Trump supporters: What do you think of this information?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Except, it is the PRESS that has been lying. Trump was telling the truth.



View attachment 674162

The 1/6 rightwing terrorist attack on America’s democracy wasn’t an ‘isolated incident,’ it didn’t end on 1/6 – the right’s war on America’s democracy is ongoing.

 

[Correll]

The 1/6 rightwing terrorist attack on America’s democracy wasn’t an ‘isolated incident,’ it didn’t end on 1/6 – the right’s war on America’s democracy is ongoing.

Except it was an isolated incident and it did end in a few hours.


The shit you say, people can remember the way it actually went.


It is YOUR SIDE that had HUNDREDS OF RIOTS, while we only had one.


Our one riot, lasted a few hours and was over.


That you are using this as an excuse to panic monger and demagogue, is you being a divisive and hateful anti-American pos.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Except it was an isolated incident and it did end in a few hours.


The shit you say, people can remember the way it actually went.


It is YOUR SIDE that had HUNDREDS OF RIOTS, while we only had one.


Our one riot, lasted a few hours and was over.


That you are using this as an excuse to panic monger and demagogue, is you being a divisive and hateful anti-American pos.

That conservatives want Trump to be ‘president’ again is proof of the right’s ongoing war on America’s democracy.

Conservativism is the bane of the American nation and this country’s greatest threat.

 

[Correll]

That conservatives want Trump to be ‘president’ again is proof of the right’s ongoing war on America’s democracy.

Nope. It's proof that he has supporters who disagree with your view of him. Your hysteria that anyone can disagree with you, that's not good in a democracy.

Conservativism is the bane of the American nation and this country’s greatest threat.

How many riots did your side have during TRump's administration? How many died?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You're not "choosing" the victor when you vote. You're choosing whom to support.

Nonsense. Just, absurd. You are adding a vote for the candidate you prefer. It doesn't mean you support even 5% of what that candidate thinks. It just means you agree with them slightly more than the other choice.

One of them is going to win, no matter who you support. So you vote for the one you prefer, or you abstain, which casts a net vote for the candidate you least prefer.

This is a mathematical reality you are not getting around.

 

[22lcidw]

The 1/6 rightwing terrorist attack on America’s democracy wasn’t an ‘isolated incident,’ it didn’t end on 1/6 – the right’s war on America’s democracy is ongoing.

Remove the Patriot Act. Neuter Homeland Security. Rid all Federal Security agencies of corruption. You got the power now. Tell us about the war on the American people. The Deplorables. And that AG moderate Merrick Garland. A man of the people I tell you.

 

[dblack]

Nonsense. Just, absurd. You are adding a vote for the candidate you prefer. It doesn't mean you support even 5% of what that candidate thinks. It just means you agree with them slightly more than the other choice.

There are more than two choices. Despite what the media tells you, despite what the two dominant parties tell you. And they're going to keep fucking us until we've had enough.

Have you had enough yet?

One of them is going to win, no matter who you support.

As long as most voters are throwing away their votes on "lessers", you're probably right. But that can change. We can wake up.

So you vote for the one you prefer, or you abstain, which casts a net vote for the candidate you least prefer.

No it doesn't. That's a flat out lie. A boogeyman created by the two parties, to keep you stuck. To keep you voting for them.

This is a mathematical reality you are not getting around.

There's no math in your claim, only delusion.

Voting for bad candidates, regardless of the excuse, elects bad leaders. Get around that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There are more than two choices.

Not on election day, there are not more than two choices who can win. That is simply false, and you are not going to put words in just the right order to change that.

Time to face reality.

 

[dblack]

Not on election day, there are not more than two choices who can win.

As I said. Voting isn't about "picking a winner". It's about expressing your values. You don't lose if your candidate doesn't win. You only lose if you squander the opportunity to go on record supporting what you believe in.

By your reasoning, if a one candidate is heavily favored to win, voting for anyone else is a wasted vote. How does that make any sense?

That is simply false, and you are not going to put words in just the right order to change that.

Time to face reality.

I have. And I'm trying to lead you to water. Please stop voting for shitty candidates.

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Poster Death Angel, do this: If you wish to discuss Maxine Water's speeches you should probably start a thread under your own name ....and then monitor and debate them on that thread. There seems little honor in hijacking another's thread merely so you can hissyfit about an issue that bothers you.

Good luck in getting your topic thoroughly discussed.
-------------------------------------------------------


Well, being told that his supporters were armed. Acknowledging they were armed. And then exclaiming that they weren't there to shoot him.

All of that sorta kinda leads me to believe....and I think others.....that DonT was well aware that there were guns in the hands of people he was going to shortly direct to the Capitol (without him or his enablers even alerting the Capitol or the Metropolitan police, no less.)

As I understand it, it is not illegal to carry a firearm in D.C.. Therefore, it wasn’t necessary to notify anyone.

Now, is it illegal or prohibited to bring a firearm into the Capital building? Most likely. If so, prosecute accordingly.

Beyond that, has anyone on the left even taken into consideration that none of the armed protesters even fired their guns? That the only person who did was a Capital police officer?

----------------------------------------------------------------

Really, poster GoR you really should watch all of the hearings. YouTube and C-Span, and probably others, have them archived on the interweb. If you pay attention to the testimony of various witnesses, you will come to understand that that march WAS planned. And it was kept secret from the Capitol Police, the Parks police, and the Metropolitan police. Multiple references have been made....under oath....by credible witnesses to that effect.

I am not watching that shit because I know it will just piss me off.

Here's the thing, the shameful attack on the Capitol on J6 was merely the capstone to 8 or 9 weeks of concerted effort to overturn the results of the November election. When his options for remaining in power grew dimmer and dimmer....DonT sent out a Tweet calling the mob to DC ('come, it will be wild'). THAT wasn't spontaneous. It was called to be wild on the very day the EC ballots would be counted in a joint-session of Congress.

Bullshit. Nothing that occurred before and nothing Trump said prior to Jan 6 proves a conspiracy.

In addition, Jan 6 was no more shameful than the way Democrats stood back and allowed mobs to loot and burn with impunity for months and stake a claim in a major city.

A 16 year old boy was murdered in the so called CHAZ and it was only then that the impotent Democrat fucksticks finally decided to do something.

The march to the Capitol on J6 was NOT spontaneous. The Proud Boys, Boogaloo Bois, Oathkeepers, 3Percenters........were NOT spontaneous. They were the assault troops, the tip of the spear to penetrate the Capitol and stop the count of the EC ballots.

“The MARCH to the Capital…”

Everyone knows that they planned to MARCH to the Capital, this is no secret. They declared the day before that they were going to do so.

What has yet to be proven though is whether or not they planned to ENTER the Capital and disrupt or subvert the vote count.

Behind those jackasses came lesser jackasses who were just pissed because of what DonT had claimed was a fraud....those sad and unfortlunate TDS'rs---the Trump Duped & Snookered who had been deceived. And behind those lesser jackasses were the thrill-seeking selfie-snapping hangers-on. But make no mistake about it, there was intent by a purposeful cadre of uber-jackasses to penetrate the Capitol....and they engaged the thin blue lines officers first and breached those lines. While DonT watched approvingly on Fox TV.

This has yet to be proven.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

As I said. Voting isn't about "picking a winner". It's about expressing your values.

Maybe to someone who prefers whimsical nonsense over mathematics.

In a binary election, one candidate is going to win, no matter who you support or to what degree you support them.

So you should vote for the one you prefer, else you cast a net vote for the one you least prefer.

This is a simple, mathematical reality you are not going to emote out of existence.

 

[dblack]

Maybe to someone who prefers whimsical nonsense over mathematics.

Well then, show me the math!

Again, there's no math in your argument. Only a lot of presumption and self-fulfilling prophecy.

In a binary election, one candidate is going to win, no matter who you support or to what degree you support them.

So you should vote for the one you prefer, else you cast a net vote for the one you least prefer.

What do you do in races where one candidate is heavily favored?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well then, show me the math!

Simple.

If you vote for the candidate you prefer, you cast a vote for that candidate.

If the tally is 99-100 before you vote, your vote makes it 100.

If you abstain, the final result is 99-100, a net 1 vote gain for the candidate you least prefer over the instance where you did not abstain.

You aren't getting around this. So stop wasting your time on a losing argument and focus it on ways to get better candidates on election day.

 

[dblack]

Simple.

If you vote for the candidate you prefer, you cast a vote for that candidate.

If the tally is 99-100 before you vote, your vote makes it 100.

If you abstain, the final result is 99-100, a net 1 vote gain for the candidate you least prefer over the instance where you did not abstain.

You aren't getting around this. So stop wasting your time on a losing argument and focus it on ways to get better candidates on election day.

Yes, yes, yes - all hinging on your faulty premise that there are only two "choices".

Now, please stop dodging this:

What do you do when one candidate is heavily favored, and isn't someone you can support? Do you vote for the favorite anyway, so you don't "lose"?

 

[Ghost of a Rider]

Making bail is impossible for the poor.

Being poor is no excuse for breaking the law.

Trump should have addressed their grievances about police brutality.

Irrelevant. That is no excuse and there is no excuse for a prominant politician to call for bail donations for lawbreakers.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, yes, yes - all hinging on your faulty premise that there are only two "choices".

Wrong, that's a fact. Only one of two people was going to win the 2020 election. And no amount of dancing and prancing on your part will ever change that fact. Not ever.

 

[dblack]

Wrong, that's a fact. Only one of two people was going to win the 2020 election.

Nope. It's a presumption. It's based on a guess as to what everyone else will do.

And no amount of dancing and prancing on your part will ever change that fact. Not ever.

If people voted differently, in particular if they didn't buy the line that you're selling, the results would be different. You really don't get that?

Now, what do you do when one candidate is heavily favored, and isn't someone you can support? Do you vote for the favorite anyway, so you don't "lose"?

Since you're loathe to answer this question, I'll answer for you - no, you wouldn't vote for the person you oppose, even if they were the only candidate likely to win. You'd vote for the candidate you believe in regardless, if for no other reason that to register your opposition to the dominant candidate. But you wouldn't vote for someone you think would be a bad leader.

So what would you do if two candidates were heavily favored, and you couldn't, in good conscience, support either? Would you dick around trying to figure out which one was less objectionable, or would you take the opportunity to express your values honestly, in the hopes that it might build support for your views and eventually overcome the prevailing regime?

Because that's where I'm at. And maybe that's the difference. You see important differences between the Ds and the Rs regardless of how bad their candidates are. For you, Ds may be incompetent boobs, but Rs are possessed by Satan. And Republicans partisans see it the same. Trump may be a boorish ass, but Democrats are insane - bent on destroying everything good about our nation. The fear machine drives you all into psychosis. And its killing us.

Please stop voting for, and electing, bad candidates. It's not helping.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Nope. It's a presumption. It's based on a guess as to what everyone else will do.

A guess? In what reality is that guess not 100% certain? Not this one. Get a grip.

Your entire premise relies on the fantasy that a 3rd party candidate could get a plurality of votes.

Come back from fantasyland.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Sorry chief, you have a lefty standing in front of a burning building, talking about "peaceful protests".

And you are defending him.

I’m defending the people who were peaceful, not the people burning things down.

You just can’t help yourself. You always need to lie.

My point stands.

 

[XponentialChaos]

huh? what argument am i flipping on?

with that said why can’t we have an investigation into the riots that caused far more violence ans were directed at our govt?

Go ahead and investigate them.