MSNBC host cries over Jan 6th Anniversary

[1miseryindex]

Democrats are like that, emotional when it helps them politically, otherwise, not so much. Remember AOC ... with Trump ...

Funny how they never cry over a picture of a mutilated, aborted, thrown in the trash CHILD.

That is not cry worthy, I guess

 

[BackAgain]

Back Again

Why the ugly avatar?

i liked Belushi better

(I agree more/less w/ the comment, though)

When I used the username “Ilar” I found an avatar I liked.

I think of the image as being a hardened battle scarred crusty old Viking.

Sometime have to give Blutarsky a little time off for good behavior.

 

[kaz]

Funny how they never cry over a picture of a mutilated, aborted, thrown in the trash CHILD.

That is not cry worthy, I guess

Democrats are evil and self centered. Their double standards where they hold their opposition to incredibly high standards and themselves to none says what they are more clearly than anything, they are vermin. But the mods, they don't see it even though they are NOT Democrats!!!!!! Fucking liars. I am only referring to the two who do that so obviously. Especially the "not a Democrat" mod who keeps starting Republican attack flame threads

 

[Mr. Friscus]

No, you said it's not a reason. I said it's not a reason BY ITSELF. Again, you keep on habitually putting up strawmen.

Both suggest no wrongdoing. They don’t mean anything

Oh really. Feel free to cite.

You don’t know about that?

He... and it's being contested he actually wrote that,

Interesting theory, contested by whom? any proof?

No, I don’t suppose there is.

tweeted that out after police regained control. Before that he tweeted.
Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth! This was minutes after he was evacuated.

Where is there a call to violence? Point out in that paragraph where he says to take arms and become violent.

He doesn’t, so, you have nothing objectively. You have theories that fit your evidence circumstantially, but they require assumptions and jumps in logic. You’ll take the jumps to get the guy you hate. Others need proof.

And yes we know what he really meant.

How? Explain how we know. Do you have proof?

No, you don’t. So you make jumps in logic, but rational outsiders won’t make the same illogical jumps you will.

A song by people CONVICTED for crimes during Jan 6th is a campaign song.

The sentencing is a different issue. I object to the actions of those who became violent that day, but I also know that putting people in prison for decades for breaking into a window or rioting is an abuse, and these rioters became victims of Democrat abuse of the court system. BLM arsonists who caused deaths got no more than 4 years. People who knocked over fences on January 6th and rioted got 17 years. Democrats are lynching political prisoners here. I’d hold the same standard if basic BLM rioters got horrific sentences. I’m consistent. You aren’t.

 

[kwc57]

America should cry

Sad day for our Democracy

Nah, democracy survived the few hours just fine and kept on rocking. You should be more concerned about the left trying to kill democracy by determining who you can and can't have on a ballot and allowing a fair and free election. If you're OK with the Democrats actions to ban Trump from the ballot for something he hasn't been charged, tried and convicted of, you might be supporting the death of democracy.

 

[kwc57]

I was in shock at the sight of a Republican Mob attacking our Capitol

You would be shocked at patriotic citizens going to the people's house for the redress of grievances thru protest wouldn't you?

 

[MagicMike]

Funny how they never cry over a picture of a mutilated, aborted, thrown in the trash CHILD.

That is not cry worthy, I guess

You spelled fetus wrong.

 

[forkup]

Both suggest no wrongdoing. They don’t mean anything

You don’t know about that?


Interesting theory, contested by whom? any proof?

No, I don’t suppose there is.

Where is there a call to violence? Point out in that paragraph where he says to take arms and become violent.

He doesn’t, so, you have nothing objectively. You have theories that fit your evidence circumstantially, but they require assumptions and jumps in logic. You’ll take the jumps to get the guy you hate. Others need proof.

How? Explain how we know. Do you have proof?

No, you don’t. So you make jumps in logic, but rational outsiders won’t make the same illogical jumps you will.

The sentencing is a different issue. I object to the actions of those who became violent that day, but I also know that putting people in prison for decades for breaking into a window or rioting is an abuse, and these rioters became victims of Democrat abuse of the court system. BLM arsonists who caused deaths got no more than 4 years. People who knocked over fences on January 6th and rioted got 17 years. Democrats are lynching political prisoners here. I’d hold the same standard if basic BLM rioters got horrific sentences. I’m consistent. You aren’t.

Both suggest no wrongdoing. They don’t mean anything

To you. But being the cause of someone being there, speaks to at the very least, the opportunity to commit a crime. You keep on acting like everything happened in a vacuum. It didn't.

You don’t know about that?

Hence me asking for sourcing.

Interesting theory, contested by whom? any proof?

No, I don’t suppose there is.

Special counsel probe uncovers new details about Trump's inaction on Jan. 6: Sources

Special counsel Jack Smith has uncovered previously undisclosed details about former President Trump's refusal to help stop the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol, sources say.

abcnews.go.com

Dan Scavino, a CURRENT campaign member. As for proof. I don't consider a simple report by an acredited news agency as proof. On the other hand. Things like that, tend to be accurate.

Where is there a call to violence? Point out in that paragraph where he says to take arms and become violent.

The point was that there was ALREADY violence. And it speaks directly to intent because it's inflammatory. Instead of designed to bring the temperature down.

No, you don’t. So you make jumps in logic, but rational outsiders won’t make the same illogical jumps you will.

I think ignoring all context so you can focus on a single word is less rational then actually looking at it as a whole. But feel free to disagree.

The sentencing is a different issue. I object to the actions of those who became violent that day, but I also know that putting people in prison for decades for breaking into a window or rioting is an abuse

Ah, so you went from asking for me to prove Trump is supporting to those that commit violence to simply assert that those that did were sentenced to harshly. Way to move those goalposts.

 

[BS Filter]

To you. But being the cause of someone being there, speaks to at the very least, the opportunity to commit a crime. You keep on acting like everything happened in a vacuum. It didn't.

Hence me asking for sourcing.

Presidents can assassinate their rivals, Trump lawyers boldly suggest in DC immunity case

Donald Trump’s attorneys argued Tuesday that presidents can’t be convicted of a crime if not impeached first – but a panel of appellate judges seemed skeptical.

nypost.com

Dan Scavino, a CURRENT campaign member. As for proof. I don't consider a simple report by an acredited news agency as proof. On the other hand. Things like that, tend to be accurate. I even made it a point to source the NY post.

The point was that there was ALREADY violence. And it speaks directly to intent because it's inflammatory. Instead of designed to bring the temperature down.

I think ignoring all context so you can focus on a single word is less rational then actually looking at it as a whole. But feel free to disagree.

Ah, so you went from asking for me to prove Trump is supporting to those that commit violence to simply assert that those that did were sentenced to harshly. Way to move those goalposts.

Blm did a hell of a lot more damage to America than the idiots on January 6th.

 

[MagicMike]

Nah, democracy survived the few hours just fine and kept on rocking. You should be more concerned about the left trying to kill democracy by determining who you can and can't have on a ballot and allowing a fair and free election. If you're OK with the Democrats actions to ban Trump from the ballot for something he hasn't been charged, tried and convicted of, you might be supporting the death of democracy.

So that settles it!
Trump cannot be on ballots while he is awaiting trials on 91 felonies.
We have to see if he is convicted first!
And if convicted....then he is inelligible anyway.
And if the election happens before we know whether he is guilty or innocent...oh well.
Guess you guys will just have to go with Haley or DeSantis.
Brilliant!
Good idea.

 

[forkup]

Nah, democracy survived the few hours just fine and kept on rocking. You should be more concerned about the left trying to kill democracy by determining who you can and can't have on a ballot and allowing a fair and free election. If you're OK with the Democrats actions to ban Trump from the ballot for something he hasn't been charged, tried and convicted of, you might be supporting the death of democracy.

The left trying to kill Democracy?

It's not the left that has its lawyers argue that a President can KILL his political rivals and get away with it.

Presidents can assassinate their rivals, Trump lawyers boldly suggest in DC immunity case

Donald Trump’s attorneys argued Tuesday that presidents can’t be convicted of a crime if not impeached first – but a panel of appellate judges seemed skeptical.

nypost.com

 

[forkup]

Nah, democracy survived the few hours just fine and kept on rocking. You should be more concerned about the left trying to kill democracy by determining who you can and can't have on a ballot and allowing a fair and free election. If you're OK with the Democrats actions to ban Trump from the ballot for something he hasn't been charged, tried and convicted of, you might be supporting the death of democracy.

By the way, I fully intent and I hope Democrats will be sensible enough, to hang that argument around the neck of anyone who even thinks Trump should be president.

 

[kwc57]

So that settles it!
Trump cannot be on ballots while he is awaiting trials on 91 felonies.
We have to see if he is convicted first!
And if convicted....then he is inelligible anyway.
And if the election happens before we know whether he is guilty or innocent...oh well.
Guess you guys will just have to go with Haley or DeSantis.
Brilliant!
Good idea.

You are extremely misinformed. In the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. Colorado and Maine have removed Trump from their ballots because they claim he is an insurrectionist. The only problem is that he has never been charged, tried or convicted of insurrection. They are getting their cart before their little unicorn. If you believe they have every right to call Trump guilty before being convicted, can red states remove Biden from their ballots because he is a traitor that traded his influence for money against the US's interests? Of course not and that is why the Supreme Court will strike down the Democrats voter suppression efforts.

 

[forkup]

You are extremely misinformed. In the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. Colorado and Maine have removed Trump from their ballots because they claim he is an insurrectionist. The only problem is that he has never been charged, tried or convicted of insurrection. They are getting their cart before their little unicorn. If you believe they have every right to call Trump guilty before being convicted, can red states remove Biden from their ballots because he is a traitor that traded his influence for money against the US's interests? Of course not and that is why the Supreme Court will strike down the Democrats voter suppression efforts.

You are extremely misinformed. In the US, you are innocent until proven guilty.

And according to Trump even if he's guilty he still shouldn't be prosecuted. Because presidents are absolutely immune from prosecution.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Ah, so you went from asking for me to prove Trump is supporting to those that commit violence to simply assert that those that did were sentenced to harshly. Way to move those goalposts.

Huh? You brought up a different point, and I said as such. And, I addressed the main point.

I don’t think you know what “moving the goalposts” means. If you don’t want to bring up a second point, don’t bring it up.

 

[forkup]

Huh? You brought up a different point, and I said as such. And, I addressed the main point.

I don’t think you know what “moving the goalposts” means. If you don’t want to bring up a second point, don’t bring it up.

So, you concede Trump is martyring those that committed violence on Jan 6th?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

So, you concede Trump is martyring those that committed violence on Jan 6th?

No.

What they did and the sentence given are 2 different points. You’re conflating them into one, and using ridiculous hyperbolic language that makes it progressively impossible to take you seriously

 

[forkup]

No.

What they did and the sentence given are 2 different points. You’re conflating them into one, and using ridiculous hyperbolic language that makes it progressively impossible to take you seriously

What's the language you would use for Trump using a choir consisting of people jailed for their actions on Jan 6th as a campaign song. Since martyring them is hyperbolic. Or are you trying to claim that people in those jails don't have people that committed violence?

 

[MagicMike]

You are extremely misinformed. In the US, you are innocent until proven guilty. Colorado and Maine have removed Trump from their ballots because they claim he is an insurrectionist. The only problem is that he has never been charged, tried or convicted of insurrection. They are getting their cart before their little unicorn. If you believe they have every right to call Trump guilty before being convicted, can red states remove Biden from their ballots because he is a traitor that traded his influence for money against the US's interests? Of course not and that is why the Supreme Court will strike down the Democrats voter suppression efforts.

We'll see about The SCOTUS' decision next month.
You'd better stock up on Kleenex in case it decides that states do in fact have the right to manage their own elections (something that Republicans are always insisting on whenever Democrats try to push for more centralized, federally regulated election protocols), and in case The SCOTUS decides that yes, Trump's multi-pronged attempts to steal the election did in fact constitute and cause an insurgency.

But the bigger question is this:
Do Republicans really want a convicted (if he is convicted) multiple felon as their party's leader.
That's a pretty sucky standard isn't it?

 

[forkup]

We'll see about The SCOTUS' decision next month.
You'd better stock up on Kleenex in case it decides that states do in fact have the right to manage their own elections (something that Republicans are always insisting on whenever Democrats try to push for more centralized, federally regulated election protocols), and in case The SCOTUS decides that yes, Trump's multi-pronged attempts to steal the election did in fact constitute and cause an insurgency.

But the bigger question is this:
Do Republicans really want a convicted (if he is convicted) multiple felon as their party's leader.
That's a pretty sucky standard isn't it?

It's not a problem for them. They simply use one of their many fallacies to ignore the reality of it.

If you only need to assert that judges, juries, reporters... basically anyone who does something unpleasant to Trump is by definition a member of some plot to get him. It's not all that much of a problem.