3rd Times a Charm? Question: How have GOP/Trump acted "against" Democracy?

[daveman]

We don’t base the outcome of the election based on Trump’s feelings.

No kidding. So, you'd like to tell the millions of Americans who don't trust the process anymore, what..."We won. Get over it!"?

 

[daveman]

Pressuring someone to break the law during a phone call is against the law.

Then so is pressuring someone to break the law in person.

You know -- Ray Epps.

 

[daveman]

That Epps and his dangerous talking. There should be a law.

It’s really amazing how someone like yourself manages to make a fool of yourself so perfectly it’s almost as if that’s exactly what you intended.

It's not me who thinks one guy should be prosecuted for talking and then says another guy is perfectly innocent for talking.

When did you start to realize you were being manipulated?

 

[daveman]

Maybe Epps really just believed the election was not legal. Then it’s okay, right?

I've never said the rioters didn't break the law. Try again.

 

[colfax_m]

No kidding. So, you'd like to tell the millions of Americans who don't trust the process anymore, what..."We won. Get over it!"?

I’d like to tell them that they’re believing people who are lying to them who have no respect for their intelligence.

 

[colfax_m]

I've never said the rioters didn't break the law. Try again.

Epps wasn’t rioting.

 

[daveman]

I’d like to tell them that they’re believing people who are lying to them who have no respect for their intelligence.

It's funny how you believe that doesn't apply to you and the Democratic Party.

 

[daveman]

Epps wasn’t rioting.

No, he was encouraging people to enter where they weren't allowed.

Epps was a Fed.

 

[colfax_m]

It's not me who thinks one guy should be prosecuted for talking and then says another guy is perfectly innocent for talking.

When did you start to realize you were being manipulated?

I never said Trump should be prosecuted for talking.

But we both know someone can be prosecuted for talking depending on what you’re saying, such as incitement to riot.

 

[colfax_m]

It's funny how you believe that doesn't apply to you and the Democratic Party.

It could. But the big lie is definitely a lie. There’s been many versions. It keeps evolving. As one lie is struck down, another takes it’s place.

 

[daveman]

I never said Trump should be prosecuted for talking.

But we both know someone can be prosecuted for talking depending on what you’re saying, such as incitement to riot.

...or entering a prohibited area.

 

[daveman]

It could. But the big lie is definitely a lie. There’s been many versions. It keeps evolving. As one lie is struck down, another takes it’s place.

You bet. Just yell out, "ITS ALL A LIE!", and you don't have to provide any proof.

Meanwhile, millions of Americans think the system's screwed up. They won't stay silent and stop asking questions just because you yell at them.

 

[colfax_m]

...or entering a prohibited area.

No one has been prosecuted for merely showing up on the “prohibited area”. They would be arresting thousands if that were the case.

 

[colfax_m]

You bet. Just yell out, "ITS ALL A LIE!", and you don't have to provide any proof.

Meanwhile, millions of Americans think the system's screwed up. They won't stay silent and stop asking questions just because you yell at them.

The lies have been systematically disproven or showed be to fabrications.

That information doesn’t penetrate the media ecosystem they live in.

You guys love “asking questions” but don’t seem interested in the answers.

 

[daveman]

No one has been prosecuted for merely showing up on the “prohibited area”. They would be arresting thousands if that were the case.

Inside the Capitol. Do pay attention.

 

[daveman]

The lies have been systematically disproven or showed be to fabrications.

That information doesn’t penetrate the media ecosystem they live in.

You guys love “asking questions” but don’t seem interested in the answers.

We're not interested in your answers, which are driven less by a desire to know the truth than a desire to gain power for your party.

 

[colfax_m]

Inside the Capitol. Do pay attention.

What law would Epps be charged with violating. Tell me.

 

[colfax_m]

We're not interested in your answers, which are driven less by a desire to know the truth than a desire to gain power for your party.

You’re not interested in any answers that don’t confirm what you want to believe.

That’s the problem.

 

[daveman]

What law would Epps be charged with violating. Tell me.

Restricted Buildings or Grounds: 18 U.S.C. § 1752 18 U.S.C. § 1752 prohibits certain conduct at “restricted building or grounds,” which are defined to include, among others, locations where a “person protected by the Secret Service,” such as the Vice President, “is or will be temporarily visiting.” Conduct prohibited at restricted buildings or grounds includes: (1) knowingly entering or remaining without lawful authority; (2) knowingly engaging in disruptive conduct, or impeding ingress or egress, “with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly conduct of Government Business or official functions;” and (3) knowingly engaging in “any act of physical violence against any person or property.” Violations of § 1752 may be punished by fines and up to one year of imprisonment, but a maximum sentence of up to ten years is authorized if the offense involved a deadly or dangerous weapon or firearm, or resulted in significant bodily injury. DOJ has charged several individuals under § 1752 in connection with the unrest at the Capitol.

Doesn't matter. Epps will not be charged, because he was doing what he was told to do.

 

[daveman]

You’re not interested in any answers that don’t confirm what you want to believe.

That’s the problem.

That's your problem. I want free, fair elections, with the entire process transparent to the public.

Democrats don't.