Poll to condemn or condone "the violence and law breaking that took place inside the Capital on 1/6"

[kyzr]

As an example, Dr. Fauci's paying the Wuhan Lab for covid "gain of function" research bit him on the ass.

That's another lie. Fauci actually said “Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect, that the N.I.H. has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute.”

The Wuhan Lab documented that the funding came from NIH. Dr. Fauci paid the Wuhan Lab to do gain of function research, and it got out. Thank God it wasn't the deadliest virus they developed.
Point being, that we can't trust anything that the government says or does. You can drink their KoolAde, I'm not.

Funding for research did come from the N.I.H. but that funding wasn't for gain-of-function research. Nor had it been proven that was the origin of the virus. Senator Paul lied and Fauci called him on it.

Fauci is a liar. Rand is calling him a liar. The paper trail confirms that Fauci is lying. Do you support paying China to do "gain of function" research to make bat viruses more deadly? I don't.

Fauci claims US gave $600,000 to Wuhan lab research; documents show it was more

In a Senate hearing late last month, top doctor Anthony Fauci told lawmakers the U.S. granted $600,000 in funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology over a five year period, but documents provided by the Department of Health and Human Services Friday show otherwise.

www.foxnews.com

True, that would be a lie if Fauci actually knew the figure was $826K, but I have no evidence of that either. And your question about support paying China to do "gain of function" research is based on your falsehood that we paid China for gain-of-function research. That's never been proven either.

But seeing as how you can't stop yourself from lying, I can't wholly state I expect anything different from you.

1. Yes there is evidence that Fauci paid China to do gain of function research. There are tons of credible sites.

Why US outsourced bat virus research to Wuhan - Asia Times

The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded bat-coronavirus research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China to the tune of US$3.7 million, a

asiatimes.com

The Wuhan Lab and the Gain-of-Function Disagreement - FactCheck.org

A disagreement between Republican Sen. Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci has put $600,000 of U.S. grant money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology back into the spotlight, while making "gain-of-function" research a household term -- all amid calls for more investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

www.factcheck.org

There are a lot of unknowns, speculation and differences of opinion on these topics. But let’s start with what we do know: In 2014, the NIH awarded a grant to the U.S.-based EcoHealth Alliance to study the risk of the future emergence of coronaviruses from bats. In 2019, the project was renewed for another five years, but it was canceled in April 2020 — three months after the first case of the coronavirus was confirmed in the U.S.
EcoHealth ultimately received $3.7 million over six years from the NIH and distributed nearly $600,000 of that total to China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology, a collaborator on the project, pre-approved by NIH.
The grant cancellation came at a time when then-President Donald Trump and others questioned the U.S. funding to a lab in Wuhan, while exaggerating the amount of federal money involved.

2. QED. You can't deny the funding.

3. My suspicion is that Dr Fauci's irresponsible research is what killed 600,000 Americans. Covid did not come directly from bats, it was enhanced via gain of function research. It will be proven.

You really can't stop posting bullshit, can ya, con?

I only got as far as this lie....

The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded bat-coronavirus research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China to the tune of US$3.7 million, a recent article in the British newspaper Daily Mail revealed.​

You've now posted 2 articles on this.... one stating the NIH gave the Wuhan $826K, the other stating the NIH gave the Wuhan lab $3.7 million.

Clearly, they can't both be true. So clearly, you're posting fake news again.

So do you ever stop lying?

Ever???

This is exactly the reason you have zero cred. You say abortion is murder... then you say abortion is not murder. You say you're not pro-choice... then you say you are pro-choice. Now you say the NIH gave the Wuhan lab $826K... then you say the NIH gave the Wuhan lab $3.7 million.

You keep relying on fake news -- you keep on embarrassing yourself.

Clearly you can't debate. You obfuscate. Maybe you know you are fighting the truth, so obfuscation is all you can do.
I'm retired, I have all day to post the truth.
1. NIH funded gain of function research at the Wuhan Lab to make bat viruses more deadly, the funding came from several US agencies, thru intermediaries, to cover their asses. So don't whine about the amounts and from whom.

US officials may have avoided the coronavirus lab-leak theory to avoid associations with controversial gain-of-function research

The US has funded labs that alter coronaviruses for research. That may have led officials to avoid investigating whether the virus leaked from a lab.

www.businessinsider.com

2. The virus got out and killed 600,000 Americans, as well as hurt the US economy, and President Trump's term
3. Do you ever debate with facts? Ever??
4. In the US is abortion murder, y/n? So stop your stupid grade school arguments or you lose the debate, and that's all I'll put in future replies.
5. Your empty posts show how vapid your grade school arguments are.

LOL

You literally posted two different articles that contradicted each other but you project I'm the one obfuscating.

Your lies and nuttiness aside, you claim...

"NIH funded gain of function research at the Wuhan Lab to make bat viruses more deadly"​

... but then you post an article that shows you're lying...

Scientists haven't ruled out the possibility that the coronavirus leaked from a lab.​

... which means your claims haven't been proven to be true.

I don't even have to debate you. Your own articles do that for me.

1. Your post has no content, just lies.
2. Your post is contradictory, my post stands as correct. 1) NIH funded gain of function research, and 2) there is a possibility that the (deadlier) virus leaked from the lab.
3. My claims, as supported by Sen Rand Paul as well as many scientists are valid. The US paid for gain of function research, the virus then escaped from the Wuhan Lab.
4. You can't obfuscate when the truth is staring you in the face. All you have are lies and deflection.

Like I said, I have all day to keep re-posting the truth and disproving your childish unsubstantiated obfuscations.

"my post stands as correct. 1) NIH funded gain of function research"

You're still lying (surprise, surprise). Your point was refuted by your own links.

Again, your own links didn't say that. Your own links state that hasn't been confirmed.

If truth and reality were on your side, you wouldn't have to lie like ya do.

1. Your Lie#1, my point was refuted by my own links. Here is a link proving my point, NIH funded GOF research:

Emails Show Fauci Downplayed Funding Gain Of Function Research At Wuhan Lab

Dr. Anthony Fauci knew about U.S. funding for the gain of function research occurring at the Wuhan lab in China but downplayed its role in the COVID-19 pandemic, new emails show.

thefederalist.com

"Dr. Anthony Fauci knew about U.S. funding for the gain of function research occurring at the Wuhan lab in China but downplayed its role in the COVID-19 pandemic, new emails show. Fauci recently denied that specific research was used by the overseas Virology Institute or funded by him.
In emails acquired by Buzzfeed News, Fauci conversed with NIAID Principal Deputy Director Hugh Auchincloss in a conversation labeled “IMPORTANT” about an article detailing the gain of function research occurring in Wuhan through the Wuhan Virology Institute."

2. Here is another credible link proving my point again:

Fauci admits ‘modest’ NIH funding of Wuhan lab but denies ‘gain of function’

The country’s top infectious disease expert has long pushed back on the notion the US funded research that made coronaviruses more lethal or transmissible.

nypost.com

Your unsubstantiated lies are obvious, as well as childish. Thanks for playing kid.

Actually, Fauci played both sides of the argument...

​

The voluntary moratorium on gain-of-function research related to the transmissibility of highly pathogenic H5N1 influenza virus should continue, pending the resolution of critical policy questions concerning the rationale for performing such experiments and how best to report their results.​

​

... the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, a component of the U.S. National Institutes of Health, strongly supports the continuation of this moratorium pending the resolution of critical policy issues related to the rationale for performing and reporting such experiments.​

"1. Your Lie#1, my point was refuted by my own links. Here is a link proving my point, NIH funded GOF research:"

Do you ever stop lying? Ever???

Your lie was claiming the NIH paid the Wuhan lab to conduct gain-of-function research and every link you posted stated there was uncertainty if the Wuhan lab did that. So exactly how brain-damaged are you to claim the NIH paid for something which isn't even confirmed to exist??

OMG, you are way out of your lane.
1. H5N1 is the avian flu or "bird flu" of 1997, not Covid, duh.
2. Your claiming "uncertainty" is way overblown. The link said LIKELY, meaning probably. Just because something isn't confirmed does not mean its false, duh.
3. Its your turn to prove that Covid-19 came from the Wuhan "wet market". If it wasn't engineered in the Wuhan Lab, as paid for by Fauci, then it must have occurred naturally. Please prove that with credible and current links, not the old links from the deep state's cover story. I have current links saying the opposite, duh.

Coronavirus DID leak from Wuhan lab: increasing numbers of experts say

A respected author and China expert has said evidence has emerged suggesting the coronavirus must have leaked from a Wuhan laboratory.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Did the coronavirus escape from a Chinese lab? Here's what we know

Experts say animal-to-human transmission is far more likely, but some circumstantial evidence suggests it's possible it was accidentally released by a lab.

www.nbcnews.com

LOL

I never said Swine Flu is covid. Who knows what I said that triggered that misfiring in your head?

And "likely" is still not certainly, which you continue to claim despite every link you've posted showing you're wrong.

If Covid-19 most LIKELY was engineered in the Wuhan Lab, that Trumps the UNLIKELY event that it came from the Wuhan wet market, duh.

It trumps nothing. You're literally claiming it was engineered via gain-of-function research when even your own links disagree with you.

There is no disagreement. Read every word. There is no uncertainty in this article. You're welcome.

Rand Paul: Dr. Fauci lied to Congress about Wuhan lab research funding

Senator Rand Paul, R-Ky., claimed that Dr, Fauci lied to Congress when he denied that the National Institute of Health was funding research at the controversial Wuhan lab, which some allege was the source of the COVID outbreak.

www.foxnews.com

While speaking to co-host Bill Hemmer, Paul elaborated on his allegation and claimed that Dr. Shi Zhengli, the Wuhan-based ‘bat woman’ virologist who researched coronavirus variants in animals, wrote a paper that MIT scientists surmised was referencing gain-of-function research (making pathogens deadlier or more easily transmissible).

Video
Paul claims that the paper acknowledged that their funding came from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID), a subset of the NIH where Dr. Fauci is the director.

Paul added that he has looked at the grant application for the Wuhan lab research, which he says also references gain-of-function research, based on the analysis of a Rutgers cellular biologist.

LOLOLOL

You're such a dumbfuck.

Nothing in that article states covid was the result of gain-of-function research. The claim in that article is Rand Paul accusing the NIH if funding gain-of-function research ... Fauci denying funding was for gain-of-function research ... and then Paul accusing Fauci of lying.

You're still batting 0.000.

You must be illiterate. Here is the fucking sentence you don't comprehend:
"Paul added that he has looked at the grant application for the Wuhan lab research, which he says also references gain-of-function research, based on the analysis of a Rutgers cellular biologist."

 

[WTH_Progs?]

Anyone notice the question to be answered is done in PROG-terms? He's learned from devious PROG polls, a leading question (e.g., does anyone approve of the VIOLENCE).

No dumb-shit, we disapprove you fuckers exploiting and undermining everything so the rest of the country can "think" in Los Angeles propaganda & stupid terms, which happens to come from cities in turmoil, big money, chaotic govt. & people, shit everywhere who aim to poison the rest of the world the same, while they can't leave your piece of shit cities fast enough.

That's called a run-on sentence PROGS, they teach in our re-education system? Other than that the message is honest, and that's where you get confused.

 

[kyzr]

Jan 6th was Xi and Nancy's Reichstag Fire. To our uneducated Progressive brothers and sistas, the Reichstag Fire was a false flag that brought Hitler to power same way the Stolen election put Xi's puppets in the American White House

"Hitler had been appointed Chancellor of Germany only four weeks previously, on 30 January 1933, when he was invited by President von Hindenburg to lead a coalition government. Hitler's government had urged von Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag and to call elections for 5 March."

On the evening of 27 February 1933—six days before the parliamentary election—fire broke out in the Reichstag chambers.
Reichstag Fire Decree - Wikipedia

"The Reichstag Fire Decree (German: Reichstagsbrandverordnung) is the common name of the Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State (German: Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten zum Schutz von Volk und Staat) issued by German President Paul von Hindenburg on the advice of Chancellor Adolf Hitler on 28 February 1933 in immediate response to the Reichstag fire. The decree nullified many of the key civil liberties of German citizens. With Nazis in powerful positions in the German government, the decree was used as the legal basis for the imprisonment of anyone considered to be opponents of the Nazis, and to suppress publications not considered "friendly" to the Nazi cause. The decree is considered by historians as one of the key steps in the establishment of a one-party Nazi state in Germany."

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to support democrats

kyzr

See...your fellow blob supporters think it wasn't Trump supporters who stormed the capitol.

So your poll is useless unless you change it to condemning their fellow Trump supporters....which they never, ever will. When you're weak minded...you have to have a herd mentality because you're too dumb to exist on your own for long.

1. How do you know that the posters being referenced aren't just messing with you? T

There is no way of knowing if they really believe what they post. Trump is the most prolific liar to ever enter the public space. That his supporters would also lie their ass off is a very small jump in logic. Feel free to man up and call them out if you want. We all know you don't have the stones to do it.

2. My poll proves that at least 80% of GOP voters condemn the violence at the capital caused by Trump supporters. Until it can be proven that any other groups were involved. The rioters were herded to the capital by people with bullhorns.

Either you're being willfully aloof or you're just retarded. I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

3. We'll see in 2022 and 2024 how Republicans and Trump supporters do. Buckle-up buttercup.

I know what the Trump supporters will do; they will vote for anyone with an R next to their name on the ballot.

Your poll is still useless.

1. Xiden is quite the liar too, as you well know. Just sayin'

How Many False Claims Did Biden Make In His First 100 Days Compared To Trump?

The Washington Post's fact checker tallied all the false and misleading claims Biden made in speeches, interviews and tweets since taking office.

www.huffpost.com

2. We don't know what we don't know about who all was involved in the 1/6 riot.

Media hushes up report suggesting FBI involvement in Capitol riot, as White House turns anti-terrorism efforts on American people

Court filings suggest that FBI operatives were among the mob who stormed the US Capitol in January, and may have set up the riot. With the riot used as justification for new terrorism policy, the media is downplaying the story.

www.rt.com

3. Dodge/non-response/willful ignorance. The poll results are clear assuming honest responses. Republicans condemn the 1/6 riot.

4. You are totally free to have any opinion you want about the poll results. This thread was to settle a disagreement "HappyJoy" and I were having on another thread. He seems okay with the poll results. The poll questions were as agreed to, not just mine.

RT is Russia Today, a propaganda tool of Putin/Russians....

OK, I googled it and that's what came up. Funny how google puts up RT and censors RWs. WTF?
OK, here's another link to Tucker.

Tucker Carlson accuses the FBI of being behind January 6 Capitol riot

Fox News host Tucker Carlson on Tuesday night pointed to the number of 'unindicted co-conspirators' from the Capitol riot, arguing they were FBI agents spurring on the insurrectionists.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Dumbfuck, Carlson is just another wackadoo like you. Want proof? His source is revolver.news. Revolver.news is a fake news website. It was just started last year and it conceals who started the site...

Whois revolver.news

Whois Lookup for revolver.news

www.whois.com

Real news agencies don't hide who they are.

There are MANY sites that are covering the potential FBI involvement, not just revolver.
Don't forget that the MSM covers up for the deep state. I'm not saying FBI involvement is proven, just being investigated.

Were feds involved in facilitating the 1/6 siege? Number of unindicted co-conspirators raise questions.

The significant number of unindicted co-conspirators involved in the January 6 Capitol siege is strangely similar to those in Michigan plot to kidnap Gov. Whitmer, where it was discovered embedded FBI undercover/informants were intimately involved in facilitating the plot.

www.lawenforcementtoday.com

NOW WE HAVE PROOF: FBI and DHS Attempted to Recruit Green Beret to Infiltrate Oath Keepers Before Jan. 6 Riot -- AND HE RECORDED IT | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

Throughout 2020 the Black Lives Matter terrorist group was linked to conservatively 91% of the riots that resulted in the most expensive property damage in US insurance history There were zero Trump rallies that turned violent during that same time period.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

You are being redirected...

Evidence Surfaces That The FBI Planned And Executed January 6 Capitol Riot - The Tatum Report

Evidence is mounting that the FBI was involved in planning and executing the January 6 Capitol event after…

tatumreport.com

LOLOLOLOL

They're ALL sourcing fake news revolver.news, ya fucking moron.

All you're doing is posting fake news and pretending like it's real news because other non-news outlets are echoing that one fake news site.

You never answered my question... do you even know you’re psychotic?

You can't prove that 100% of revolver is fake news, anymore than you can prove that the MSM's fake news and propaganda is real.
Name-calling means you lose the debate. Thanks for playing.

Of course I can. Here's a real news website...

ABC News – Breaking News, Latest News and Videos

Your trusted source for breaking news, analysis, exclusive interviews, headlines, and videos at ABCNews.com

abcnews.go.com

You can see who owns the site, they don't hide it. You can see it's well established, being around for 23 years...

Whois go.com

Whois Lookup for go.com

www.whois.com

You can click on any abcnews.go article and it shows who the authors are, with links which show they're journalists.

That's what real news looks like. It doesn't hide from the public. It doesn't conceal who's behind the articles. That's what fake news does. That's what the source you're leaning on does. They've only been around 1 year and they hide who's behind it. They conceal who's site it is...

Whois revolver.news

Whois Lookup for revolver.news

www.whois.com

In the article you fall for, they don't disclose who wrote it...

Unindicted Co-Conspirators in 1/6 Cases Raise Disturbing Questions of Federal Foreknowledge - Revolver News

Unindicted co-conspirators could unravel the full story of what the FBI knew in advance about the January 6th Capitol Riots.

www.revolver.news

And you can't find that nonsense on real news.

Of course, I'm explaining this to a moron who actually claimed he's pro-choice after saying he's not pro-choice, so there's that.

1. OK, now we're getting somewhere, actual facts to debate. You like ABC news. Fine, I'm glad you didn't put up CNN or MSDNC as real news outlets. The only point I'm bringing up about ABC News is that they do have a bias as documented by the following Harvard Study:

Harvard Study reveals media bias

Every news outlet in the study was negative more often than positive.

www.studentnewsdaily.com

View attachment 505133

2. From the above chart you can see that FXN is the most "fair and balanced" news outlet. NBC is just below CNN in bias.

3. FXN generally has both parties represented in debates. CNN, MSDNC, and most MSM programs don't have Republican views presented. If I don't hear both sides presented fairly, I'm not watching their propaganda.

4. As I already explained ad nauseum, abortion is legal, therefore it is NOT murder, duh. Yet, as a Catholic, I am morally opposed to abortion. My position isn't really to complicated unless you're a low-IQ democrat.

5. Summarizing, we don't have any set of facts or any set of alternate facts that we can agree on, correct?

"The only point I'm bringing up about ABC News is that they do have a bias as documented by the following Harvard Study"

I can't believe I actually have to point this out to you ... but apparently, I do ...... ABC isn't in that study. Do you ever post anything based in reality??

"As I already explained ad nauseum, abortion is legal, therefore it is NOT murder"

You just can't stop lying, can ya? YOU called it murder before you said it's not murder...

Abortion is the murder of babies for convenience.

You're literally talking out of both sides of your mouth. When it's convenient for you for abortion to be murder, you call it murder. When that becomes inconvenient for you, you deny it's murder.

"Summarizing, we don't have any set of facts or any set of alternate facts that we can agree on, correct?"

Not if you're going to eschew reality and stick with fake news. I prefer to live in reality. You don't have to, mind you, it's your choice.

1. OK, ABC wasn't in the Harvard study, not sure why it was missed, but I'm sure that they are closer to NBC on bias than FXN.
2. You must have reading comprehension issues, and you just love to quote things out of context. I have no clue if that blue quote is real or not. Even if it is it means in the "moral context" and not in the "legal context". So stop mis-applying my prior quotes. The "both sides of my mouth are the "legal and moral" sides. They are very different sides.
3. LOL, keep drinking the state propaganda. I prefer to hear both sides of arguments, fake news only presents one side.

Earlier you said I was the only one who thought it was other than Trump supporters doing the rioting. Since then, I have pointed out about a dozen folks who have said it was someone other than blob supporters. You even pointed it out yourself.

Your criticizing others' comprehension at this point is laughable.

OMG, give it up already. Of the ~500 rioters how many were Trump supporters, and how many were non-Trump supporters?

All Trump supporters.

My point being that the vast majority of the 500 were Trump supporters, and the poll questions are reasonable, which is what we were debating. You wanted Republicans listed, I said the vast majority of the rioters were obviously Trump supporters.

No. What I said was your poll question didn't specify blob supporters as those who committed the acts of violence.

Blob supporters have come to occupy a fantasy land where Trump was a conservative, he never lied, he won the election, and someone else committed the acts of violence at the capitol. You, yourself, after insisting nobody had that view other than me cited Fox News as having that view....after I gave you about 20 instances of people spouting that nonsense on this very forum.

Had your poll question cited the violence by blob supporters, you wouldn't have gotten any buy-in from blob supporters on the poll. Such is the life inside the cult.

If the FBI, or antifa, or BLM, or other anarchists were in attendance, doesn't matter as far as the poll is concerned.
View attachment 505291

Correct. They were not in attendance.

I'm sorry, but your TDS is really serious.
Its obvious that the rioters were Trump supporters.
Agreed that there are many partisan/rabid Trump supporters spouting nonsense, just like you people with TDS spouting nonsense.
The poll question is just fine as it is, and as "HappyJoy" forwarded to me.
Its obvious to rational observers who the rioters were.

Your TDS--you're a Trump Dick Sucker--is more serious.
Okay....then why did you say I was the only one who had that view that other groups were responsible for the violence when clearly you knew otherwise?

I think I said that the FBI may have instigated some of the violence. I'm not one who blames antifa, BLM or other leftists for 1/6. My poll doesn't say which group because IMHO they are all Trump supporters protesting the presumably "stolen election".

 

[candycorn]

Jan 6th was Xi and Nancy's Reichstag Fire. To our uneducated Progressive brothers and sistas, the Reichstag Fire was a false flag that brought Hitler to power same way the Stolen election put Xi's puppets in the American White House

"Hitler had been appointed Chancellor of Germany only four weeks previously, on 30 January 1933, when he was invited by President von Hindenburg to lead a coalition government. Hitler's government had urged von Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag and to call elections for 5 March."

On the evening of 27 February 1933—six days before the parliamentary election—fire broke out in the Reichstag chambers.
Reichstag Fire Decree - Wikipedia

"The Reichstag Fire Decree (German: Reichstagsbrandverordnung) is the common name of the Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State (German: Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten zum Schutz von Volk und Staat) issued by German President Paul von Hindenburg on the advice of Chancellor Adolf Hitler on 28 February 1933 in immediate response to the Reichstag fire. The decree nullified many of the key civil liberties of German citizens. With Nazis in powerful positions in the German government, the decree was used as the legal basis for the imprisonment of anyone considered to be opponents of the Nazis, and to suppress publications not considered "friendly" to the Nazi cause. The decree is considered by historians as one of the key steps in the establishment of a one-party Nazi state in Germany."

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to support democrats

kyzr

See...your fellow blob supporters think it wasn't Trump supporters who stormed the capitol.

So your poll is useless unless you change it to condemning their fellow Trump supporters....which they never, ever will. When you're weak minded...you have to have a herd mentality because you're too dumb to exist on your own for long.

1. How do you know that the posters being referenced aren't just messing with you? T

There is no way of knowing if they really believe what they post. Trump is the most prolific liar to ever enter the public space. That his supporters would also lie their ass off is a very small jump in logic. Feel free to man up and call them out if you want. We all know you don't have the stones to do it.

2. My poll proves that at least 80% of GOP voters condemn the violence at the capital caused by Trump supporters. Until it can be proven that any other groups were involved. The rioters were herded to the capital by people with bullhorns.

Either you're being willfully aloof or you're just retarded. I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

3. We'll see in 2022 and 2024 how Republicans and Trump supporters do. Buckle-up buttercup.

I know what the Trump supporters will do; they will vote for anyone with an R next to their name on the ballot.

Your poll is still useless.

1. Xiden is quite the liar too, as you well know. Just sayin'

How Many False Claims Did Biden Make In His First 100 Days Compared To Trump?

The Washington Post's fact checker tallied all the false and misleading claims Biden made in speeches, interviews and tweets since taking office.

www.huffpost.com

2. We don't know what we don't know about who all was involved in the 1/6 riot.

Media hushes up report suggesting FBI involvement in Capitol riot, as White House turns anti-terrorism efforts on American people

Court filings suggest that FBI operatives were among the mob who stormed the US Capitol in January, and may have set up the riot. With the riot used as justification for new terrorism policy, the media is downplaying the story.

www.rt.com

3. Dodge/non-response/willful ignorance. The poll results are clear assuming honest responses. Republicans condemn the 1/6 riot.

4. You are totally free to have any opinion you want about the poll results. This thread was to settle a disagreement "HappyJoy" and I were having on another thread. He seems okay with the poll results. The poll questions were as agreed to, not just mine.

RT is Russia Today, a propaganda tool of Putin/Russians....

OK, I googled it and that's what came up. Funny how google puts up RT and censors RWs. WTF?
OK, here's another link to Tucker.

Tucker Carlson accuses the FBI of being behind January 6 Capitol riot

Fox News host Tucker Carlson on Tuesday night pointed to the number of 'unindicted co-conspirators' from the Capitol riot, arguing they were FBI agents spurring on the insurrectionists.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Dumbfuck, Carlson is just another wackadoo like you. Want proof? His source is revolver.news. Revolver.news is a fake news website. It was just started last year and it conceals who started the site...

Whois revolver.news

Whois Lookup for revolver.news

www.whois.com

Real news agencies don't hide who they are.

There are MANY sites that are covering the potential FBI involvement, not just revolver.
Don't forget that the MSM covers up for the deep state. I'm not saying FBI involvement is proven, just being investigated.

Were feds involved in facilitating the 1/6 siege? Number of unindicted co-conspirators raise questions.

The significant number of unindicted co-conspirators involved in the January 6 Capitol siege is strangely similar to those in Michigan plot to kidnap Gov. Whitmer, where it was discovered embedded FBI undercover/informants were intimately involved in facilitating the plot.

www.lawenforcementtoday.com

NOW WE HAVE PROOF: FBI and DHS Attempted to Recruit Green Beret to Infiltrate Oath Keepers Before Jan. 6 Riot -- AND HE RECORDED IT | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

Throughout 2020 the Black Lives Matter terrorist group was linked to conservatively 91% of the riots that resulted in the most expensive property damage in US insurance history There were zero Trump rallies that turned violent during that same time period.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

You are being redirected...

Evidence Surfaces That The FBI Planned And Executed January 6 Capitol Riot - The Tatum Report

Evidence is mounting that the FBI was involved in planning and executing the January 6 Capitol event after…

tatumreport.com

LOLOLOLOL

They're ALL sourcing fake news revolver.news, ya fucking moron.

All you're doing is posting fake news and pretending like it's real news because other non-news outlets are echoing that one fake news site.

You never answered my question... do you even know you’re psychotic?

You can't prove that 100% of revolver is fake news, anymore than you can prove that the MSM's fake news and propaganda is real.
Name-calling means you lose the debate. Thanks for playing.

Of course I can. Here's a real news website...

ABC News – Breaking News, Latest News and Videos

Your trusted source for breaking news, analysis, exclusive interviews, headlines, and videos at ABCNews.com

abcnews.go.com

You can see who owns the site, they don't hide it. You can see it's well established, being around for 23 years...

Whois go.com

Whois Lookup for go.com

www.whois.com

You can click on any abcnews.go article and it shows who the authors are, with links which show they're journalists.

That's what real news looks like. It doesn't hide from the public. It doesn't conceal who's behind the articles. That's what fake news does. That's what the source you're leaning on does. They've only been around 1 year and they hide who's behind it. They conceal who's site it is...

Whois revolver.news

Whois Lookup for revolver.news

www.whois.com

In the article you fall for, they don't disclose who wrote it...

Unindicted Co-Conspirators in 1/6 Cases Raise Disturbing Questions of Federal Foreknowledge - Revolver News

Unindicted co-conspirators could unravel the full story of what the FBI knew in advance about the January 6th Capitol Riots.

www.revolver.news

And you can't find that nonsense on real news.

Of course, I'm explaining this to a moron who actually claimed he's pro-choice after saying he's not pro-choice, so there's that.

1. OK, now we're getting somewhere, actual facts to debate. You like ABC news. Fine, I'm glad you didn't put up CNN or MSDNC as real news outlets. The only point I'm bringing up about ABC News is that they do have a bias as documented by the following Harvard Study:

Harvard Study reveals media bias

Every news outlet in the study was negative more often than positive.

www.studentnewsdaily.com

View attachment 505133

2. From the above chart you can see that FXN is the most "fair and balanced" news outlet. NBC is just below CNN in bias.

3. FXN generally has both parties represented in debates. CNN, MSDNC, and most MSM programs don't have Republican views presented. If I don't hear both sides presented fairly, I'm not watching their propaganda.

4. As I already explained ad nauseum, abortion is legal, therefore it is NOT murder, duh. Yet, as a Catholic, I am morally opposed to abortion. My position isn't really to complicated unless you're a low-IQ democrat.

5. Summarizing, we don't have any set of facts or any set of alternate facts that we can agree on, correct?

"The only point I'm bringing up about ABC News is that they do have a bias as documented by the following Harvard Study"

I can't believe I actually have to point this out to you ... but apparently, I do ...... ABC isn't in that study. Do you ever post anything based in reality??

"As I already explained ad nauseum, abortion is legal, therefore it is NOT murder"

You just can't stop lying, can ya? YOU called it murder before you said it's not murder...

Abortion is the murder of babies for convenience.

You're literally talking out of both sides of your mouth. When it's convenient for you for abortion to be murder, you call it murder. When that becomes inconvenient for you, you deny it's murder.

"Summarizing, we don't have any set of facts or any set of alternate facts that we can agree on, correct?"

Not if you're going to eschew reality and stick with fake news. I prefer to live in reality. You don't have to, mind you, it's your choice.

1. OK, ABC wasn't in the Harvard study, not sure why it was missed, but I'm sure that they are closer to NBC on bias than FXN.
2. You must have reading comprehension issues, and you just love to quote things out of context. I have no clue if that blue quote is real or not. Even if it is it means in the "moral context" and not in the "legal context". So stop mis-applying my prior quotes. The "both sides of my mouth are the "legal and moral" sides. They are very different sides.
3. LOL, keep drinking the state propaganda. I prefer to hear both sides of arguments, fake news only presents one side.

Earlier you said I was the only one who thought it was other than Trump supporters doing the rioting. Since then, I have pointed out about a dozen folks who have said it was someone other than blob supporters. You even pointed it out yourself.

Your criticizing others' comprehension at this point is laughable.

OMG, give it up already. Of the ~500 rioters how many were Trump supporters, and how many were non-Trump supporters?

All Trump supporters.

My point being that the vast majority of the 500 were Trump supporters, and the poll questions are reasonable, which is what we were debating. You wanted Republicans listed, I said the vast majority of the rioters were obviously Trump supporters.

No. What I said was your poll question didn't specify blob supporters as those who committed the acts of violence.

Blob supporters have come to occupy a fantasy land where Trump was a conservative, he never lied, he won the election, and someone else committed the acts of violence at the capitol. You, yourself, after insisting nobody had that view other than me cited Fox News as having that view....after I gave you about 20 instances of people spouting that nonsense on this very forum.

Had your poll question cited the violence by blob supporters, you wouldn't have gotten any buy-in from blob supporters on the poll. Such is the life inside the cult.

If the FBI, or antifa, or BLM, or other anarchists were in attendance, doesn't matter as far as the poll is concerned.
View attachment 505291

Correct. They were not in attendance.

I'm sorry, but your TDS is really serious.
Its obvious that the rioters were Trump supporters.
Agreed that there are many partisan/rabid Trump supporters spouting nonsense, just like you people with TDS spouting nonsense.
The poll question is just fine as it is, and as "HappyJoy" forwarded to me.
Its obvious to rational observers who the rioters were.

Your TDS--you're a Trump Dick Sucker--is more serious.
Okay....then why did you say I was the only one who had that view that other groups were responsible for the violence when clearly you knew otherwise?

I think I said that the FBI may have instigated some of the violence. I'm not one who blames antifa, BLM or other leftists for 1/6. My poll doesn't say which group because IMHO they are all Trump supporters protesting the presumably "stolen election".

God Damned you're stupid.

 

[kyzr]

As an example, Dr. Fauci's paying the Wuhan Lab for covid "gain of function" research bit him on the ass.

That's another lie. Fauci actually said “Senator Paul, with all due respect, you are entirely and completely incorrect, that the N.I.H. has not ever and does not now fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute.”

The Wuhan Lab documented that the funding came from NIH. Dr. Fauci paid the Wuhan Lab to do gain of function research, and it got out. Thank God it wasn't the deadliest virus they developed.
Point being, that we can't trust anything that the government says or does. You can drink their KoolAde, I'm not.

Funding for research did come from the N.I.H. but that funding wasn't for gain-of-function research. Nor had it been proven that was the origin of the virus. Senator Paul lied and Fauci called him on it.

Fauci is a liar. Rand is calling him a liar. The paper trail confirms that Fauci is lying. Do you support paying China to do "gain of function" research to make bat viruses more deadly? I don't.

Fauci claims US gave $600,000 to Wuhan lab research; documents show it was more

In a Senate hearing late last month, top doctor Anthony Fauci told lawmakers the U.S. granted $600,000 in funding to the Wuhan Institute of Virology over a five year period, but documents provided by the Department of Health and Human Services Friday show otherwise.

www.foxnews.com

True, that would be a lie if Fauci actually knew the figure was $826K, but I have no evidence of that either. And your question about support paying China to do "gain of function" research is based on your falsehood that we paid China for gain-of-function research. That's never been proven either.

But seeing as how you can't stop yourself from lying, I can't wholly state I expect anything different from you.

1. Yes there is evidence that Fauci paid China to do gain of function research. There are tons of credible sites.

Why US outsourced bat virus research to Wuhan - Asia Times

The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded bat-coronavirus research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China to the tune of US$3.7 million, a

asiatimes.com

The Wuhan Lab and the Gain-of-Function Disagreement - FactCheck.org

A disagreement between Republican Sen. Rand Paul and Dr. Anthony Fauci has put $600,000 of U.S. grant money to the Wuhan Institute of Virology back into the spotlight, while making "gain-of-function" research a household term -- all amid calls for more investigation into the origins of SARS-CoV-2.

www.factcheck.org

There are a lot of unknowns, speculation and differences of opinion on these topics. But let’s start with what we do know: In 2014, the NIH awarded a grant to the U.S.-based EcoHealth Alliance to study the risk of the future emergence of coronaviruses from bats. In 2019, the project was renewed for another five years, but it was canceled in April 2020 — three months after the first case of the coronavirus was confirmed in the U.S.
EcoHealth ultimately received $3.7 million over six years from the NIH and distributed nearly $600,000 of that total to China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology, a collaborator on the project, pre-approved by NIH.
The grant cancellation came at a time when then-President Donald Trump and others questioned the U.S. funding to a lab in Wuhan, while exaggerating the amount of federal money involved.

2. QED. You can't deny the funding.

3. My suspicion is that Dr Fauci's irresponsible research is what killed 600,000 Americans. Covid did not come directly from bats, it was enhanced via gain of function research. It will be proven.

Amazing....

And you blob had him on the payroll for 4 years?

You guys have gone from blaming China to blaming Democrats to blaming someone who appeared at numerous press conferences with your blob.

Read your post again. Try re-writing it so it makes sense.

It makes perfect sense.

When the blob was in office, you guys blamed China for the virus.
When the blob was in office, you guys blamed the deaths from his mismanagement on the Democrats.
Now that Biden is in office, you guys are blaming Fauci...the same guy your blob had on the payroll for 4 years and appeared at numerous briefings with the blob himself.

Are you really this dense?

1. Where did the Covid-19 virus come from? (hint: Wuhan China)
2. Which administration paid China for gain of function research for bat viruses? The BO (democrat) admin and Dr. Fauci

Fauci admits ‘modest’ NIH funding of Wuhan lab but denies ‘gain of function’

The country’s top infectious disease expert has long pushed back on the notion the US funded research that made coronaviruses more lethal or transmissible.

nypost.com

Emails Show Fauci Downplayed Funding Gain Of Function Research At Wuhan Lab

Dr. Anthony Fauci knew about U.S. funding for the gain of function research occurring at the Wuhan lab in China but downplayed its role in the COVID-19 pandemic, new emails show.

thefederalist.com

3. Who paid the Wuhan Lab to develop the killer bat viruses? (hint: Fauci)
4. Who stopped paying the Wuhan Lab to do gain of function research? (ans: Trump)

Trump admin pulls NIH grant for coronavirus research over ties to Wuhan lab at heart of conspiracy theories

Despite Trump's attacks, the US group doing the research defended the Wuhan lab.

abcnews.go.com

Fauci resisted Trump directive to cancel virus research grant linked to Wuhan lab: Book

Anthony Fauci resisted a White House directive in April of last year to cancel a research grant for a nonprofit linked to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, only complying after he learned that former President Donald Trump had explicitly ordered its cancellation, according to an exclusive excerpt...

www.foxnews.com

Anthony Fauci resisted a White House directive in April of last year to cancel a research grant for a nonprofit linked to the Wuhan Institute of Virology but "reluctantly agreed" after he learned that then-President Donald Trump had explicitly ordered its cancellation,

If you read the links you see what really happened. Fauci's stupid bat research, started under the BO admin, ultimately killed 600,000 Americans.

Yeah....thanks for the chuckle. The Federalist is hardly a reliable source.

The correlation you're drawing is like blaming Ben Franklin for someone dying from being electrocuted yesterday.

Or are you going to blame your blob for employing a "mass murderer" for four years. I guess Trump is complicit in your theater?

There are three other links, ABCNews, FXN, and the NYPost. Don't blame the source when there are many credible sources.
Fauci started the pandemic and then tried to stop the pandemic. We still don't know why Fauci was the lead medical authority when the head of the CDC, Dr. Redfield should have been.
This isn't about Ben Franklin, its about funding "gain of function" research on bat viruses in China.
Fauci probably killed 600,000 Americans with his recklessness.
Smart doctors know that the pandemic risk isn't worth the knowledge.

 

[kyzr]

Jan 6th was Xi and Nancy's Reichstag Fire. To our uneducated Progressive brothers and sistas, the Reichstag Fire was a false flag that brought Hitler to power same way the Stolen election put Xi's puppets in the American White House

"Hitler had been appointed Chancellor of Germany only four weeks previously, on 30 January 1933, when he was invited by President von Hindenburg to lead a coalition government. Hitler's government had urged von Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag and to call elections for 5 March."

On the evening of 27 February 1933—six days before the parliamentary election—fire broke out in the Reichstag chambers.
Reichstag Fire Decree - Wikipedia

"The Reichstag Fire Decree (German: Reichstagsbrandverordnung) is the common name of the Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State (German: Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten zum Schutz von Volk und Staat) issued by German President Paul von Hindenburg on the advice of Chancellor Adolf Hitler on 28 February 1933 in immediate response to the Reichstag fire. The decree nullified many of the key civil liberties of German citizens. With Nazis in powerful positions in the German government, the decree was used as the legal basis for the imprisonment of anyone considered to be opponents of the Nazis, and to suppress publications not considered "friendly" to the Nazi cause. The decree is considered by historians as one of the key steps in the establishment of a one-party Nazi state in Germany."

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to support democrats

kyzr

See...your fellow blob supporters think it wasn't Trump supporters who stormed the capitol.

So your poll is useless unless you change it to condemning their fellow Trump supporters....which they never, ever will. When you're weak minded...you have to have a herd mentality because you're too dumb to exist on your own for long.

1. How do you know that the posters being referenced aren't just messing with you? T

There is no way of knowing if they really believe what they post. Trump is the most prolific liar to ever enter the public space. That his supporters would also lie their ass off is a very small jump in logic. Feel free to man up and call them out if you want. We all know you don't have the stones to do it.

2. My poll proves that at least 80% of GOP voters condemn the violence at the capital caused by Trump supporters. Until it can be proven that any other groups were involved. The rioters were herded to the capital by people with bullhorns.

Either you're being willfully aloof or you're just retarded. I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

3. We'll see in 2022 and 2024 how Republicans and Trump supporters do. Buckle-up buttercup.

I know what the Trump supporters will do; they will vote for anyone with an R next to their name on the ballot.

Your poll is still useless.

1. Xiden is quite the liar too, as you well know. Just sayin'

How Many False Claims Did Biden Make In His First 100 Days Compared To Trump?

The Washington Post's fact checker tallied all the false and misleading claims Biden made in speeches, interviews and tweets since taking office.

www.huffpost.com

2. We don't know what we don't know about who all was involved in the 1/6 riot.

Media hushes up report suggesting FBI involvement in Capitol riot, as White House turns anti-terrorism efforts on American people

Court filings suggest that FBI operatives were among the mob who stormed the US Capitol in January, and may have set up the riot. With the riot used as justification for new terrorism policy, the media is downplaying the story.

www.rt.com

3. Dodge/non-response/willful ignorance. The poll results are clear assuming honest responses. Republicans condemn the 1/6 riot.

4. You are totally free to have any opinion you want about the poll results. This thread was to settle a disagreement "HappyJoy" and I were having on another thread. He seems okay with the poll results. The poll questions were as agreed to, not just mine.

RT is Russia Today, a propaganda tool of Putin/Russians....

OK, I googled it and that's what came up. Funny how google puts up RT and censors RWs. WTF?
OK, here's another link to Tucker.

Tucker Carlson accuses the FBI of being behind January 6 Capitol riot

Fox News host Tucker Carlson on Tuesday night pointed to the number of 'unindicted co-conspirators' from the Capitol riot, arguing they were FBI agents spurring on the insurrectionists.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Dumbfuck, Carlson is just another wackadoo like you. Want proof? His source is revolver.news. Revolver.news is a fake news website. It was just started last year and it conceals who started the site...

Whois revolver.news

Whois Lookup for revolver.news

www.whois.com

Real news agencies don't hide who they are.

There are MANY sites that are covering the potential FBI involvement, not just revolver.
Don't forget that the MSM covers up for the deep state. I'm not saying FBI involvement is proven, just being investigated.

Were feds involved in facilitating the 1/6 siege? Number of unindicted co-conspirators raise questions.

The significant number of unindicted co-conspirators involved in the January 6 Capitol siege is strangely similar to those in Michigan plot to kidnap Gov. Whitmer, where it was discovered embedded FBI undercover/informants were intimately involved in facilitating the plot.

www.lawenforcementtoday.com

NOW WE HAVE PROOF: FBI and DHS Attempted to Recruit Green Beret to Infiltrate Oath Keepers Before Jan. 6 Riot -- AND HE RECORDED IT | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

Throughout 2020 the Black Lives Matter terrorist group was linked to conservatively 91% of the riots that resulted in the most expensive property damage in US insurance history There were zero Trump rallies that turned violent during that same time period.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

You are being redirected...

Evidence Surfaces That The FBI Planned And Executed January 6 Capitol Riot - The Tatum Report

Evidence is mounting that the FBI was involved in planning and executing the January 6 Capitol event after…

tatumreport.com

LOLOLOLOL

They're ALL sourcing fake news revolver.news, ya fucking moron.

All you're doing is posting fake news and pretending like it's real news because other non-news outlets are echoing that one fake news site.

You never answered my question... do you even know you’re psychotic?

You can't prove that 100% of revolver is fake news, anymore than you can prove that the MSM's fake news and propaganda is real.
Name-calling means you lose the debate. Thanks for playing.

Of course I can. Here's a real news website...

ABC News – Breaking News, Latest News and Videos

Your trusted source for breaking news, analysis, exclusive interviews, headlines, and videos at ABCNews.com

abcnews.go.com

You can see who owns the site, they don't hide it. You can see it's well established, being around for 23 years...

Whois go.com

Whois Lookup for go.com

www.whois.com

You can click on any abcnews.go article and it shows who the authors are, with links which show they're journalists.

That's what real news looks like. It doesn't hide from the public. It doesn't conceal who's behind the articles. That's what fake news does. That's what the source you're leaning on does. They've only been around 1 year and they hide who's behind it. They conceal who's site it is...

Whois revolver.news

Whois Lookup for revolver.news

www.whois.com

In the article you fall for, they don't disclose who wrote it...

Unindicted Co-Conspirators in 1/6 Cases Raise Disturbing Questions of Federal Foreknowledge - Revolver News

Unindicted co-conspirators could unravel the full story of what the FBI knew in advance about the January 6th Capitol Riots.

www.revolver.news

And you can't find that nonsense on real news.

Of course, I'm explaining this to a moron who actually claimed he's pro-choice after saying he's not pro-choice, so there's that.

1. OK, now we're getting somewhere, actual facts to debate. You like ABC news. Fine, I'm glad you didn't put up CNN or MSDNC as real news outlets. The only point I'm bringing up about ABC News is that they do have a bias as documented by the following Harvard Study:

Harvard Study reveals media bias

Every news outlet in the study was negative more often than positive.

www.studentnewsdaily.com

View attachment 505133

2. From the above chart you can see that FXN is the most "fair and balanced" news outlet. NBC is just below CNN in bias.

3. FXN generally has both parties represented in debates. CNN, MSDNC, and most MSM programs don't have Republican views presented. If I don't hear both sides presented fairly, I'm not watching their propaganda.

4. As I already explained ad nauseum, abortion is legal, therefore it is NOT murder, duh. Yet, as a Catholic, I am morally opposed to abortion. My position isn't really to complicated unless you're a low-IQ democrat.

5. Summarizing, we don't have any set of facts or any set of alternate facts that we can agree on, correct?

"The only point I'm bringing up about ABC News is that they do have a bias as documented by the following Harvard Study"

I can't believe I actually have to point this out to you ... but apparently, I do ...... ABC isn't in that study. Do you ever post anything based in reality??

"As I already explained ad nauseum, abortion is legal, therefore it is NOT murder"

You just can't stop lying, can ya? YOU called it murder before you said it's not murder...

Abortion is the murder of babies for convenience.

You're literally talking out of both sides of your mouth. When it's convenient for you for abortion to be murder, you call it murder. When that becomes inconvenient for you, you deny it's murder.

"Summarizing, we don't have any set of facts or any set of alternate facts that we can agree on, correct?"

Not if you're going to eschew reality and stick with fake news. I prefer to live in reality. You don't have to, mind you, it's your choice.

1. OK, ABC wasn't in the Harvard study, not sure why it was missed, but I'm sure that they are closer to NBC on bias than FXN.
2. You must have reading comprehension issues, and you just love to quote things out of context. I have no clue if that blue quote is real or not. Even if it is it means in the "moral context" and not in the "legal context". So stop mis-applying my prior quotes. The "both sides of my mouth are the "legal and moral" sides. They are very different sides.
3. LOL, keep drinking the state propaganda. I prefer to hear both sides of arguments, fake news only presents one side.

Earlier you said I was the only one who thought it was other than Trump supporters doing the rioting. Since then, I have pointed out about a dozen folks who have said it was someone other than blob supporters. You even pointed it out yourself.

Your criticizing others' comprehension at this point is laughable.

OMG, give it up already. Of the ~500 rioters how many were Trump supporters, and how many were non-Trump supporters?

All Trump supporters.

My point being that the vast majority of the 500 were Trump supporters, and the poll questions are reasonable, which is what we were debating. You wanted Republicans listed, I said the vast majority of the rioters were obviously Trump supporters.

No. What I said was your poll question didn't specify blob supporters as those who committed the acts of violence.

Blob supporters have come to occupy a fantasy land where Trump was a conservative, he never lied, he won the election, and someone else committed the acts of violence at the capitol. You, yourself, after insisting nobody had that view other than me cited Fox News as having that view....after I gave you about 20 instances of people spouting that nonsense on this very forum.

Had your poll question cited the violence by blob supporters, you wouldn't have gotten any buy-in from blob supporters on the poll. Such is the life inside the cult.

If the FBI, or antifa, or BLM, or other anarchists were in attendance, doesn't matter as far as the poll is concerned.
View attachment 505291

Correct. They were not in attendance.

I'm sorry, but your TDS is really serious.
Its obvious that the rioters were Trump supporters.
Agreed that there are many partisan/rabid Trump supporters spouting nonsense, just like you people with TDS spouting nonsense.
The poll question is just fine as it is, and as "HappyJoy" forwarded to me.
Its obvious to rational observers who the rioters were.

Your TDS--you're a Trump Dick Sucker--is more serious.
Okay....then why did you say I was the only one who had that view that other groups were responsible for the violence when clearly you knew otherwise?

I think I said that the FBI may have instigated some of the violence. I'm not one who blames antifa, BLM or other leftists for 1/6. My poll doesn't say which group because IMHO they are all Trump supporters protesting the presumably "stolen election".

God Damned you're stupid.

Coming from you, a low-IQ democrat, I consider the source.

 

[otto105]

2. The virus got out and killed 600,000 Americans, as well as hurt the US economy, and President Trump's term

nope, the average death counts didn't increase from previous years. explain that?

I know I had to laugh when I saw that babble,he has been taken in by the CIA controlled news,unaware the virus is no more dangerous than the yearly flu which somehow vanished this past year with no flu deaths counted

In an average year 32,000 people die of the flu...so yeah your fucking wrong.

Also, masks, social distancing and hand washing....you heard of those right?

oh fk no sherlock 60 k can die from the flu. post a yearly chart for us.

I gave you the average number. Can you compare that to the COVID numbers ...

 

[lennypartiv]

Since the capital is the peoples building to begin with, there was no trespass.

Exactly.

 

[kyzr]

Since the capital is the peoples building to begin with, there was no trespass.

Exactly.

It just dawned on me that the DC riot at the capital building should NOT be trespassing because under the Xiden admin we have open borders. There are no property rights. How would the Dems like it if "we the people" ignored all the laws and rules and we all just wandered around the Capital 24/7/365 looking over their shoulders giving instantaneous feedback when ever anyone spoke?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So, I wonder why Seattle is doing just fine with all your doom and gloom talk?

you just ignored Seattle huh?

Do you think Seattle has been destroyed or something?

you missed that huh?

'This city is dying:' Many Seattle residents frustrated with violence, destruction

Many who live in Seattle said they are fed up with seeing smashed up windows and spray-painted businesses in their already devastated neighborhoods. A new era in America—didn't change what neighbors feel is a new normal in Seattle: another night of broken glass, shattered windows and graphic...

komonews.com

January 20, 2021. This is late June, hun.

Seattle was America's fastest growing city in 2020

(The Center Square) – A global pandemic and civil unrest could not stop Seattle from being the nation's fastest-growing big city in 2020.

www.thecentersquare.com

yep, so? the word in the article is destruction. In Seattle. violence. and here you are defending the violence proving you have no class or integrity. you lied, you don't condemn violence. and you are ironic

Poor trump cultists...want to believe Seattle is destroyed and its still plugging along just fine.

If you want to go anywhere in the Tacoma-Seattle area, plan on at least 2 hours drive time. My son lived about 30 miles from SEATAC. It took an hour and a half to get home when he picked us up.

I used to drive near McChord AFB to pick up my son from his job. It was a good 2 hours to get there and back.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Abraham Lincoln wasn't an Abolitionist. He was a Free Soiler....AND firmly believed in maintaining the Union.

and gave freedom to blacks.

Yes he did....after two years of war....but the freedom he gave was only to slaves in areas under rebellion. It was a military move to take assets away from the con-federates.

At that time, the only state where slaves were freed was Tennessee because that is all the Union controlled.

 

[Care4all]

Since the capital is the peoples building to begin with, there was no trespass.

Exactly.

It just dawned on me that the DC riot at the capital building should NOT be trespassing because under the Xiden admin we have open borders. There are no property rights. How would the Dems like it if "we the people" ignored all the laws and rules and we all just wandered around the Capital 24/7/365 looking over their shoulders giving instantaneous feedback when ever anyone spoke?

How is there open borders if the illegals and asylum seekers are captured by border patrol?

Seems like the term open borders would mean what it says.... Borders are open for anyone to go in and out, without any arrests at all?

 

[Dusty]

Since the capital is the peoples building to begin with, there was no trespass.

Exactly.

It just dawned on me that the DC riot at the capital building should NOT be trespassing because under the Xiden admin we have open borders. There are no property rights. How would the Dems like it if "we the people" ignored all the laws and rules and we all just wandered around the Capital 24/7/365 looking over their shoulders giving instantaneous feedback when ever anyone spoke?

How is there open borders if the illegals and asylum seekers are captured by border patrol?

Seems like the term open borders would mean what it says.... Borders are open for anyone to go in and out, without any arrests at all?

Because 99.99 percent of anyone captured is released. You know this and are clearly a fool in denial. 900 people watched CNN yesterday, were you one of the fools?

 

[kyzr]

Since the capital is the peoples building to begin with, there was no trespass.

Exactly.

It just dawned on me that the DC riot at the capital building should NOT be trespassing because under the Xiden admin we have open borders. There are no property rights. How would the Dems like it if "we the people" ignored all the laws and rules and we all just wandered around the Capital 24/7/365 looking over their shoulders giving instantaneous feedback when ever anyone spoke?

How is there open borders if the illegals and asylum seekers are captured by border patrol?

Seems like the term open borders would mean what it says.... Borders are open for anyone to go in and out, without any arrests at all?

Migrants are not arrested, they are detained. No one gets deported. They are all assumed to be asylum seekers and released.
Under Trump they waited in Mexico for their court hearings.

If they were arrested, where are they being held, a million person jail is needed. It doesn't exist.

 

[beautress]

Armed means with guns

So, prevent I'm coming at you with a baseball bat.

Am I unarmed?

View attachment 503691

Unarmed people according to kyzr.

The 1/6 protesters were unarmed, i.e. no guns.
Ashli Babbitt was unarmed when she was shot in the neck by a black guy wearing a mask.

They were armed. Bear spray, flag poles, knives and other hand held weapons. They also took tasers from the police and used them.

Stop lying.

Compare those "weapons" to guns. You are lying saying that they were armed.
As soon as the SWAT teams showed up with ARs the party was over. No contest. No insurrection.

What did I lie about?

Sure, the insurrectionists had only been ripping up and shitting (literally) in the Capital for hours and yeah, their courage came in crowd form and when finally challenged by a deadly force they left.

Why are you defending them?

I'm not defending the rioters. I'm defending the insurrection charge.
It was NOT an insurrection, which by definition requires the insurrectionists to be armed.
The lie I'm saying you made is saying that the rioters were "armed".
They did not all have guns. as would be needed to have a real insurrection.
They trespassed, they damaged US property, they got arrested, they were NOT charged with insurrection, QED.

History will record it as a failed insurrection. You must be able to see that writing on the wall.

What I saw were rioters, no one was charged with "insurrection".
So the dems continual whining about an insurrection are bullshit.

Yes...I understand that is how you feel. I'm stating facts. This will be recorded in history as a failed insurrection.

Hubris.

 

[lennypartiv]

I think I said that the FBI may have instigated some of the violence.

The Deep State can't be trusted anymore.

 

[candycorn]

Since the capital is the peoples building to begin with, there was no trespass.

Exactly.

It just dawned on me that the DC riot at the capital building should NOT be trespassing because under the Xiden admin we have open borders. There are no property rights. How would the Dems like it if "we the people" ignored all the laws and rules and we all just wandered around the Capital 24/7/365 looking over their shoulders giving instantaneous feedback when ever anyone spoke?

How is there open borders if the illegals and asylum seekers are captured by border patrol?

Seems like the term open borders would mean what it says.... Borders are open for anyone to go in and out, without any arrests at all?

Migrants are not arrested, they are detained. No one gets deported. They are all assumed to be asylum seekers and released.
Under Trump they waited in Mexico for their court hearings.

If they were arrested, where are they being held, a million person jail is needed. It doesn't exist.

No one gets deported?

Yeah, you're just spouting non-factual nonsense at this point.

 

[bodecea]

Jan 6th was Xi and Nancy's Reichstag Fire. To our uneducated Progressive brothers and sistas, the Reichstag Fire was a false flag that brought Hitler to power same way the Stolen election put Xi's puppets in the American White House

"Hitler had been appointed Chancellor of Germany only four weeks previously, on 30 January 1933, when he was invited by President von Hindenburg to lead a coalition government. Hitler's government had urged von Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag and to call elections for 5 March."

On the evening of 27 February 1933—six days before the parliamentary election—fire broke out in the Reichstag chambers.
Reichstag Fire Decree - Wikipedia

"The Reichstag Fire Decree (German: Reichstagsbrandverordnung) is the common name of the Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State (German: Verordnung des Reichspräsidenten zum Schutz von Volk und Staat) issued by German President Paul von Hindenburg on the advice of Chancellor Adolf Hitler on 28 February 1933 in immediate response to the Reichstag fire. The decree nullified many of the key civil liberties of German citizens. With Nazis in powerful positions in the German government, the decree was used as the legal basis for the imprisonment of anyone considered to be opponents of the Nazis, and to suppress publications not considered "friendly" to the Nazi cause. The decree is considered by historians as one of the key steps in the establishment of a one-party Nazi state in Germany."

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to support democrats

kyzr

See...your fellow blob supporters think it wasn't Trump supporters who stormed the capitol.

So your poll is useless unless you change it to condemning their fellow Trump supporters....which they never, ever will. When you're weak minded...you have to have a herd mentality because you're too dumb to exist on your own for long.

1. How do you know that the posters being referenced aren't just messing with you? T

There is no way of knowing if they really believe what they post. Trump is the most prolific liar to ever enter the public space. That his supporters would also lie their ass off is a very small jump in logic. Feel free to man up and call them out if you want. We all know you don't have the stones to do it.

2. My poll proves that at least 80% of GOP voters condemn the violence at the capital caused by Trump supporters. Until it can be proven that any other groups were involved. The rioters were herded to the capital by people with bullhorns.

Either you're being willfully aloof or you're just retarded. I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.

3. We'll see in 2022 and 2024 how Republicans and Trump supporters do. Buckle-up buttercup.

I know what the Trump supporters will do; they will vote for anyone with an R next to their name on the ballot.

Your poll is still useless.

1. Xiden is quite the liar too, as you well know. Just sayin'

How Many False Claims Did Biden Make In His First 100 Days Compared To Trump?

The Washington Post's fact checker tallied all the false and misleading claims Biden made in speeches, interviews and tweets since taking office.

www.huffpost.com

2. We don't know what we don't know about who all was involved in the 1/6 riot.

Media hushes up report suggesting FBI involvement in Capitol riot, as White House turns anti-terrorism efforts on American people

Court filings suggest that FBI operatives were among the mob who stormed the US Capitol in January, and may have set up the riot. With the riot used as justification for new terrorism policy, the media is downplaying the story.

www.rt.com

3. Dodge/non-response/willful ignorance. The poll results are clear assuming honest responses. Republicans condemn the 1/6 riot.

4. You are totally free to have any opinion you want about the poll results. This thread was to settle a disagreement "HappyJoy" and I were having on another thread. He seems okay with the poll results. The poll questions were as agreed to, not just mine.

RT is Russia Today, a propaganda tool of Putin/Russians....

OK, I googled it and that's what came up. Funny how google puts up RT and censors RWs. WTF?
OK, here's another link to Tucker.

Tucker Carlson accuses the FBI of being behind January 6 Capitol riot

Fox News host Tucker Carlson on Tuesday night pointed to the number of 'unindicted co-conspirators' from the Capitol riot, arguing they were FBI agents spurring on the insurrectionists.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Dumbfuck, Carlson is just another wackadoo like you. Want proof? His source is revolver.news. Revolver.news is a fake news website. It was just started last year and it conceals who started the site...

Whois revolver.news

Whois Lookup for revolver.news

www.whois.com

Real news agencies don't hide who they are.

There are MANY sites that are covering the potential FBI involvement, not just revolver.
Don't forget that the MSM covers up for the deep state. I'm not saying FBI involvement is proven, just being investigated.

Were feds involved in facilitating the 1/6 siege? Number of unindicted co-conspirators raise questions.

The significant number of unindicted co-conspirators involved in the January 6 Capitol siege is strangely similar to those in Michigan plot to kidnap Gov. Whitmer, where it was discovered embedded FBI undercover/informants were intimately involved in facilitating the plot.

www.lawenforcementtoday.com

NOW WE HAVE PROOF: FBI and DHS Attempted to Recruit Green Beret to Infiltrate Oath Keepers Before Jan. 6 Riot -- AND HE RECORDED IT | The Gateway Pundit | by Jim Hoft

Throughout 2020 the Black Lives Matter terrorist group was linked to conservatively 91% of the riots that resulted in the most expensive property damage in US insurance history There were zero Trump rallies that turned violent during that same time period.

www.thegatewaypundit.com

You are being redirected...

Evidence Surfaces That The FBI Planned And Executed January 6 Capitol Riot - The Tatum Report

Evidence is mounting that the FBI was involved in planning and executing the January 6 Capitol event after…

tatumreport.com

LOLOLOLOL

They're ALL sourcing fake news revolver.news, ya fucking moron.

All you're doing is posting fake news and pretending like it's real news because other non-news outlets are echoing that one fake news site.

You never answered my question... do you even know you’re psychotic?

You can't prove that 100% of revolver is fake news, anymore than you can prove that the MSM's fake news and propaganda is real.
Name-calling means you lose the debate. Thanks for playing.

Of course I can. Here's a real news website...

ABC News – Breaking News, Latest News and Videos

Your trusted source for breaking news, analysis, exclusive interviews, headlines, and videos at ABCNews.com

abcnews.go.com

You can see who owns the site, they don't hide it. You can see it's well established, being around for 23 years...

Whois go.com

Whois Lookup for go.com

www.whois.com

You can click on any abcnews.go article and it shows who the authors are, with links which show they're journalists.

That's what real news looks like. It doesn't hide from the public. It doesn't conceal who's behind the articles. That's what fake news does. That's what the source you're leaning on does. They've only been around 1 year and they hide who's behind it. They conceal who's site it is...

Whois revolver.news

Whois Lookup for revolver.news

www.whois.com

In the article you fall for, they don't disclose who wrote it...

Unindicted Co-Conspirators in 1/6 Cases Raise Disturbing Questions of Federal Foreknowledge - Revolver News

Unindicted co-conspirators could unravel the full story of what the FBI knew in advance about the January 6th Capitol Riots.

www.revolver.news

And you can't find that nonsense on real news.

Of course, I'm explaining this to a moron who actually claimed he's pro-choice after saying he's not pro-choice, so there's that.

1. OK, now we're getting somewhere, actual facts to debate. You like ABC news. Fine, I'm glad you didn't put up CNN or MSDNC as real news outlets. The only point I'm bringing up about ABC News is that they do have a bias as documented by the following Harvard Study:

Harvard Study reveals media bias

Every news outlet in the study was negative more often than positive.

www.studentnewsdaily.com

View attachment 505133

2. From the above chart you can see that FXN is the most "fair and balanced" news outlet. NBC is just below CNN in bias.

3. FXN generally has both parties represented in debates. CNN, MSDNC, and most MSM programs don't have Republican views presented. If I don't hear both sides presented fairly, I'm not watching their propaganda.

4. As I already explained ad nauseum, abortion is legal, therefore it is NOT murder, duh. Yet, as a Catholic, I am morally opposed to abortion. My position isn't really to complicated unless you're a low-IQ democrat.

5. Summarizing, we don't have any set of facts or any set of alternate facts that we can agree on, correct?

"The only point I'm bringing up about ABC News is that they do have a bias as documented by the following Harvard Study"

I can't believe I actually have to point this out to you ... but apparently, I do ...... ABC isn't in that study. Do you ever post anything based in reality??

"As I already explained ad nauseum, abortion is legal, therefore it is NOT murder"

You just can't stop lying, can ya? YOU called it murder before you said it's not murder...

Abortion is the murder of babies for convenience.

You're literally talking out of both sides of your mouth. When it's convenient for you for abortion to be murder, you call it murder. When that becomes inconvenient for you, you deny it's murder.

"Summarizing, we don't have any set of facts or any set of alternate facts that we can agree on, correct?"

Not if you're going to eschew reality and stick with fake news. I prefer to live in reality. You don't have to, mind you, it's your choice.

1. OK, ABC wasn't in the Harvard study, not sure why it was missed, but I'm sure that they are closer to NBC on bias than FXN.
2. You must have reading comprehension issues, and you just love to quote things out of context. I have no clue if that blue quote is real or not. Even if it is it means in the "moral context" and not in the "legal context". So stop mis-applying my prior quotes. The "both sides of my mouth are the "legal and moral" sides. They are very different sides.
3. LOL, keep drinking the state propaganda. I prefer to hear both sides of arguments, fake news only presents one side.

Earlier you said I was the only one who thought it was other than Trump supporters doing the rioting. Since then, I have pointed out about a dozen folks who have said it was someone other than blob supporters. You even pointed it out yourself.

Your criticizing others' comprehension at this point is laughable.

OMG, give it up already. Of the ~500 rioters how many were Trump supporters, and how many were non-Trump supporters?

All Trump supporters.

My point being that the vast majority of the 500 were Trump supporters, and the poll questions are reasonable, which is what we were debating. You wanted Republicans listed, I said the vast majority of the rioters were obviously Trump supporters.

No. What I said was your poll question didn't specify blob supporters as those who committed the acts of violence.

Blob supporters have come to occupy a fantasy land where Trump was a conservative, he never lied, he won the election, and someone else committed the acts of violence at the capitol. You, yourself, after insisting nobody had that view other than me cited Fox News as having that view....after I gave you about 20 instances of people spouting that nonsense on this very forum.

Had your poll question cited the violence by blob supporters, you wouldn't have gotten any buy-in from blob supporters on the poll. Such is the life inside the cult.

If the FBI, or antifa, or BLM, or other anarchists were in attendance, doesn't matter as far as the poll is concerned.
View attachment 505291

Correct. They were not in attendance.

I'm sorry, but your TDS is really serious.
Its obvious that the rioters were Trump supporters.
Agreed that there are many partisan/rabid Trump supporters spouting nonsense, just like you people with TDS spouting nonsense.
The poll question is just fine as it is, and as "HappyJoy" forwarded to me.
Its obvious to rational observers who the rioters were.

Your TDS--you're a Trump Dick Sucker--is more serious.
Okay....then why did you say I was the only one who had that view that other groups were responsible for the violence when clearly you knew otherwise?

A much more accurate acronym.

 

[bodecea]

I think I said that the FBI may have instigated some of the violence.

The Deep State can't be trusted anymore.

This is the goal of trump fluffers, shake the faith in our government. Putin approves of your subversive efforts.

 

[bodecea]

Since the capital is the peoples building to begin with, there was no trespass.

Exactly.

Oh really? Push that in a court of law when they finally see your pics in the Capitol footage and pay you a visit.