitol. - - - If you were to read this I think you will be able to answer all your questions and not need the help of a hifallutin lawyer./ This part Aint complicated, even for a clueless moron like DJT.  21NOV01-POST#685
> 
> “”””” I_t may come and go without much fanfare, but on Tuesday, the U.S. will pass a key deadline cementing President-elect Joe Biden's victory as the 46th president
> DJT _
> _Biden's Victory Cemented As States Reach Key Electoral College Deadline_
> 
> _© 2020 npr    The day, Dec. 8, is known as the "safe harbor" deadline for states to certify their results, compelling Congress to accept those results_ “””””
> 
> *NFBW wrote:* I understand you may think NPR is part of the DEEP STATE out to destroy poor victim Trump but their explanation of “safe harbor” is factual and cannot be faked. 21NOV01-POST#685





1. Faun and you believe that fraud had not been proved. Trump and many other people believe that it was. This touches on your constant inability to understand that other people think differently than you. There is something seriously wrong with you.


2. So, your safe harbor comment is just addressing that 1/6 was the deadline? OK. Yes, we knew that. Not really.... saying anything there. Did you have a further point associated with that, that you think is clear in your head?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> *Correll wrote:* I do not know what you are referring to with your "safe harbor" comment 21NOV25-POST#1100
> 
> *NFBW wrote*: Get it now  Correll 21NOV27-POST#1108
> 
> 
> _Electoral College electors are scheduled to meet in states across the country on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December (Dec. 14 this year) to cast their votes.
> 
> 
> And if a state has finalized its results six days before then, according to the ECA, then those results qualify for "safe harbor" status — meaning Congress must treat them as the "conclusive" results, even if, for example, a state's legislature sends in a competing set of results.
> 
> Every state except Wisconsin appears to have met the deadline, according to The Associated Press. Wisconsin's 10 electoral votes are still expected to be cast for Biden on Monday; he won the state by just over 20,000 votes._
> 
> _Key Election Dates_​_*Dec. 8:* States finish vote certification
> *Dec. 14:* Electors vote
> *Jan. 6:* Congress formalizes the outcome
> *Jan. 20:* Inauguration Day
> *»Read a full timeline* from Election Day to Inauguration Day.
> "If a state can conclude its process of appointing electors by that [safe harbor deadline] then Congress is bound by federal law to accept the slate of electors that is arrived upon by that date," said Rebecca Green, the co-director of the Election Law program at William and Mary_




My God, your brain is wired poorly.

Trump and the 1/6 protestors believe that the election was fraudulent. So, in their minds, what RIGHTFULLY should have happened, is that "congress" specifically PENCE, should have refused to "formalizes the outcome".


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: 1. Faun and you believe that fraud had not been proved. 21NOV27-POST#1110

NFBW wrote: And we I am sure believe that we are not living on a flat surface which has four corners upon which if we traveled to the edge we would fall off. In my case I have never circumnavigated the globe personally, but I do believe it can be done based on the evidence.  - - - The point I’m driving at Correll is that “safe harbor” is a fact that sets aside your Easter Bunny  right to believe the earth is flat or that the election was stolen in deference to the founding father’s desire to establish a perpetually immortal nation of the people by the people and for the people knowing full well that such a nation would face a lot of those people dangerous delusionaly  and detrimentally believing in the Easter Bunny while having lots and lots of guns to force that belief in others. 21NOV27-POST#1112  - - - Stay tuned more on this will be forthcoming.I’ve got “The” Game to watch today it’s a national holiday. Go Bucks - Muck Fichigsn.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> The point I’m driving at @Correll is that “safe harbor” is a fact that sets aside your Easter Bunny right




Are you trying to argue that Pence's job of certifying the vote was purely ceremonial and he had no actual power to NOT certify it? 


Cause if that is what you are trying to say, then why the fuck don't you just say it? 

SERIOUSLY DUDE, SOMETHING IS REALLY THE FUCK WRONG WITH YOU.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*NFBW wrote: *Trump told his vigilante mob on the ellipse right before telling them to march to the Capitol to take the law into their own hands. because* “States want to revote. The states got defrauded, They were given false information. They voted on it. Now they want to recertify. They want it back.* All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and *we become president *and you are the happiest”

*NFBW wrote:* One of many problems you have Correll in your fantasy argument is that *there were no states that wanted their certifications back *after they were put into safe harbor on December 14. If you dissagree, please name those states them. 21NOV27-POST#1114


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW wrote: *Trump told his vigilante mob



Protest crowd. That you have to lie, shows that you know  you are in teh wrong.




NotfooledbyW said:


> on the ellipse right before telling them to march to the Capitol to take the law into their own hands. because* “States want to revote. The states got defrauded, They were given false information. They voted on it. Now they want to recertify. They want it back.* All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and *we become president *and you are the happiest”
> 
> *NFBW wrote:* One of many problems you have Correll in your fantasy argument is that *there were no states that wanted their certifications back *after they were put into safe harbor on December 14. If you dissagree, please name those states them. 21NOV27-POST#1114



Got it. You disagree with Trump on this issue. 

So what? I thought for a minute that  I was getting to your point. What the fuck are you even talking about, you lunatic.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Got it. You disagree with Trump on this issue.



No Trump is a liar. There were no states that wanted their certifications back. Trump is a liar. It is an established fact right now that you cannot name the states that *wanted* their certifications back. So you are an accomplice in trumps lie by calling it just a disagreement right now. You have joined the vigilante mob in support of trumps lie. And yes they were vigilantes because Trump told him if they did march to the capital and if Pence did what he was supposed to do that he would win the election and they would be happy. The truth is After safe Harbor according to the constitution of the United States of America there is no win of the election for DJT. He was basically telling them to take the law constitutional law into their own hands by telling him to go for telling the constitution to go fuck itself because it means nothing.

This is a lie it is not a disagreement

_“”””” States want to revote. The states got defrauded, They were given false information. They voted on it. *Now they want to recertify. They want it back*. All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and *we become president and you are the happiest”  “””””*_


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> No Trump is a liar. There were no states that wanted their certifications back. Trump is a liar. It is an established fact right now that you cannot name the states that *wanted* their certifications back. So you are an accomplice in trumps lie by calling it just a disagreement right now. You have joined the vigilante mob in support of trumps lie. And yes they were vigilantes because Trump told him if they did march to the capital and if Pence did what he was supposed to do that he would win the election and they would be happy. The truth is After safe Harbor according to the constitution of the United States of America there is no win of the election for DJT. He was basically telling them to take the law constitutional law into their own hands by telling him to go for telling the constitution to go fuck itself because it means nothing.
> 
> This is a lie it is not a disagreement
> 
> _“”””” States want to revote. The states got defrauded, They were given false information. They voted on it. *Now they want to recertify. They want it back*. All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and *we become president and you are the happiest”  “””””*_




Let's pretend for a second, that you are correct on the objective, factual reality of the case. 


Hypothetically, do you understand the concept of "wishful thinking"?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Let's pretend for a second, that you are correct on the objective, factual reality of the case.
> 
> 
> Hypothetically, do you understand the concept of "wishful thinking"


Name the states and evidence that Trump was not lying to the angry mob when he purposely and precisely told them states “wanted” their certifications back. Trump did not say the state wished they could’ve had their certifications back. He lied. Trump did not say that if Pence did the right thing he wished he would be President - so what were the states that wanted their certifications back?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Name the states and evidence that Trump was not lying to the angry mob he purposely and precisely told them states “wanted” their certifications back. Trump did not say the state wish they could’ve had their certifications back. He lied. Trump did not say that if Pence did the right thing he wished he would be President - so what where the states that wanted their certifications back?




Let's pretend for a second, that you are correct on the objective, factual reality of the case.


Hypothetically, do you understand the concept of "wishful thinking"


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Are you trying to argue that Pence's job of certifying the vote was purely ceremonial and he had no actual power to NOT certify it?  21NOV27-POST#1106

NFBW wrote: That is not an argument- that is Federal Election Law 21NOV27-POST#1120

_“”” The safe harbor deadline, however, is something of a guarantee. _









						What 'safe harbor day' is and why it's bad news for Trump
					

Congress must count the electoral votes from states that meet the Tuesday deadline.




					www.google.com
				




_If, for example, a state legislature decided to send in its own slate, the law says the electors chosen by popular vote and certified by the governor must be counted by Congress from states that met the safe harbor deadline “_””

Correll wrote: 1. Faun and you believe that fraud had not been proved. 21NOV27-POST#1110

NFBW wrote: Therefore it is not about what Faun and I believe or what DJT and his vigilsnte mob believed about election fraud on Jan6. You have no point. TRUMP LIED to that mob there was a way he could and should win.  That lie made them afraid of losing their country and angry. He was inciting them.
The law says all fifty states’ elections were* legit and certified and had to be counted on Jan6. *There is no exemption for sore losers. 21NOV27-POST#1120


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*NFBW wrote* Do you Correll praise Mike Pence for upholding the Constitution when his partner on the losing presidential ticket did not? 21NOV28-POST#1121

*Correll wrote*: Are you trying to argue that Pence's job of certifying the vote was purely ceremonial and he had no actual power to NOT certify it? 21NOV27-POST#1106

*NFBW wrote*: I commend Mike Pence for refusing to follow orders from the outgoing Commander in Chief to torpedo the certified election results on Jan6 that were (all fifty ststes) in *safe harbor* since December 14. Do you Correll praise Mike Pence for upholding the Constitution when his partner on the losing presidential ticket did not. 21NOV26 -POST#1106

*NFBW wrote*: Do you @Correll believe that when it comes to legal law abiding US citizens that “AVM” all votes matter?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Are you trying to argue that Pence's job of certifying the vote was purely ceremonial and he had no actual power to NOT certify it?  21NOV27-POST#1106
> 
> NFBW wrote: That is not an argument- that is Federal Election Law 21NOV27-POST#1120
> 
> _“”” The safe harbor deadline, however, is something of a guarantee. _
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What 'safe harbor day' is and why it's bad news for Trump
> 
> 
> Congress must count the electoral votes from states that meet the Tuesday deadline.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.google.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _If, for example, a state legislature decided to send in its own slate, the law says the electors chosen by popular vote and certified by the governor must be counted by Congress from states that met the safe harbor deadline “_””
> 
> Correll wrote: 1. Faun and you believe that fraud had not been proved. 21NOV27-POST#1110
> 
> NFBW wrote: Therefore it is not about what Faun and I believe or what DJT and his vigilsnte mob believed about election fraud on Jan6. You have no point. TRUMP LIED to that mob there was a way he could and should win.  That lie made them afraid of losing their country and angry. He was inciting them.
> The law says all fifty states’ elections were* legit and certified and had to be counted on Jan6. *There is no exemption for sore losers. 21NOV27-POST#1120




Show me the basis for your claim that Pence's role is purely ceremonial. Keep it concise, you weirdo.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW wrote* Do you Correll praise Mike Pence for upholding the Constitution when his partner on the losing presidential ticket did not? 21NOV28-POST#1121
> 
> *Correll wrote*: Are you trying to argue that Pence's job of certifying the vote was purely ceremonial and he had no actual power to NOT certify it? 21NOV27-POST#1106
> 
> *NFBW wrote*: I commend Mike Pence for refusing to follow orders from the outgoing Commander in Chief to torpedo the certified election results on Jan6 that were (all fifty ststes) in *safe harbor* since December 14. Do you Correll praise Mike Pence for upholding the Constitution when his partner on the losing presidential ticket did not. 21NOV26 -POST#1106
> 
> *NFBW wrote*: Do you @Correll believe that when it comes to legal law abiding US citizens that “AVM” all votes matter?




You seem to be trying to make the case that Pence's role in certifying the vote, is purely ceremonial.

I have asked you to clearly state that if that is your intent, or to explain if I got your intent wrong.


YOu keep NOT doing that. 


I need to know the answer to that, before we move on to address any further points.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*Correll wrote: *Let's pretend for a second, that you are correct on the objective, factual reality of the case. 21NOV27-POST#1117


This following (bold) are lies, flat out, no holds barred, pure, unadulterated, intentional with a purpose lies. it is not a public disagreement between President Trump. What Trump told the Jan6 protesters and the violent OathKeepers militia types were lies. There are four indisputable lies (1 through 4) There are two lies (A & B) which should be considered lies at this point because no evidence of biter fraud had surfaced for over a yesr since the election and the preponderance of the evidence says there was no meaningful frsud., 21NOV27-POST#11

_“”””” *(1) States want to revote*. (A) The states got defrauded, (B) They were given false information. *(2) They voted on it. (3) Now they want to recertify. They want it back.* *(4) All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and **we become president* and you are the happiest” “””””_

*NFBW wrote*: So what’s to pretend Correll ? You are unable to contend lies (1 through 4) with anything at all. It was not wishful thinking out loud. They are lies. 21NOV27-POST#11


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*(On the morning of Jan6 2021 VP Mike Pence wrote in a letter that he forwarded to Congress Correll this statement)* Given the controversy surrounding this year’s election, some approach this year’s quadrennial tradition with great expectation, and others with dismissive disdain. *Some believe that as Vice President, I should be able to accept or reject electoral votes unilaterally. *Others believe that electoral votes should never be challenged in a Joint Session of Congress. - - - *After a careful study of our Constitution, our laws, and our history, I believe neither view is correct.* - - - The President is the chief executive officer of the Federal Government under our Constitution, possessing immense power to impact the lives of the American people. The Presidency belongs to the American people, and to them alone. When disputes concerning a presidential election arise, *under Federal law, it is the people’s representatives who review the evidence and resolve disputes through a democratic process.* - - - Our Founders were deeply skeptical of concentrations of power and created a Republic based on separation of powers and checks and balances under the Constitution of the United States. - - - *Vesting the Vice President with unilateral authority to decide presidential contests would be entirely antithetical to that design.*  As a student of history who loves the Constitution and reveres its Framers, I* do not believe that the Founders of our country intended to invest the Vice President with unilateral authority to decide which electoral votes should be counted during the Joint Session of Congress, *and no Vice President in American history has ever asserted such authority. Instead, Vice Presidents presiding over Joint Sessions have uniformly followed the Electoral Count Act, conducting the proceedings in an orderly manner even where the count resulted in the defeat of their party or their own candidacy.   21NOV28-POST#1125


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Below are excerpts for you Correll  from the text of Vice President Mike Pence’s letter to the members of Congress and released by his office on Jan6 regarding his decision not to block attempts to count the Electoral College votes as requested by President Donald Trump. 21NOV28-POST#1126

As Supreme Court Justice Joseph Bradley wrote following the contentious election of 1876, *“the powers of the President of the Senate are merely ministerial.* .. He is not invested with any authority for making any investigation outside of the Joint Meeting of the two Houses … i_f any examination  at all is to be gone into, or any judgment exercised in relation to the votes received, it must be performed and exercised by the two Houses_


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Below are excerpts for you Correll  from the text of Vice President Mike Pence’s letter to the members of Congress and released by his office on Jan6 regarding his decision not to block attempts to count the Electoral College votes as requested by President Donald Trump. 21NOV28-POST#1127

More recently, as the former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig observed, *“[t]he only responsibility and power of the Vice President under the Constitution is to faithfully count the Electoral College votes as they have been cast,”* adding “*[t]he Constitution does not empower the Vice President  to alter in any way the votes that have been cast, either by rejecting certain votes or otherwise.”*


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: 1. Is it not Pence's job to make that call himself? 21OCT16-POST#887 - - - 2. IF Pence believed that the ballots were fraudulent, is that not what SHOULD have happened? 21OCT16-POST#887

Below are excerpts for you Correll  from the text of Vice President Mike Pence’s letter to the members of Congress and released by his office on Jan6 regarding his decision not to block attempts to count the Electoral College votes as requested by President Donald Trump. 21NOV28-POST#1128


It is my considered judgment that my oath to support and defend the Constitution constrains me from claiming unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: 1. Is it not Pence's job to make that call himself? 21OCT16-POST#887 - - - 2. IF Pence believed that the ballots were fraudulent, is that not what SHOULD have happened? 21OCT16-POST#887

Below are excerpts for you Correll  from the text of Vice President Mike Pence’s letter to the members of Congress and released by his office on Jan6 regarding his decision not to block attempts to count the Electoral College votes as requested by President Donald Trump. 21NOV28-POST#1129


While* my role as presiding officer is largely ceremonial,* the role of the Congress is much different, and the Electoral Count Act of 1887 establishes a clear procedure to address election controversies when they arise during the count of the vote of the Electoral College.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: 1. Is it not Pence's job to make that call himself? 21OCT16-POST#887 - - - 2. IF Pence believed that the ballots were fraudulent, is that not what SHOULD have happened? 21OCT16-POST#887

Below are excerpts for you Correll  from the text of Vice President Mike Pence’s letter to the members of Congress and released by his office on Jan6 regarding his decision not to block attempts to count the Electoral College votes as requested by President Donald Trump. 21NOV28-POST#1130


Today it wi11 be my duty to preside when the Congress convenes in Joint Session to count the votes of the Electoral College, and I will do so to the best of my ability. I ask only that Representatives and Senators who will assemble before me approach this moment with the same sense of duty and an open mind, setting politics and personal interests aside, and do our part to faithfully discharge our duties under the Constitution.  I also pray that we will do so with humility and faith, remembering the words of John Quincy Adams, who said, “Duty is ours; results are God’s.”

Four years ago, surrounded by my family, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, which ended with the words, “So help me God.”  *Today I want to assure the American people that I will keep the oath I made to them, and I will keep the oath I made to Almighty God. When the Joint Session of Congress convenes today, I will do my duty to see to it that we open the certificates of the Electors of the several states, we hear objections raised by Senators and Representatives, and we count the votes of the Electoral College for President and Vice President in a manner consistent with our Constitution, laws, and history. So Help Me God.*

Michael R. Pence Vice President of the United States


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> You seem to be trying to make the case that Pence's role in certifying the vote, is purely ceremonial.



NFBW wrote: The case has been made for months. It  21NOV28-POST#1131

NFBW wrote: They were there in numbers (unarmed by law) to pressure Pence to steal it. 21MAR20-POST#301

January 6, 2021 8:17 a.m.: Trump tweets: "States want to correct their votes, which they now know were based on irregularities and fraud, plus corrupt process never received legislative approval. All Mike Pence has to do is send them back to the States, AND WE WIN. Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage!"

NFBW wrote: And then live to the crowd DJT reminds the mob what Pence had to do:

Because if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All he has to do, all this is, this is from the number one, or certainly one of the top, Constitutional lawyers in our country. He has the absolute right to do it. We’re supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our Constitution, and protect our constitution.    - - -  States want to revote. The states got defrauded, They were given false information. They voted on it. Now they want to recertify. They want it back. All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest people.”

djtqriot1 copied and pasted from https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-01-13/transcript-of-trumps-speech-at-rally-before-us-capitol-riot?context=amp

*NFBW wrote: But Pence defied the President and IGNORED the angry crowd. At about 1 PM he issued this statement on his way to the Capitol

"my considered judgement that my oath to support and defend the Constitution constrains me from claiming unilateral authority to determine which electoral votes should be counted and which should not."*

NFBW wrote: The brave Trumpism patriots stormed the Capitol to stop the steal themselves and hang Mike Pence as a traitor to Constitutional Trumpism
(DoD Memo) 1:26 p.m.: The Capitol Police orders the evacuation of the Capitol complex.

NFBW wrote They left their guns in Virginia but they had or found other weapons and the gallows set up to hang Mike Pence.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> You seem to be trying to make the case that Pence's role in certifying the vote, is purely ceremonial.


*NFBW wrote: *Are you Correll fervently trying to make a case that the indicted Oath Keepers are correct and Mike Pence was wrong? 21NOV28-POST#1132

*PENCE Determines his Role to uphold the Constitution on Jan6:  *“”mp _Today it wi11 be my duty to preside when the Congress convenes in Joint Session to count the votes of the Electoral College, and I will do so to the best of my ability. I ask only that Representatives and Senators who will assemble before me approach this moment with the same sense of duty and an open mind, setting politics and personal interests aside, and do our part to faithfully discharge our duties under the Constitution.  I also pray that we will do so with humility and faith, remembering the words of John Quincy Adams, who said, “Duty is ours; results are God’s.”

Four years ago, surrounded by my family, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution, which ended with the words, “So help me God.”  Today I want to assure the American people that I will keep the oath I made to them, and I will keep the oath I made to Almighty God. When the Joint Session of Congress convenes today, I will do my duty to see to it that we open the certificates of the Electors of the several states, we hear objections raised by Senators and Representatives, and we count the votes of the Electoral College for President and Vice President in a manner consistent with our Constitution, laws, and history. So Help Me God.
Michael R. Pence Vice President of the United States_ “”mpJ6

*OATH KEEPERS indicted for their role in attacking Mike Pence *for not doing what Correll wanted him to do: STOP the STEAL. Because peaceful protest Oldestyle outside the Capitol On Jan6 does not Stop the Steal if Pence refuses to defy the Constitution:

*NFBW wrote: *the Oath Keepers  insurrectionists planned and conspired to corruptly obstruct, influence, and impede an official proceeding. The purpose of the conspiracy was to stop, delay, and hinder the certification of the Electoral College vote. The insurrectionists could not stop, delay, and hinder the Certification of the Electoral College vote.from outside  21OCT29-POST#765

32. From at least as early as November 3, 2020, through January 6, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants, THOMAS CALDWELL, DONOVAN CROWL, JESSICA WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, BENNIE PARKER, GRAYDON YOUNG, LAURA STEELE, KELLY MEGGS, CONNIE MEGGS, KENNETH HARRELSON, ROBERTO MINUTA, JOSHUA JAMES, JOSEPH HACKETT, JASON DOLAN, and WILLIAM ISAACS, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with each other and others known and unknown, to commit an offense against the United States, namely, to corruptly obstruct, influence, and impede an official proceeding, that is, the Certification of the Electoral College vote, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(2)

https://context-cdn.washingtonpost..../ebc31ab9-738b-42c5-8a2b-086b0ae568d1.#page=1


*Purpose of the Conspiracy* 33. The purpose of the conspiracy was to stop, delay, and hinder the Certification of the Electoral College vote


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> *Correll wrote: *Let's pretend for a second, that you are correct on the objective, factual reality of the case. 21NOV27-POST#1117
> 
> 
> This following (bold) are lies, flat out, no holds barred, pure, unadulterated, intentional with a purpose lies. it is not a public disagreement between President Trump. What Trump told the Jan6 protesters and the violent OathKeepers militia types were lies. There are four indisputable lies (1 through 4) There are two lies (A & B) which should be considered lies at this point because no evidence of biter fraud had surfaced for over a yesr since the election and the preponderance of the evidence says there was no meaningful frsud., 21NOV27-POST#11
> 
> _“”””” *(1) States want to revote*. (A) The states got defrauded, (B) They were given false information. *(2) They voted on it. (3) Now they want to recertify. They want it back.* *(4) All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and **we become president* and you are the happiest” “””””_
> 
> *NFBW wrote*: So what’s to pretend Correll ? You are unable to contend lies (1 through 4) with anything at all. It was not wishful thinking out loud. They are lies. 21NOV27-POST#11




What a loser you are, that you could not even address my point. Loser. Loser. Loser.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW 

Not. Sorry for triggering you with my question. I was not asking you what Pence said. I was asking what your intent was.


Are you claiming that Pence's role is purely ceremonial? 


yes or no.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Are you claiming that Pence's role is purely ceremonial? 21NOV27-POST#1134

NFBW wrote: Pence’s Jan6 letter to Congress is exactly what I am claiming. On Jan6  Pence’s role is as he says ‘mostly’ ceremonial to count the electors. He can’t send any back.  21NOV27-POST#1136


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*Correll wrote:* Protest crowd. That you have to lie, shows that you know you are in the wrong  21NOV27-POST#1106

*NFBW wrote:* DJT’s Jan6 audience included the Oath Keepers THOMAS CALDWELL, DONOVAN CROWL, JESSICA WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, BENNIE PARKER, GRAYDON YOUNG, LAURA STEELE, KELLY MEGGS, CONNIE MEGGS, KENNETH HARRELSON, ROBERTO MINUTA, JOSHUA JAMES,  JOSEPH HACKETT,  JASON DOLAN,  and WILLIAM ISAACS.

*It is a fact that they are named as defendants against the following charges.*  32. From at least as early as November 3, 2020, through January 6, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with each other and others known and unknown, to commit an offense against the United States, namely, to corruptly obstruct, influence, and impede an official proceeding, that is, the Certification of the Electoral College vote, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(2)

*These people conspired* to commit an offense against the United States to corruptly obstruct the Certification of the Electoral College vote, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(2)

Being aware of that *conspiracy to take the law into their own fucking hands* and their violent criminal activity on Jan6,* I choose to call those unpatriotic assholes “Vigilantes”* Correll calls that a lie. Correll therefore a desperate clueless moron. DJT told them these lies.

_“”””” States want to revote. The states got defrauded, They were given false information. They voted on it. Now they want to recertify. They want it back. All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest” “””””   21NOV28-POST#1136_


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*@Correll wrote*: 2. IF Pence believed that the ballots were fraudulent, is that not what SHOULD have happened? 21OCT16-POST#887

*NFBW wrote*: No. Pence told a crowd at the RR Library in June that what Correll asks - “_there’s almost no idea more un-American than the notion that any one person could choose the American” president._ - - - On October 16 of this year it was over eleven months after Pence and DJT were soundly beaten in the 2020 election. That is a FACT, but Correll as his writing shows, continues to refuse to accept that fact. - - -  Proof of Correll ’s living in that denial, is the question that is cited above and the answer, a resounding NO by former VP Mike Pence.

*Pence, in remarks at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, June 25, 2021*
“Now there are those in our party who believe that, in my position as presiding officer over the joint session, that I possessed the authority to reject or return electoral votes certified by the states, But the Constitution provides the vice president with no such authority before the joint session of Congress.
https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...-gop-as-last-line-of-defense-for-constitution
And the truth is, *there’s almost no idea more un-American than the notion that any one person could choose the American president. *The presidency belongs to the American people and the American people alone.”   21NOV29-POST#1137


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Correll wrote: Are you claiming that Pence's role is purely ceremonial? 21NOV27-POST#1134
> 
> NFBW wrote: Pence’s Jan6 letter to Congress is exactly what I am claiming. On Jan6  Pence’s role is as he says ‘mostly’ ceremonial to count the electors. He can’t send any back.  21NOV27-POST#1136




1. What the fuck is wrong with you? I did not ask you what Pence said. Seriously. Are you fucked in the head? An asshole? BOTH?

2. Ok, so you are claiming that Pence's role is "mostly ceremonial".



Here is something I want you to consider, and think about a little before you post.


I have no clue if you are correct about that. l have never read up on his role, or the rules surrounding it. It has never been relevant before. 



How does that FACT, impact your... position on the 1/6 protests?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> *Correll wrote:* Protest crowd. That you have to lie, shows that you know you are in the wrong  21NOV27-POST#1106
> 
> *NFBW wrote:* DJT’s Jan6 audience included the Oath Keepers THOMAS CALDWELL, DONOVAN CROWL, JESSICA WATKINS, SANDRA PARKER, BENNIE PARKER, GRAYDON YOUNG, LAURA STEELE, KELLY MEGGS, CONNIE MEGGS, KENNETH HARRELSON, ROBERTO MINUTA, JOSHUA JAMES,  JOSEPH HACKETT,  JASON DOLAN,  and WILLIAM ISAACS.
> 
> *It is a fact that they are named as defendants against the following charges.*  32. From at least as early as November 3, 2020, through January 6, 2021, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree with each other and others known and unknown, to commit an offense against the United States, namely, to corruptly obstruct, influence, and impede an official proceeding, that is, the Certification of the Electoral College vote, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(2)
> 
> *These people conspired* to commit an offense against the United States to corruptly obstruct the Certification of the Electoral College vote, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1512(c)(2)
> 
> Being aware of that *conspiracy to take the law into their own fucking hands* and their violent criminal activity on Jan6,* I choose to call those unpatriotic assholes “Vigilantes”* Correll calls that a lie. Correll therefore a desperate clueless moron. DJT told them these lies.
> 
> _“”””” States want to revote. The states got defrauded, They were given false information. They voted on it. Now they want to recertify. They want it back. All Vice President Pence has to do is send it back to the states to recertify and we become president and you are the happiest” “””””   21NOV28-POST#1136_



There were thousands of people there that day. ONly a few hundred actually entered the Capitol, thus earing the name "rioters". 

Thus, conflating the vast majority with the few that crossed the line, is A. incorrect and B. implies that you know your position is incorrect, or you would not be lying like this.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> *@Correll wrote*: 2. IF Pence believed that the ballots were fraudulent, is that not what SHOULD have happened? 21OCT16-POST#887
> 
> *NFBW wrote*: No. Pence told a crowd at the RR Library in June that what Correll asks - “_there’s almost no idea more un-American than the notion that any one person could choose the American” president._ - - - On October 16 of this year it was over eleven months after Pence and DJT were soundly beaten in the 2020 election. That is a FACT, but Correll as his writing shows, continues to refuse to accept that fact. - - -  Proof of Correll ’s living in that denial, is the question that is cited above and the answer, a resounding NO by former VP Mike Pence.
> 
> *Pence, in remarks at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library, June 25, 2021*
> “Now there are those in our party who believe that, in my position as presiding officer over the joint session, that I possessed the authority to reject or return electoral votes certified by the states, But the Constitution provides the vice president with no such authority before the joint session of Congress.
> https://www.usnews.com/news/politic...-gop-as-last-line-of-defense-for-constitution
> And the truth is, *there’s almost no idea more un-American than the notion that any one person could choose the American president. *The presidency belongs to the American people and the American people alone.”   21NOV29-POST#1137




But, that would not be Pence "choosing" the President. That would only be the beginning of the alternative process. 


Thus, by your logic, since what he said was factually wrong, it is not.... does not matter...it is as he did not say it.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

_*“This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act*_. “ Eastman Memo requesting PENCE to break from his duty to count all certified and in safe harbor slates of electors on Jan6.

*Correll wrote: *But, that would not be Pence "choosing" the President. That would only be the beginning of the alternative process. 21NOV29-POST#1140

NFBW wrote: (1) What alternative process are you Correll wishfully dreaming about?   (2) Do you agree with the Constitution and Federal Law that all legal voters in all fifty states shall  have their votes counted on Jan6 no matter what the losers want to happen as long as each state’s election authority certified their respective election by mid-December referred to as safe harbor. (3) Is the alternative process you want Pence to “begin” what has been discovered  as the Eastman Memo?

Below is the Eastmsn Memo. IF that is what you want to discuss. I have bolded one part of that and I will ask you to address It. FYI


*READ: Trump lawyer's memo on six-step plan for Pence to overturn the election*

John Eastman, a conservative lawyer working with then-President Donald Trump's legal team, outlined in a two-page memo a scheme to try to persuade then-Vice President Mike Pence to subvert the Constitution and throw out the 2020 election results on January 6.

1. VP Pence, presiding over the joint session (or Senate Pro Tempore Grassley, if Pence recuses himself), begins to open and count the ballots, starting with Alabama (without conceding that the procedure, specified by the Electoral Count Act, of going through the States alphabetically is required).

2. When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States.

3. At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. That means the total number of “electors appointed” – the language of the 12th Amendment -- is 454. This reading of the 12th Amendment has also been advanced by Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe (here). A “majority of the electors appointed” would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected.

4. Howls, of course, from the Democrats, who now claim, contrary to Tribe’s prior position, that 270 is required. So Pence says, fine. Pursuant to the 12th Amendment, no candidate has achieved the necessary majority. That sends the matter to the House, where the “the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote . . . .” Republicans currently control 26 of the state delegations, the bare majority needed to win that vote. President Trump is re-elected there as well.

5. One last piece. Assuming the Electoral Count Act process is followed and, upon getting the objections to the Arizona slates, the two houses break into their separate chambers, we should not allow the Electoral Count Act constraint on debate to control. That would mean that a prior legislature was determining the rules of the present one — a constitutional no-no (as Tribe has forcefully argued). So someone – Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, etc. – should demand normal rules (which includes the filibuster). That creates a stalemate that would give the state legislatures more time to weigh in to formally support the alternate slate of electors, if they had not already done so. 6. The main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission – either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court. Let the other side challenge his actions in court, where Tribe (who in 2001 conceded the President of the Senate might be in charge of counting the votes) and others who would press a lawsuit would have their past position -- that these are non-justiciable political questions – thrown back at them, to get the lawsuit dismissed. The fact is that the Constitution assigns this power to the Vice President as the ultimate arbiter. We should take all of our actions with that in mind. TRUMP-Jan6-COUPattempt - see “””   21SEP21-EASTMANplan-00  TRUMP-Jan6-COUPattempt  “””  21NOV29-POST#1141


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> There were thousands of people there that day. ONly a few hundred actually entered the Capitol, thus earing the name "rioters".
> 
> Thus, conflating the vast majority with the few that crossed the line, is A. incorrect and B. implies that you know your position is incorrect, or you would not be lying like this


I have never conflated peaceful protesters with not peaceful protestors - you are a liar -  the indicted Oath Keepers were in the Audience on Jan6 and received DJT’s message. They are charged with conspiracy to disrupt the transfer of power to Biden - I say that is taking the law into their own hands - they are vigilantes . That is a valid assessment not a lie..


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*“There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden”. (Pence then gavels) and says  “President Trump is re-elected.” *MIke Pence on Jan6 had he complied with the Eastman Plan and DJT and an angry mob with some threatening to hang him if he didn’t, as the one and only man able to choose himself and DJT the winner of the 2020 election.

*Correll wrote: *Thus, by your logic, since what he said was factually wrong, it is not.... does not matter...it is as he did not say it. 21NOV29-POST#1140

*NFBW wrote: *No. Pence is absolutely correct when he says it is would be un-American for one man (himself) to choose DJT to be President after an ejection that he lost. Here is why Pence would be choosing DJT/PENCE  the winning ticket from the 2020 ticket.,

1. VP Pence, presiding over the joint session begins to open and count the ballots, starting with Alabama

2. When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors, and so is going to defer decision on that until finishing the other States. This would be the first break with the procedure set out in the Act.* (And it would not be true) *

3. At the end, he announces that because of the ongoing disputes in the 7 States, there are no electors that can be deemed validly appointed in those States. (Seven states will not have milli That means the total number of “electors appointed” – the language of the 12th Amendment -- is 454. - - - A “majority of the electors appointed” would therefore be 228. There are at this point 232 votes for Trump, 222 votes for Biden. Pence then gavels President Trump as re-elected. 21NOV29-POST#1141


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Doc7505 said:


> Which was the insurrgency


Could you tell us @Doc505 which POTUS created the conditions on a specific date for “one” riot out of he 276 riots that your cartoon is citing?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*Correll wrote:* Thus, by your logic, since what he said was factually wrong, it is not.... does not matter...it is as he did not say it. 21NOV29-POST#1140

*NFBW wrote: *No. Pence is absolutely correct. If he did what DJT pushed him to do he would have declared Trump/Pence the winner of the 20/20 election on January 6.   - - -  There was no other human being on earth or heaven that could declare himself the winner of an election that he lost based solely on his belief that he had won by getting fewer votes.  21NOV29-POST#1145


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> to subvert



DUde. Do you want to discuss teh issues, or do you want to just spam talking points? 

You have to choose. I will not allow both.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> I have never conflated peaceful protesters with not peaceful protestors - you are a liar -  the indicted Oath Keepers were in the Audience on Jan6 and received DJT’s message. They are charged with conspiracy to disrupt the transfer of power to Biden - I say that is taking the law into their own hands - they are vigilantes . That is a valid assessment not a lie..




When you refer to the crowd as though they are all those 6 people, who by the way, are CHARGED, not convicted, 


you are conflating peaceful protestors with rioters.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> *Correll wrote:* Thus, by your logic, since what he said was factually wrong, it is not.... does not matter...it is as he did not say it. 21NOV29-POST#1140
> 
> *NFBW wrote: *No. Pence is absolutely correct. If he did what DJT pushed him to do he would have declared Trump/Pence the winner of the 20/20 election on January 6.   - - -  There was no other human being on earth or heaven that could declare himself the winner of an election that he lost based solely on his belief that he had won by getting fewer votes.  21NOV29-POST#1145




So, you agree that Pence's role was not purely ceremonial. 

Good. 

What would Pence's role, in your mind be, if he was under the impression that the vote was fraudulent?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*NFBW wrote: *I found two words that must’ve made Correll shit his pants. “Eastman Memo” and/or “safe harbor”
21NOV29-POST#1149

*READ: Trump lawyer's memo on six-step plan for Pence to overturn the election  *By: CNN Updated 8:20 AM EDT, Tue September 21, 2021  21SEP21-EASTMANplan-00 TRUMP-Jan6-COUPattempt

_John Eastman, a conservative lawyer working with then-President Donald Trump's legal team, outlined in a two-page memo a scheme to try to persuade then-Vice President Mike Pence to *subvert* the Constitution and throw out the 2020 election results on January 6_.

*Correll wrote: *Do you want to discuss the issues, or do you want to just spam talking points?  21NOV29-POST#1146

*NFBW wrote: *I see Correll has to go to his ‘format defense’ over the word “subvert” - - - That was to be expected.

The fact is the Eastman Memo outlined a scheme to try to persuade Mike Pence to *subvert* the Constitution and throw out the 2020 election results in seven states on Jan6. If Pence had succumbed to the pressure that DJT and his legal team put him under he would have had to *subvert the Constitution *first by telling a lie that was laid out in the Eastman memo.

“2. When he gets to Arizona, he announces that he has multiple slates of electors,”

None of the states had more than the one certified slate of electors that were in safe harbor since December 14

IF Pence were willing to commit a lie like that it would definitely undermine the principles of the Constitution. It would have led to subverting millions of votes including those who vote in large metropolitan areas. It wouid be a voting rights violation for minority voters all on Mike Pence’s believed he was without proof *under the impression that the vote was fraudulent?  - - - *If that is not fucking subversion - nothing is. 21NOV29-POST#1149


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*Correll wrote: *Thus, by your logic, since what he said was factually wrong, it is not.... does not matter...it is as he did not say it. 21NOV29-POST#1140

*NFBW wrote*: No. Pence is absolutely correct. If he did what DJT pushed him to do he would have declared Trump/Pence the winner of the 20/20 election on January 6. - - - There was no other human being on earth or in heaven that could declare himself the winner of an election that he lost based solely on his belief that he had won by getting fewer votes. 21NOV29-POST#1145

*Correll wrote:* So, you agree that Pence's role was not purely ceremonial. 21NOV29-POST#1148

*NFBW wrote: *No. Pence’s role with regard to his rejection of the false pretense that he had the authority or a constitutionally sound option to do what lying DJT and lying John Eastman pushed *(LIE UNDER OATH) *a good patriotic Christian  American man to do, means that PENCE’s role was largely ceremonial. - - -  In addition to that there is the 100% pure unquestionably true fact that the seven states that lying John Eastman and his fucking conniving sore loser asshole of a POTUS client who publicly wanted PENCE to remove from being counted seven of the BIDEN states that were constitutionally in safe harbor by December 14.   - - -  SAFE HARBOR  means that Pence had to count them. Pence’s role is *purely* ceremonial on January 6th when it comes to PENCE’s duty to count the votes. - - -   There is no option for *one man to decide not to count the legal votes* that were cast by the diversified American citizens residing in Detroit, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Phoenix, and Las Vegas *which means Pence’s role was 100% purely ceremonial for him as President of the Senate to count all the votes that were cast on election day* and then were constitutionally certified as correct by each state by December 14. 21NOV30-POST#1150


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*Doc7505 wrote: *Which was the insurgency?  21FEB09-POST#19

*NFBW wrote: *Could you tell us Doc7505 which POTUS created the conditions on a specific date for “one” riot out of he 276 riots that your cartoon is citing? 21NOV29-POST#1151


*NFBW wrote: *Same question for all the advocates for Trumpism who push the whataboutism and false equivalence of the Jan6 riot to the ANTI-Chauvin/murderer/protest * - - -  *Could you tell us Correll which POTUS created the conditions on a specific date for “one” riot out of the 276 riots that Doc7505 ‘s cartoon is citing? 21NOV30-POST#1151


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*Correll wrote: *What would Pence's role, in your mind be, if he was under the impression that the vote was fraudulent?  21NOV29-POST#1148

*NFBW wrote: *Mike Pence’s role as President of the Senate  is purely ceremonial. He must count all slated electors that were certification  and in safe harbor by December 14. It matters not what Pence believed. 21NOV29-POST#1152


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> *Correll wrote: *Thus, by your logic, since what he said was factually wrong, it is not.... does not matter...it is as he did not say it. 21NOV29-POST#1140
> 
> *NFBW wrote*: No. Pence is absolutely correct. If he did what DJT pushed him to do he would have declared Trump/Pence the winner of the 20/20 election on January 6. - - - There was no other human being on earth or in heaven that could declare himself the winner of an election that he lost based solely on his belief that he had won by getting fewer votes. 21NOV29-POST#1145
> 
> *Correll wrote:* So, you agree that Pence's role was not purely ceremonial. 21NOV29-POST#1148
> 
> *NFBW wrote: *No. Pence’s role with regard to his rejection of the false pretense that he had the authority or a constitutionally sound option to do what lying DJT and lying John Eastman pushed *(LIE UNDER OATH) *a good patriotic Christian  American man to do, means that PENCE’s role was largely ceremonial. - - -  In addition to that there is the 100% pure unquestionably true fact that the seven states that lying John Eastman and his fucking conniving sore loser asshole of a POTUS client who publicly wanted PENCE to remove from being counted seven of the BIDEN states that were constitutionally in safe harbor by December 14.   - - -  SAFE HARBOR  means that Pence had to count them. Pence’s role is *purely* ceremonial on January 6th when it comes to PENCE’s duty to count the votes. - - -   There is no option for *one man to decide not to count the legal votes* that were cast by the diversified American citizens residing in Detroit, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Milwaukee, Phoenix, and Las Vegas *which means Pence’s role was 100% purely ceremonial for him as President of the Senate to count all the votes that were cast on election day* and then were constitutionally certified as correct by each state by December 14. 21NOV30-POST#1150




Big difference between "mostly ceremonial" and "purely ceremonial".


So, part of your pile of unstated premises, if I am understanding your ranting correctly, is that you assume that President Trump was perfectly educated on all aspects of the Federal Government, or at least the Congress, on 1/6/21.

Two quick questions for you before we move on, and try to keep your answers concise. 


1. Is that part of the basis of your position?

2. When do you think he educated himself on these functions? Did he do it in college as a young man?  Or during his TV days? Perhaps you believe that as a very responsible person, he fully reviewed the rules of the Federal Government, top to bottom, while he was considering his Presidential run?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> View attachment 569967
> 
> *Doc7505 wrote: *Which was the insurgency?  21FEB09-POST#19
> 
> *NFBW wrote: *Could you tell us Doc7505 which POTUS created the conditions on a specific date for “one” riot out of he 276 riots that your cartoon is citing? 21NOV29-POST#1151
> 
> 
> *NFBW wrote: *Same question for all the advocates for Trumpism who push the whataboutism and false equivalence of the Jan6 riot to the ANTI-Chauvin/murderer/protest * - - -  *Could you tell us Correll which POTUS created the conditions on a specific date for “one” riot out of the 276 riots that Doc7505 ‘s cartoon is citing? 21NOV30-POST#1151




The "conditions" for 1/6? I could see that you could put that on Trump.

Now Not, to whom to you put the responsibility for the "conditions" for the much larger and far deadlier riots of the left over the previous 4 years?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> *Correll wrote: *What would Pence's role, in your mind be, if he was under the impression that the vote was fraudulent?  21NOV29-POST#1148
> 
> *NFBW wrote: *Mike Pence’s role as President of the Senate  is purely ceremonial. He must count all slated electors that were certification  and in safe harbor by December 14. It matters not what Pence believed. 21NOV29-POST#1152




Thank you. Now, why the fuck did it take you so long to say that, and what the fuck was all that other babble that you stuffed your posts full of?


This is a serious question. Is your thinking really that fucked up, or were you intentionally being an ass and spewing shit talking points, on purpose?


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll wrote: Now Not, to whom do you put the responsibility for the "conditions" for the much larger and far deadlier riots of the left over the previous 4 years? 21NOV30-POST#1154

NFBW wrote: Jan6 is easy because the BIG LIE created the conditions for the riot by Trump Supporters who were attempting to give their cult leader a second term that he did not win. It was Trump that caused that riot and the assault against a live session of Congress. It never happens IF DJT quit the BIG LIE  because all fifty states put their elections in safe harbor so Pence could count them and announce Joe Biden is President Elect. - - - Four years of separate, distinct riots dont have a BIG LIE by one person to pin four years of riots on just one person. So since It is not possible to pin four years of riots on one person I’ll tell you who I believe is responsible for the Derrick Chauvin riots. First and foremost the criminals who riot burn and loot are responsible for their crimes and should be prosecuted no matter the reason that set them off. But if you want one person to hang the Derrick Chauvin riots on, it certainly needs to be Derrick Chauvin and the Minneapolis PD. Just like if there would  be no Jan6 riot if DJT did not propagate his Big Lie, there would be no Chauvin riots if Chauvin did not torture and murder George Floyd while being cam-corded. 21NOV30-POST#1156


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> The "conditions" for 1/6? I could see that you could put that on Trump.



NFBW wrote: NOT ME! Take it from a rioter that DJT called to help him steal an election: 21DEC01-POST#1157

_Newly released video shows an emotional MAGA rioter crying in front of FBI interrogators after being asked about former President Donald Trump calling him to Washington D.C.

The video, which was posted on Twitter by NBC 4 Washington's Scott MacFarlane, shows Capitol rioter Danny Rodriguez being grilled by the FBI about the reasons he came to Washington to take part in the siege of the United States Capitol._

_https://www.rawstory.com/capitol-rioter-crying-video/_

_"How did he let you guys know to come to D.C.?" asked one agent. 

"He was the commander-in-chief and the leader of our country," an emotional Rodriguez recalled. "And he was calling for help! I thought he was calling for help! I thought he was..."
At this point, Rodriguez started openly sobbing.  

image.jpg.webp

Newly released video shows an emotional MAGA rioter crying in front of FBI interrogators after being asked about former President Donald Trump calling him to Washington D.C.

The video, which was posted on Twitter by NBC 4 Washington's Scott MacFarlane, shows Capitol rioter Danny Rodriguez being grilled by the FBI about the reasons he came to Washington to take part in the siege of the United States Capitol.

READ MORE: MAGA rioter who talked of desire to commit 'assassination' hit with conspiracy charges

"How did he let you guys know to come to D.C.?" asked one agent.

"He was the commander-in-chief and the leader of our country," an emotional Rodriguez recalled. "And he was calling for help! I thought he was calling for help! I thought he was..."

At this point, Rodriguez started openly sobbing.
"I thought I was doing the right thing," he continued.  

Rodriguez is currently facing multiple criminal charges, including conspiracy, assaulting a police officer, entering a restricted building, and theft and destruction of government property._


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*Correll wrote:* Big difference between "mostly ceremonial" and "purely ceremonial".  21NOV29-POST#1153

*NFBW wrote:* Does not matter @Correl!. Because of the fact that all fifty states certified their elections in time to be put into safe harbor by December 14. That indisputable reality makes it legally  and Constitutionally clear that the counting of the electors was a purely ceremonial ritual for Mr. Pence on Jan6. - - - Pence, as President of the Senate on Jan6 may have had duties to perform other than counting the votes that he did not consider to be ceremonial, like opening the joint session of Congress that was assaulted by Trump supporters who wanted to hang him. 21DEC01-POST#1158

*NFBW wrote: *Below are excerpts for you Correll  from the text of Vice President Mike Pence’s letter to the members of Congress and released by his office on Jan6 regarding his decision not to block attempts to count the Electoral College votes as requested by President Donald Trump. 21NOV28-POST#1127

More recently, as the former U.S. Court of Appeals Judge J. Michael Luttig observed, “[t]he only responsibility and power of the Vice President under the Constitution is to faithfully count the Electoral College votes as they have been cast,” adding “[t]he Constitution does not empower the Vice President  to alter in any way the votes that have been cast, either by rejecting certain votes or otherwise.”


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Correll said:


> Thank you. Now, why the fuck did it take you so long to say that,


*NFBW wrote: *Faun and I have been saying Pence had no choice on Jan6 other than to count the votes and name Biden President elect in order to engage the peaceful transfer of power that was violently attacked by DJT supporters who were trying to stop it. 21DEC01-POST#1159

*@ThisIsMe wrote:* If you read the Eastman memo, what it does is cite all the violations of election laws that the states in question had committed, and give an outline for what Pence could do in regards to only those states. - - - The memo outlines a plan based on their thought that the election had been stolen. It doesn't indicate that they knew they lost but plotted to send back the electors anyway in an effort to overturn the election. 21OCT30-POST#680

*@Faun wrote: *Two things... one, it would have been unconstitutional for Pence to unilaterally reject electors; widespread fraud which could have changed the outcome of the election had not been proven. 21NOV01-POST#681

*NFBW wrote: A*llow me to add to what Faun is explaining to further your edification on the CONSTITUTION that you are unwittingly kind of proving that DJT does not give a flying fuck about the Constitution and John Eastman was lying to his client the entire time. - - - @Faun has it right and I will add the concept of “safe harbor” that let’s say by mid December the safe harbor status “constitutionally” ends any chance for SORE losers (may I call them that @ThisIsMe ) to legally challenge each states’ certification that is sealed and is to be submitted to Congress. Hence the Date Jan6 to open and read them no later than January 6. I’m sure the founders in colonial times wanted to give the sealed documents time to make the journey to the Capitol. 21NOV01-POST#685

If you were to read this I think you will be able to answer all your questions and not need the help of a hifallutin lawyer./ This part ain’t complicated, even for a clueless moron like DJT.

“”””” It may come and go without much fanfare, but on Tuesday, the U.S. will pass a key deadline cementing President-elect Joe Biden's victory as the 46th president

Biden's Victory Cemented As States Reach Key Electoral College Deadline
© 2020 npr

The day, Dec. 8, is known as the "safe harbor" deadline for states to certify their results, compelling Congress to accept those results “””””

I understand you may think NPR is part of the DEEP STATE out to destroy poor victim Trump but their explanation of “safe harbor” is factual and csnnot be faked. 21NOV01-POST#685


#688
*@ThisIsMe wrote*: Again, I have been trying to keep my discussion focused around the question of the integrity of the committee, that is all 21OCT31-POST#678

*NFBW wrote:* And there is really nothing to talk about because thus far their integrity is intact. The integrity of those being investigated is non-existent. I suggest we discuss the integrity of both sides instead of trashing only the members of Congress that are doing exactly what they appear to believe they came to Congress to do. Defend and protect the Constitution of the UNITED STATES of America from foreign and domestic threats. Its a job made very difficult when the Constitution is under attack by a sitting , and now former, president - - -    Trump and his anti-Democratic and anti-constitutional supporters, militias, media operatives and conspiracy believing nutjobs have put us, as a nation into. THATS ALL 21NOV01POST#688


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Four years of separate, distinct riots dont have a ... by one person to pin four years of riots on just one person



I didn't ask you to "pin it on one person", or to condense it down to "one" statement.


I find it interesting that you are so concerned about the blame for the 4 hours of rioting on 1/6, when one  person died, and that was a rioter shot by a cop, 


but you have no interesting in blame for the far more violent, deadly and destructive riots of the previous four years. 


Your pretense of being so concerned about the 1/6 riot, is not very credible when you have no concern about the far more massive riots on YOUR side of the political divide. 


I will give you one more chance. Who is responsible for setting the conditions for the 4 years of riots?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> NFBW wrote: NOT ME! Take it from a rioter that DJT called to help him steal an election: 21DEC01-POST#1157
> 
> _Newly released video shows an emotional MAGA rioter crying in front of FBI interrogators after being asked about former President Donald Trump calling him to Washington D.C.
> 
> The video, which was posted on Twitter by NBC 4 Washington's Scott MacFarlane, shows Capitol rioter Danny Rodriguez being grilled by the FBI about the reasons he came to Washington to take part in the siege of the United States Capitol._
> 
> _https://www.rawstory.com/capitol-rioter-crying-video/_
> 
> _"How did he let you guys know to come to D.C.?" asked one agent.
> 
> "He was the commander-in-chief and the leader of our country," an emotional Rodriguez recalled. "And he was calling for help! I thought he was calling for help! I thought he was..."
> At this point, Rodriguez started openly sobbing.
> 
> image.jpg.webp
> 
> Newly released video shows an emotional MAGA rioter crying in front of FBI interrogators after being asked about former President Donald Trump calling him to Washington D.C.
> 
> The video, which was posted on Twitter by NBC 4 Washington's Scott MacFarlane, shows Capitol rioter Danny Rodriguez being grilled by the FBI about the reasons he came to Washington to take part in the siege of the United States Capitol.
> 
> READ MORE: MAGA rioter who talked of desire to commit 'assassination' hit with conspiracy charges
> 
> "How did he let you guys know to come to D.C.?" asked one agent.
> 
> "He was the commander-in-chief and the leader of our country," an emotional Rodriguez recalled. "And he was calling for help! I thought he was calling for help! I thought he was..."
> 
> At this point, Rodriguez started openly sobbing.
> "I thought I was doing the right thing," he continued.
> 
> Rodriguez is currently facing multiple criminal charges, including conspiracy, assaulting a police officer, entering a restricted building, and theft and destruction of government property._




Too bad I can't post similar pieces from the FOUR years of riots from your side. Because the FBI isn't grilling any of them like that. Hell, mostly your side dem prosecutors are refusing to charge them.


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> Because of the fact that all fifty states certified their elections in time to be put into safe harbor by December 14.




When did you learn about the "safe habor" rule? Was it is grade school? Was it more than 30 years ago? 


When do you think Trump learned about it? Was it is grade school? Was it more than 30 years ago?


----------



## Faun

NotfooledbyW said:


> *NFBW wrote: *Faun and I have been saying Pence had no choice on Jan6 other than to count the votes and name Biden President elect in order to engage the peaceful transfer of power that was violently attacked by DJT supporters who were trying to stop it. 21DEC01-POST#1159
> 
> *@ThisIsMe wrote:* If you read the Eastman memo, what it does is cite all the violations of election laws that the states in question had committed, and give an outline for what Pence could do in regards to only those states. - - - The memo outlines a plan based on their thought that the election had been stolen. It doesn't indicate that they knew they lost but plotted to send back the electors anyway in an effort to overturn the election. 21OCT30-POST#680
> 
> *@Faun wrote: *Two things... one, it would have been unconstitutional for Pence to unilaterally reject electors; widespread fraud which could have changed the outcome of the election had not been proven. 21NOV01-POST#681
> 
> *NFBW wrote: A*llow me to add to what Faun is explaining to further your edification on the CONSTITUTION that you are unwittingly kind of proving that DJT does not give a flying fuck about the Constitution and John Eastman was lying to his client the entire time. - - - @Faun has it right and I will add the concept of “safe harbor” that let’s say by mid December the safe harbor status “constitutionally” ends any chance for SORE losers (may I call them that @ThisIsMe ) to legally challenge each states’ certification that is sealed and is to be submitted to Congress. Hence the Date Jan6 to open and read them no later than January 6. I’m sure the founders in colonial times wanted to give the sealed documents time to make the journey to the Capitol. 21NOV01-POST#685
> 
> If you were to read this I think you will be able to answer all your questions and not need the help of a hifallutin lawyer./ This part ain’t complicated, even for a clueless moron like DJT.
> 
> “”””” It may come and go without much fanfare, but on Tuesday, the U.S. will pass a key deadline cementing President-elect Joe Biden's victory as the 46th president
> 
> Biden's Victory Cemented As States Reach Key Electoral College Deadline
> © 2020 npr
> 
> The day, Dec. 8, is known as the "safe harbor" deadline for states to certify their results, compelling Congress to accept those results “””””
> 
> I understand you may think NPR is part of the DEEP STATE out to destroy poor victim Trump but their explanation of “safe harbor” is factual and csnnot be faked. 21NOV01-POST#685
> 
> 
> #688
> *@ThisIsMe wrote*: Again, I have been trying to keep my discussion focused around the question of the integrity of the committee, that is all 21OCT31-POST#678
> 
> *NFBW wrote:* And there is really nothing to talk about because thus far their integrity is intact. The integrity of those being investigated is non-existent. I suggest we discuss the integrity of both sides instead of trashing only the members of Congress that are doing exactly what they appear to believe they came to Congress to do. Defend and protect the Constitution of the UNITED STATES of America from foreign and domestic threats. Its a job made very difficult when the Constitution is under attack by a sitting , and now former, president - - -    Trump and his anti-Democratic and anti-constitutional supporters, militias, media operatives and conspiracy believing nutjobs have put us, as a nation into. THATS ALL 21NOV01POST#688


You are wasting your time with that con. He doesn't want to discuss the attack against our Constitution.  All he will do is divert to avoid any such discussion.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

Faun said:


> You are wasting your time with that con. He doesn't want to discuss the attack against our Constitution. All he will do is divert to avoid any such discussion.


I appreciate your concern but I’ve known for years that every con on a forum like this is not interested in having a discussion based on facts and through reason as best we can attempt to get to the truth of things. Cons are here to keep the herd mentality count up because truth for them is based on what they believe not what they examined as individuals with an open mind. Truth for the Trump herd is seeing all the facets of Trumpism posted and reposted over and over so that repetitive contact with same baseless facts make them seem true. correll is a fascinating Buffalo in the herd because he does actually engage in back and forth discussion at Length sometimes before pulling off one of his numerous diversion schemes. That is contrary to PoliticalChic who never engages beyond posting a wall of rightwing Propaganda words and loony tunes cartoons.  I’m am fascinated in understanding the difference between the two buffaloes as they stampede  toward the cliff. I think Chic goes right over / correll maybe not.


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*Correll wrote: *I didn't ask you to "pin it on one person", or to condense it down to "one" statement.  21DEC01-POST#273

*NFBW wrote: I* did.  You leaped over it. AM i going to get your response anytime soon?

*NFBW wrote: *Could you tell us Correll which POTUS created the conditions on a specific date for “one” riot out of the 276 riots that Doc7505 ‘s cartoon is citing? 21NOV30-POST#1151


----------



## NotfooledbyW

*Correll wrote: *Hell, mostly your side dem prosecutors are refusing to charge them  21DEC01-POST#273

NFBW wrote: Charge who specifically for what?   - - - You need a suspect committing a crime to charge somebody. What suspects are you talking about?


----------



## Correll

NotfooledbyW said:


> *Correll wrote: *I didn't ask you to "pin it on one person", or to condense it down to "one" statement.  21DEC01-POST#273
> 
> *NFBW wrote: I* did.  You leaped over it. AM i going to get your response anytime soon?
> 
> *NFBW wrote: *Could you tell us Correll which POTUS created the conditions on a specific date for “one” riot out of the 276 riots that Doc7505 ‘s cartoon is citing? 21NOV30-POST#1151




Responsibility is not limited to Presidents. You are dodging teh point.


The Left, with it's constant racebaiting, set the stage for the years of riots and all violence and death that came with it.

You personally have a share, because you do a lot of race baiting, doing what you can, your own little part, to keep the hate alive, if not growing.


----------

