Democrats Are Accusing Just About Every Republican Of Treason And Armed Insurrection

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
22,840
Reaction score
7,304
Points
265
Didn't the violence start while he was still talking? It doesn't make sense that people would leave the rally before it was over just to storm the castle.
Why not? It’s not like Trump’s speech was the first time he had anything to say about the election. This didn’t happen overnight.
I thought these were the true believers who would hang on his every word and not want to miss a thing. It just doesn't make any sense. I mean, if he was sending out coded messages, they would certainly want to make sure they got all of them. Once he said to do it peacefully, that surely was a code word to wait for the end. Didn't you get the memo?
I guess they just had the itch to go kill cops instead of getting the final blessing from cult leader.

Coded messages? Yeah, he’d been sending the message for months that if you don’t do something for him, everything you know and love will end.
Something? And you think that equates to "sending a mob to attack the capitol"? Here's where that goes out the window. He never told anyone to go kill somebody, burn something, tear something down, etc. He wanted people riled up, he wanted protest, that's clear. He also said to do it peacefully. This reminds me of the idiots who claimed W allowed 9/11 to happen because one warning said Bin Laden wanted to attack the US. You can't seize on a vague generality and claim it gives specific instruction. "I'm going to do something bad to you" is not the same as, "I'm going to kill your dog on the 13th of next month".
Saying peaceful once in his rambling stream of consciousness speech does not override the very fact that he summoned these people to Washington on that specific day at that specific time. Do you think they were unaware of what was going on in the Capitol?
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,657
Reaction score
5,949
Points
280
Didn't the violence start while he was still talking? It doesn't make sense that people would leave the rally before it was over just to storm the castle.
Why not? It’s not like Trump’s speech was the first time he had anything to say about the election. This didn’t happen overnight.
I thought these were the true believers who would hang on his every word and not want to miss a thing. It just doesn't make any sense. I mean, if he was sending out coded messages, they would certainly want to make sure they got all of them. Once he said to do it peacefully, that surely was a code word to wait for the end. Didn't you get the memo?
I guess they just had the itch to go kill cops instead of getting the final blessing from cult leader.

Coded messages? Yeah, he’d been sending the message for months that if you don’t do something for him, everything you know and love will end.
Something? And you think that equates to "sending a mob to attack the capitol"? Here's where that goes out the window. He never told anyone to go kill somebody, burn something, tear something down, etc. He wanted people riled up, he wanted protest, that's clear. He also said to do it peacefully. This reminds me of the idiots who claimed W allowed 9/11 to happen because one warning said Bin Laden wanted to attack the US. You can't seize on a vague generality and claim it gives specific instruction. "I'm going to do something bad to you" is not the same as, "I'm going to kill your dog on the 13th of next month".
Saying peaceful once in his rambling stream of consciousness speech does not override the very fact that he summoned these people to Washington on that specific day at that specific time. Do you think they were unaware of what was going on in the Capitol?
Of course they were aware of what was going on. The bottom line remains, he didn't tell them to storm the castle, in fact, the most explicit direction he gave was to protest peacefully. The fact that the violence started before the speech was over tells us that there were other people intent on doing damage that were not involved in the speech.

See, when the explicit direction is to be peaceful, and the vague generality is that he's upset at something, you have a hard case to make that he was inciting anyone to violence. I know the narrative was in place long ago, but you have to go by what he actually said, not what the hate merchants claim he said.
 

beagle9

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
27,355
Reaction score
5,809
Points
280
Didn't the violence start while he was still talking? It doesn't make sense that people would leave the rally before it was over just to storm the castle.
Why not? It’s not like Trump’s speech was the first time he had anything to say about the election. This didn’t happen overnight.
I thought these were the true believers who would hang on his every word and not want to miss a thing. It just doesn't make any sense. I mean, if he was sending out coded messages, they would certainly want to make sure they got all of them. Once he said to do it peacefully, that surely was a code word to wait for the end. Didn't you get the memo?
I guess they just had the itch to go kill cops instead of getting the final blessing from cult leader.

Coded messages? Yeah, he’d been sending the message for months that if you don’t do something for him, everything you know and love will end.
Something? And you think that equates to "sending a mob to attack the capitol"? Here's where that goes out the window. He never told anyone to go kill somebody, burn something, tear something down, etc. He wanted people riled up, he wanted protest, that's clear. He also said to do it peacefully. This reminds me of the idiots who claimed W allowed 9/11 to happen because one warning said Bin Laden wanted to attack the US. You can't seize on a vague generality and claim it gives specific instruction. "I'm going to do something bad to you" is not the same as, "I'm going to kill your dog on the 13th of next month".
Saying peaceful once in his rambling stream of consciousness speech does not override the very fact that he summoned these people to Washington on that specific day at that specific time. Do you think they were unaware of what was going on in the Capitol?
Still trying to apply your faulty logic to what was taking place, and then what got out of hand by idiot's who were either pumped up by this John Sutherland to do stupid stuff, and/or by others possibly who wished to set up Trump, and this by getting the situation going into the wrong direction on purpose ?? One things for sure, and that is that you are definitely not fooling anyone with your attempt at getting at Trump someway, somehow by doing or saying what you say.
 
Last edited:

beagle9

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
27,355
Reaction score
5,809
Points
280
Didn't the violence start while he was still talking? It doesn't make sense that people would leave the rally before it was over just to storm the castle.
Why not? It’s not like Trump’s speech was the first time he had anything to say about the election. This didn’t happen overnight.
I thought these were the true believers who would hang on his every word and not want to miss a thing. It just doesn't make any sense. I mean, if he was sending out coded messages, they would certainly want to make sure they got all of them. Once he said to do it peacefully, that surely was a code word to wait for the end. Didn't you get the memo?
I guess they just had the itch to go kill cops instead of getting the final blessing from cult leader.

Coded messages? Yeah, he’d been sending the message for months that if you don’t do something for him, everything you know and love will end.
Something? And you think that equates to "sending a mob to attack the capitol"? Here's where that goes out the window. He never told anyone to go kill somebody, burn something, tear something down, etc. He wanted people riled up, he wanted protest, that's clear. He also said to do it peacefully. This reminds me of the idiots who claimed W allowed 9/11 to happen because one warning said Bin Laden wanted to attack the US. You can't seize on a vague generality and claim it gives specific instruction. "I'm going to do something bad to you" is not the same as, "I'm going to kill your dog on the 13th of next month".
Saying peaceful once in his rambling stream of consciousness speech does not override the very fact that he summoned these people to Washington on that specific day at that specific time. Do you think they were unaware of what was going on in the Capitol?
Of course they were aware of what was going on. The bottom line remains, he didn't tell them to storm the castle, in fact, the most explicit direction he gave was to protest peacefully. The fact that the violence started before the speech was over tells us that there were other people intent on doing damage that were not involved in the speech.

See, when the explicit direction is to be peaceful, and the vague generality is that he's upset at something, you have a hard case to make that he was inciting anyone to violence. I know the narrative was in place long ago, but you have to go by what he actually said, not what the hate merchants claim he said.
If they can use their logic, then the same logic would apply to MLKs speeches where some decided that his call for peaceful protest just wasn't going to cut it, so they chose violence instead. Did we blame King for the violence that was done in the movements name ??? This goes for what was learned in Christ time, where he preached peace, yet Barabbas had other ideas in dealing with the Roman's. Now how on earth did Christ end up adjacent from Barabbas in the trial that was brought before Pilot ?? Was Christ set up by man ?? Of course he was, and did Barabbas's actions get cast upon Christ although he had nothing to do with any violence or acts of violence against the Roman's, otherwise as Barabbas was engaged in ?? Of course he needed not to engage in such things ever for he was the Christ Jesus savior of mankind, and the prince of peace.

Are the Democrat's setting Trump up in the same ways (not comparing Trump to Christ of course), but could there be parallels involved in what we are witnessing in modern times ???
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
22,840
Reaction score
7,304
Points
265
Didn't the violence start while he was still talking? It doesn't make sense that people would leave the rally before it was over just to storm the castle.
Why not? It’s not like Trump’s speech was the first time he had anything to say about the election. This didn’t happen overnight.
I thought these were the true believers who would hang on his every word and not want to miss a thing. It just doesn't make any sense. I mean, if he was sending out coded messages, they would certainly want to make sure they got all of them. Once he said to do it peacefully, that surely was a code word to wait for the end. Didn't you get the memo?
I guess they just had the itch to go kill cops instead of getting the final blessing from cult leader.

Coded messages? Yeah, he’d been sending the message for months that if you don’t do something for him, everything you know and love will end.
Something? And you think that equates to "sending a mob to attack the capitol"? Here's where that goes out the window. He never told anyone to go kill somebody, burn something, tear something down, etc. He wanted people riled up, he wanted protest, that's clear. He also said to do it peacefully. This reminds me of the idiots who claimed W allowed 9/11 to happen because one warning said Bin Laden wanted to attack the US. You can't seize on a vague generality and claim it gives specific instruction. "I'm going to do something bad to you" is not the same as, "I'm going to kill your dog on the 13th of next month".
Saying peaceful once in his rambling stream of consciousness speech does not override the very fact that he summoned these people to Washington on that specific day at that specific time. Do you think they were unaware of what was going on in the Capitol?
Of course they were aware of what was going on. The bottom line remains, he didn't tell them to storm the castle, in fact, the most explicit direction he gave was to protest peacefully. The fact that the violence started before the speech was over tells us that there were other people intent on doing damage that were not involved in the speech.

See, when the explicit direction is to be peaceful, and the vague generality is that he's upset at something, you have a hard case to make that he was inciting anyone to violence. I know the narrative was in place long ago, but you have to go by what he actually said, not what the hate merchants claim he said.
But you’re ignoring that the speech wasn’t the genesis of this event. It’s been two months of Trump nurturing anger and rage culminating in his wild rally at the very moment that Congress was counting votes that would solidify his loss.

Ask yourself this. But for Trump’s rally and speech, would have there been a riot at the Capitol?
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
22,840
Reaction score
7,304
Points
265
Didn't the violence start while he was still talking? It doesn't make sense that people would leave the rally before it was over just to storm the castle.
Why not? It’s not like Trump’s speech was the first time he had anything to say about the election. This didn’t happen overnight.
I thought these were the true believers who would hang on his every word and not want to miss a thing. It just doesn't make any sense. I mean, if he was sending out coded messages, they would certainly want to make sure they got all of them. Once he said to do it peacefully, that surely was a code word to wait for the end. Didn't you get the memo?
I guess they just had the itch to go kill cops instead of getting the final blessing from cult leader.

Coded messages? Yeah, he’d been sending the message for months that if you don’t do something for him, everything you know and love will end.
Something? And you think that equates to "sending a mob to attack the capitol"? Here's where that goes out the window. He never told anyone to go kill somebody, burn something, tear something down, etc. He wanted people riled up, he wanted protest, that's clear. He also said to do it peacefully. This reminds me of the idiots who claimed W allowed 9/11 to happen because one warning said Bin Laden wanted to attack the US. You can't seize on a vague generality and claim it gives specific instruction. "I'm going to do something bad to you" is not the same as, "I'm going to kill your dog on the 13th of next month".
Saying peaceful once in his rambling stream of consciousness speech does not override the very fact that he summoned these people to Washington on that specific day at that specific time. Do you think they were unaware of what was going on in the Capitol?
Still trying to apply your faulty logic to what was taking place, and then what got out of hand by idiot's who were either pumped up by this John Sutherland to do stupid stuff, and/or by others possibly who wished to set up Trump, and this by getting the situation going into the wrong direction on purpose ?? One things for sure, and that is that you are definitely not fooling anyone with your attempt at getting at Trump someway, somehow by doing or saying what you say.
Oh, so you’re going with the baseless claim that the crowd rioted because liberals made them?
 

beagle9

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
27,355
Reaction score
5,809
Points
280
Didn't the violence start while he was still talking? It doesn't make sense that people would leave the rally before it was over just to storm the castle.
Why not? It’s not like Trump’s speech was the first time he had anything to say about the election. This didn’t happen overnight.
I thought these were the true believers who would hang on his every word and not want to miss a thing. It just doesn't make any sense. I mean, if he was sending out coded messages, they would certainly want to make sure they got all of them. Once he said to do it peacefully, that surely was a code word to wait for the end. Didn't you get the memo?
I guess they just had the itch to go kill cops instead of getting the final blessing from cult leader.

Coded messages? Yeah, he’d been sending the message for months that if you don’t do something for him, everything you know and love will end.
Something? And you think that equates to "sending a mob to attack the capitol"? Here's where that goes out the window. He never told anyone to go kill somebody, burn something, tear something down, etc. He wanted people riled up, he wanted protest, that's clear. He also said to do it peacefully. This reminds me of the idiots who claimed W allowed 9/11 to happen because one warning said Bin Laden wanted to attack the US. You can't seize on a vague generality and claim it gives specific instruction. "I'm going to do something bad to you" is not the same as, "I'm going to kill your dog on the 13th of next month".
Saying peaceful once in his rambling stream of consciousness speech does not override the very fact that he summoned these people to Washington on that specific day at that specific time. Do you think they were unaware of what was going on in the Capitol?
Of course they were aware of what was going on. The bottom line remains, he didn't tell them to storm the castle, in fact, the most explicit direction he gave was to protest peacefully. The fact that the violence started before the speech was over tells us that there were other people intent on doing damage that were not involved in the speech.

See, when the explicit direction is to be peaceful, and the vague generality is that he's upset at something, you have a hard case to make that he was inciting anyone to violence. I know the narrative was in place long ago, but you have to go by what he actually said, not what the hate merchants claim he said.
But you’re ignoring that the speech wasn’t the genesis of this event. It’s been two months of Trump nurturing anger and rage culminating in his wild rally at the very moment that Congress was counting votes that would solidify his loss.

Ask yourself this. But for Trump’s rally and speech, would have there been a riot at the Capitol?
Ask yourself this - In Trump's speeches, did he advocate any attack on government and government officials ever ?? No he did not, and you can't prove he did in a court of law, because you would be laughed out of court for lack of evidence of it.
 

beagle9

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
27,355
Reaction score
5,809
Points
280
Didn't the violence start while he was still talking? It doesn't make sense that people would leave the rally before it was over just to storm the castle.
Why not? It’s not like Trump’s speech was the first time he had anything to say about the election. This didn’t happen overnight.
I thought these were the true believers who would hang on his every word and not want to miss a thing. It just doesn't make any sense. I mean, if he was sending out coded messages, they would certainly want to make sure they got all of them. Once he said to do it peacefully, that surely was a code word to wait for the end. Didn't you get the memo?
I guess they just had the itch to go kill cops instead of getting the final blessing from cult leader.

Coded messages? Yeah, he’d been sending the message for months that if you don’t do something for him, everything you know and love will end.
Something? And you think that equates to "sending a mob to attack the capitol"? Here's where that goes out the window. He never told anyone to go kill somebody, burn something, tear something down, etc. He wanted people riled up, he wanted protest, that's clear. He also said to do it peacefully. This reminds me of the idiots who claimed W allowed 9/11 to happen because one warning said Bin Laden wanted to attack the US. You can't seize on a vague generality and claim it gives specific instruction. "I'm going to do something bad to you" is not the same as, "I'm going to kill your dog on the 13th of next month".
Saying peaceful once in his rambling stream of consciousness speech does not override the very fact that he summoned these people to Washington on that specific day at that specific time. Do you think they were unaware of what was going on in the Capitol?
Still trying to apply your faulty logic to what was taking place, and then what got out of hand by idiot's who were either pumped up by this John Sutherland to do stupid stuff, and/or by others possibly who wished to set up Trump, and this by getting the situation going into the wrong direction on purpose ?? One things for sure, and that is that you are definitely not fooling anyone with your attempt at getting at Trump someway, somehow by doing or saying what you say.
Oh, so you’re going with the baseless claim that the crowd rioted because liberals made them?
Using your same logic is a problem ??
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
22,840
Reaction score
7,304
Points
265
Didn't the violence start while he was still talking? It doesn't make sense that people would leave the rally before it was over just to storm the castle.
Why not? It’s not like Trump’s speech was the first time he had anything to say about the election. This didn’t happen overnight.
I thought these were the true believers who would hang on his every word and not want to miss a thing. It just doesn't make any sense. I mean, if he was sending out coded messages, they would certainly want to make sure they got all of them. Once he said to do it peacefully, that surely was a code word to wait for the end. Didn't you get the memo?
I guess they just had the itch to go kill cops instead of getting the final blessing from cult leader.

Coded messages? Yeah, he’d been sending the message for months that if you don’t do something for him, everything you know and love will end.
Something? And you think that equates to "sending a mob to attack the capitol"? Here's where that goes out the window. He never told anyone to go kill somebody, burn something, tear something down, etc. He wanted people riled up, he wanted protest, that's clear. He also said to do it peacefully. This reminds me of the idiots who claimed W allowed 9/11 to happen because one warning said Bin Laden wanted to attack the US. You can't seize on a vague generality and claim it gives specific instruction. "I'm going to do something bad to you" is not the same as, "I'm going to kill your dog on the 13th of next month".
Saying peaceful once in his rambling stream of consciousness speech does not override the very fact that he summoned these people to Washington on that specific day at that specific time. Do you think they were unaware of what was going on in the Capitol?
Of course they were aware of what was going on. The bottom line remains, he didn't tell them to storm the castle, in fact, the most explicit direction he gave was to protest peacefully. The fact that the violence started before the speech was over tells us that there were other people intent on doing damage that were not involved in the speech.

See, when the explicit direction is to be peaceful, and the vague generality is that he's upset at something, you have a hard case to make that he was inciting anyone to violence. I know the narrative was in place long ago, but you have to go by what he actually said, not what the hate merchants claim he said.
But you’re ignoring that the speech wasn’t the genesis of this event. It’s been two months of Trump nurturing anger and rage culminating in his wild rally at the very moment that Congress was counting votes that would solidify his loss.

Ask yourself this. But for Trump’s rally and speech, would have there been a riot at the Capitol?
Ask yourself this - In Trump's speeches, did he advocate any attack on government and government officials ever ?? No he did not, and you can't prove he did in a court of law, because you would be laughed out of court for lack of evidence of it.
Somehow thousands of his supporters got the message. Explain that
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,657
Reaction score
5,949
Points
280
Didn't the violence start while he was still talking? It doesn't make sense that people would leave the rally before it was over just to storm the castle.
Why not? It’s not like Trump’s speech was the first time he had anything to say about the election. This didn’t happen overnight.
I thought these were the true believers who would hang on his every word and not want to miss a thing. It just doesn't make any sense. I mean, if he was sending out coded messages, they would certainly want to make sure they got all of them. Once he said to do it peacefully, that surely was a code word to wait for the end. Didn't you get the memo?
I guess they just had the itch to go kill cops instead of getting the final blessing from cult leader.

Coded messages? Yeah, he’d been sending the message for months that if you don’t do something for him, everything you know and love will end.
Something? And you think that equates to "sending a mob to attack the capitol"? Here's where that goes out the window. He never told anyone to go kill somebody, burn something, tear something down, etc. He wanted people riled up, he wanted protest, that's clear. He also said to do it peacefully. This reminds me of the idiots who claimed W allowed 9/11 to happen because one warning said Bin Laden wanted to attack the US. You can't seize on a vague generality and claim it gives specific instruction. "I'm going to do something bad to you" is not the same as, "I'm going to kill your dog on the 13th of next month".
Saying peaceful once in his rambling stream of consciousness speech does not override the very fact that he summoned these people to Washington on that specific day at that specific time. Do you think they were unaware of what was going on in the Capitol?
Of course they were aware of what was going on. The bottom line remains, he didn't tell them to storm the castle, in fact, the most explicit direction he gave was to protest peacefully. The fact that the violence started before the speech was over tells us that there were other people intent on doing damage that were not involved in the speech.

See, when the explicit direction is to be peaceful, and the vague generality is that he's upset at something, you have a hard case to make that he was inciting anyone to violence. I know the narrative was in place long ago, but you have to go by what he actually said, not what the hate merchants claim he said.
If they can use their logic, then the same logic would apply to MLKs speeches where some decided that his call for peaceful protest just wasn't going to cut it, so they chose violence instead. Did we blame King for the violence that was done in the movements name ??? This goes for what was learned in Christ time, where he preached peace, yet Barabbas had other ideas in dealing with the Roman's. Now how on earth did Christ end up adjacent from Barabbas in the trial that was brought before Pilot ?? Was Christ set up by man ?? Of course he was, and did Barabbas's actions get cast upon Christ although he had nothing to do with any violence or acts of violence against the Roman's, otherwise as Barabbas was engaged in ?? Of course he needed not to engage in such things ever for he was the Christ Jesus savior of mankind, and the prince of peace.

Are the Democrat's setting Trump up in the same ways (not comparing Trump to Christ of course), but could there be parallels involved in what we are witnessing in modern times ???
Every movement needs a figurehead to coalesce around or to hate, and right now TRUMP! is the figurehead for the leftwing democrats' (but I repeat myself) attempt to gain and maintain power. So naturally, the narrative is that he is responsible for every single ill that has fallen on this country for the last 4 years and for the foreseeable future. Therefore, it doesn't matter what he actually says, the mere fact that he held a rally and violence broke out at the same general time means he's to blame for every single thing that happened.
 

colfax_m

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2019
Messages
22,840
Reaction score
7,304
Points
265
Didn't the violence start while he was still talking? It doesn't make sense that people would leave the rally before it was over just to storm the castle.
Why not? It’s not like Trump’s speech was the first time he had anything to say about the election. This didn’t happen overnight.
I thought these were the true believers who would hang on his every word and not want to miss a thing. It just doesn't make any sense. I mean, if he was sending out coded messages, they would certainly want to make sure they got all of them. Once he said to do it peacefully, that surely was a code word to wait for the end. Didn't you get the memo?
I guess they just had the itch to go kill cops instead of getting the final blessing from cult leader.

Coded messages? Yeah, he’d been sending the message for months that if you don’t do something for him, everything you know and love will end.
Something? And you think that equates to "sending a mob to attack the capitol"? Here's where that goes out the window. He never told anyone to go kill somebody, burn something, tear something down, etc. He wanted people riled up, he wanted protest, that's clear. He also said to do it peacefully. This reminds me of the idiots who claimed W allowed 9/11 to happen because one warning said Bin Laden wanted to attack the US. You can't seize on a vague generality and claim it gives specific instruction. "I'm going to do something bad to you" is not the same as, "I'm going to kill your dog on the 13th of next month".
Saying peaceful once in his rambling stream of consciousness speech does not override the very fact that he summoned these people to Washington on that specific day at that specific time. Do you think they were unaware of what was going on in the Capitol?
Of course they were aware of what was going on. The bottom line remains, he didn't tell them to storm the castle, in fact, the most explicit direction he gave was to protest peacefully. The fact that the violence started before the speech was over tells us that there were other people intent on doing damage that were not involved in the speech.

See, when the explicit direction is to be peaceful, and the vague generality is that he's upset at something, you have a hard case to make that he was inciting anyone to violence. I know the narrative was in place long ago, but you have to go by what he actually said, not what the hate merchants claim he said.
If they can use their logic, then the same logic would apply to MLKs speeches where some decided that his call for peaceful protest just wasn't going to cut it, so they chose violence instead. Did we blame King for the violence that was done in the movements name ??? This goes for what was learned in Christ time, where he preached peace, yet Barabbas had other ideas in dealing with the Roman's. Now how on earth did Christ end up adjacent from Barabbas in the trial that was brought before Pilot ?? Was Christ set up by man ?? Of course he was, and did Barabbas's actions get cast upon Christ although he had nothing to do with any violence or acts of violence against the Roman's, otherwise as Barabbas was engaged in ?? Of course he needed not to engage in such things ever for he was the Christ Jesus savior of mankind, and the prince of peace.

Are the Democrat's setting Trump up in the same ways (not comparing Trump to Christ of course), but could there be parallels involved in what we are witnessing in modern times ???
Every movement needs a figurehead to coalesce around or to hate, and right now TRUMP! is the figurehead for the leftwing democrats' (but I repeat myself) attempt to gain and maintain power. So naturally, the narrative is that he is responsible for every single ill that has fallen on this country for the last 4 years and for the foreseeable future. Therefore, it doesn't matter what he actually says, the mere fact that he held a rally and violence broke out at the same general time means he's to blame for every single thing that happened.
There’s some serious downplaying.

Violence broke out at the “same general time” by the “same general people” for the “same general purpose”.

This wasn’t some random act. It was Trump supporters attacking the Capitol to benefit Trump because Trump had convinced them he needed their help or else everything is doomed.
 

theHawk

Registered Conservative
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
33,467
Reaction score
19,641
Points
1,905
Location
Arizona
The faithless legislators should resign, they have been played in the Trump Rebellion against the Constitution. They all have blood on their hands.
Our Constitution and our Government were attacked and they still defend the Traitor. Resignation NOW!!
We don’t defend Biden, who has betrayed this country to China his entire career.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,657
Reaction score
5,949
Points
280
Didn't the violence start while he was still talking? It doesn't make sense that people would leave the rally before it was over just to storm the castle.
Why not? It’s not like Trump’s speech was the first time he had anything to say about the election. This didn’t happen overnight.
I thought these were the true believers who would hang on his every word and not want to miss a thing. It just doesn't make any sense. I mean, if he was sending out coded messages, they would certainly want to make sure they got all of them. Once he said to do it peacefully, that surely was a code word to wait for the end. Didn't you get the memo?
I guess they just had the itch to go kill cops instead of getting the final blessing from cult leader.

Coded messages? Yeah, he’d been sending the message for months that if you don’t do something for him, everything you know and love will end.
Something? And you think that equates to "sending a mob to attack the capitol"? Here's where that goes out the window. He never told anyone to go kill somebody, burn something, tear something down, etc. He wanted people riled up, he wanted protest, that's clear. He also said to do it peacefully. This reminds me of the idiots who claimed W allowed 9/11 to happen because one warning said Bin Laden wanted to attack the US. You can't seize on a vague generality and claim it gives specific instruction. "I'm going to do something bad to you" is not the same as, "I'm going to kill your dog on the 13th of next month".
Saying peaceful once in his rambling stream of consciousness speech does not override the very fact that he summoned these people to Washington on that specific day at that specific time. Do you think they were unaware of what was going on in the Capitol?
Of course they were aware of what was going on. The bottom line remains, he didn't tell them to storm the castle, in fact, the most explicit direction he gave was to protest peacefully. The fact that the violence started before the speech was over tells us that there were other people intent on doing damage that were not involved in the speech.

See, when the explicit direction is to be peaceful, and the vague generality is that he's upset at something, you have a hard case to make that he was inciting anyone to violence. I know the narrative was in place long ago, but you have to go by what he actually said, not what the hate merchants claim he said.
But you’re ignoring that the speech wasn’t the genesis of this event. It’s been two months of Trump nurturing anger and rage culminating in his wild rally at the very moment that Congress was counting votes that would solidify his loss.

Ask yourself this. But for Trump’s rally and speech, would have there been a riot at the Capitol?
There is a good chance that there would have been, since we know that it broke out before the speech was over. That means that preparations were in place independent of the rally and speech. Now, you can pretend that the origins of the unrest started only two months ago, but that would be ignoring reality. The dissatisfaction started during the run-up to the inauguration in '16, when it became obvious that democrats both elected and rank and file were not going to grant TRUMP! the respect due the office but were in fact going to not only oppose him at every turn, but try to destroy him and his family personally and without mercy. It's only going to get uglier, and democrats are going to be running around scratching their heads, wailing and moaning that it's so terrible, without the slightest clue that they had a hand in pushing things to that point. Biden has a golden opportunity to be a true uniter and healer for the country, but I don't think he has it in him to even try. Oh, he'll make noises about it, but he won't tell anyone outright to leave TRUMP! alone.
 

beagle9

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
27,355
Reaction score
5,809
Points
280
The faithless legislators should resign, they have been played in the Trump Rebellion against the Constitution. They all have blood on their hands.
Our Constitution and our Government were attacked and they still defend the Traitor. Resignation NOW!!
We don’t defend Biden, who has betrayed this country to China his entire career.
You're wasting your time on that one, but I can see why we still feel like we must respond, but I believe it's an excersize in futility.
 

hadit

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2013
Messages
27,657
Reaction score
5,949
Points
280
Didn't the violence start while he was still talking? It doesn't make sense that people would leave the rally before it was over just to storm the castle.
Why not? It’s not like Trump’s speech was the first time he had anything to say about the election. This didn’t happen overnight.
I thought these were the true believers who would hang on his every word and not want to miss a thing. It just doesn't make any sense. I mean, if he was sending out coded messages, they would certainly want to make sure they got all of them. Once he said to do it peacefully, that surely was a code word to wait for the end. Didn't you get the memo?
I guess they just had the itch to go kill cops instead of getting the final blessing from cult leader.

Coded messages? Yeah, he’d been sending the message for months that if you don’t do something for him, everything you know and love will end.
Something? And you think that equates to "sending a mob to attack the capitol"? Here's where that goes out the window. He never told anyone to go kill somebody, burn something, tear something down, etc. He wanted people riled up, he wanted protest, that's clear. He also said to do it peacefully. This reminds me of the idiots who claimed W allowed 9/11 to happen because one warning said Bin Laden wanted to attack the US. You can't seize on a vague generality and claim it gives specific instruction. "I'm going to do something bad to you" is not the same as, "I'm going to kill your dog on the 13th of next month".
Saying peaceful once in his rambling stream of consciousness speech does not override the very fact that he summoned these people to Washington on that specific day at that specific time. Do you think they were unaware of what was going on in the Capitol?
Of course they were aware of what was going on. The bottom line remains, he didn't tell them to storm the castle, in fact, the most explicit direction he gave was to protest peacefully. The fact that the violence started before the speech was over tells us that there were other people intent on doing damage that were not involved in the speech.

See, when the explicit direction is to be peaceful, and the vague generality is that he's upset at something, you have a hard case to make that he was inciting anyone to violence. I know the narrative was in place long ago, but you have to go by what he actually said, not what the hate merchants claim he said.
If they can use their logic, then the same logic would apply to MLKs speeches where some decided that his call for peaceful protest just wasn't going to cut it, so they chose violence instead. Did we blame King for the violence that was done in the movements name ??? This goes for what was learned in Christ time, where he preached peace, yet Barabbas had other ideas in dealing with the Roman's. Now how on earth did Christ end up adjacent from Barabbas in the trial that was brought before Pilot ?? Was Christ set up by man ?? Of course he was, and did Barabbas's actions get cast upon Christ although he had nothing to do with any violence or acts of violence against the Roman's, otherwise as Barabbas was engaged in ?? Of course he needed not to engage in such things ever for he was the Christ Jesus savior of mankind, and the prince of peace.

Are the Democrat's setting Trump up in the same ways (not comparing Trump to Christ of course), but could there be parallels involved in what we are witnessing in modern times ???
Every movement needs a figurehead to coalesce around or to hate, and right now TRUMP! is the figurehead for the leftwing democrats' (but I repeat myself) attempt to gain and maintain power. So naturally, the narrative is that he is responsible for every single ill that has fallen on this country for the last 4 years and for the foreseeable future. Therefore, it doesn't matter what he actually says, the mere fact that he held a rally and violence broke out at the same general time means he's to blame for every single thing that happened.
There’s some serious downplaying.

Violence broke out at the “same general time” by the “same general people” for the “same general purpose”.

This wasn’t some random act. It was Trump supporters attacking the Capitol to benefit Trump because Trump had convinced them he needed their help or else everything is doomed.
I didn't say it was random. I said it would likely have happened without the rally and speech. That was your question, remember? Now you're going to have to prove that he deliberately incited them to violence when he clearly told them to be peaceful and, "they assumed", "he spoke in code", etc. isn't proof.
 

beagle9

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
27,355
Reaction score
5,809
Points
280
Didn't the violence start while he was still talking? It doesn't make sense that people would leave the rally before it was over just to storm the castle.
Why not? It’s not like Trump’s speech was the first time he had anything to say about the election. This didn’t happen overnight.
I thought these were the true believers who would hang on his every word and not want to miss a thing. It just doesn't make any sense. I mean, if he was sending out coded messages, they would certainly want to make sure they got all of them. Once he said to do it peacefully, that surely was a code word to wait for the end. Didn't you get the memo?
I guess they just had the itch to go kill cops instead of getting the final blessing from cult leader.

Coded messages? Yeah, he’d been sending the message for months that if you don’t do something for him, everything you know and love will end.
Something? And you think that equates to "sending a mob to attack the capitol"? Here's where that goes out the window. He never told anyone to go kill somebody, burn something, tear something down, etc. He wanted people riled up, he wanted protest, that's clear. He also said to do it peacefully. This reminds me of the idiots who claimed W allowed 9/11 to happen because one warning said Bin Laden wanted to attack the US. You can't seize on a vague generality and claim it gives specific instruction. "I'm going to do something bad to you" is not the same as, "I'm going to kill your dog on the 13th of next month".
Saying peaceful once in his rambling stream of consciousness speech does not override the very fact that he summoned these people to Washington on that specific day at that specific time. Do you think they were unaware of what was going on in the Capitol?
Of course they were aware of what was going on. The bottom line remains, he didn't tell them to storm the castle, in fact, the most explicit direction he gave was to protest peacefully. The fact that the violence started before the speech was over tells us that there were other people intent on doing damage that were not involved in the speech.

See, when the explicit direction is to be peaceful, and the vague generality is that he's upset at something, you have a hard case to make that he was inciting anyone to violence. I know the narrative was in place long ago, but you have to go by what he actually said, not what the hate merchants claim he said.
But you’re ignoring that the speech wasn’t the genesis of this event. It’s been two months of Trump nurturing anger and rage culminating in his wild rally at the very moment that Congress was counting votes that would solidify his loss.

Ask yourself this. But for Trump’s rally and speech, would have there been a riot at the Capitol?
There is a good chance that there would have been, since we know that it broke out before the speech was over. That means that preparations were in place independent of the rally and speech. Now, you can pretend that the origins of the unrest started only two months ago, but that would be ignoring reality. The dissatisfaction started during the run-up to the inauguration in '16, when it became obvious that democrats both elected and rank and file were not going to grant TRUMP! the respect due the office but were in fact going to not only oppose him at every turn, but try to destroy him and his family personally and without mercy. It's only going to get uglier, and democrats are going to be running around scratching their heads, wailing and moaning that it's so terrible, without the slightest clue that they had a hand in pushing things to that point. Biden has a golden opportunity to be a true uniter and healer for the country, but I don't think he has it in him to even try. Oh, he'll make noises about it, but he won't tell anyone outright to leave TRUMP! alone.
Biden the uniter ???????? Rotflmbo. United in his race-baiting bullcrap with those who love that sort of thing, but no Biden will never unite this nation. To much water/knowledge of things under the bridge now, the flood of truth is undermining the foundation that leftist attempted to build already. Best thing for him to do I think, is to go find a basement somewhere, and let other's who have any kind of sense to themselves try to run things for him.
 

beagle9

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
27,355
Reaction score
5,809
Points
280
Didn't the violence start while he was still talking? It doesn't make sense that people would leave the rally before it was over just to storm the castle.
Why not? It’s not like Trump’s speech was the first time he had anything to say about the election. This didn’t happen overnight.
I thought these were the true believers who would hang on his every word and not want to miss a thing. It just doesn't make any sense. I mean, if he was sending out coded messages, they would certainly want to make sure they got all of them. Once he said to do it peacefully, that surely was a code word to wait for the end. Didn't you get the memo?
I guess they just had the itch to go kill cops instead of getting the final blessing from cult leader.

Coded messages? Yeah, he’d been sending the message for months that if you don’t do something for him, everything you know and love will end.
Something? And you think that equates to "sending a mob to attack the capitol"? Here's where that goes out the window. He never told anyone to go kill somebody, burn something, tear something down, etc. He wanted people riled up, he wanted protest, that's clear. He also said to do it peacefully. This reminds me of the idiots who claimed W allowed 9/11 to happen because one warning said Bin Laden wanted to attack the US. You can't seize on a vague generality and claim it gives specific instruction. "I'm going to do something bad to you" is not the same as, "I'm going to kill your dog on the 13th of next month".
Saying peaceful once in his rambling stream of consciousness speech does not override the very fact that he summoned these people to Washington on that specific day at that specific time. Do you think they were unaware of what was going on in the Capitol?
Of course they were aware of what was going on. The bottom line remains, he didn't tell them to storm the castle, in fact, the most explicit direction he gave was to protest peacefully. The fact that the violence started before the speech was over tells us that there were other people intent on doing damage that were not involved in the speech.

See, when the explicit direction is to be peaceful, and the vague generality is that he's upset at something, you have a hard case to make that he was inciting anyone to violence. I know the narrative was in place long ago, but you have to go by what he actually said, not what the hate merchants claim he said.
If they can use their logic, then the same logic would apply to MLKs speeches where some decided that his call for peaceful protest just wasn't going to cut it, so they chose violence instead. Did we blame King for the violence that was done in the movements name ??? This goes for what was learned in Christ time, where he preached peace, yet Barabbas had other ideas in dealing with the Roman's. Now how on earth did Christ end up adjacent from Barabbas in the trial that was brought before Pilot ?? Was Christ set up by man ?? Of course he was, and did Barabbas's actions get cast upon Christ although he had nothing to do with any violence or acts of violence against the Roman's, otherwise as Barabbas was engaged in ?? Of course he needed not to engage in such things ever for he was the Christ Jesus savior of mankind, and the prince of peace.

Are the Democrat's setting Trump up in the same ways (not comparing Trump to Christ of course), but could there be parallels involved in what we are witnessing in modern times ???
Every movement needs a figurehead to coalesce around or to hate, and right now TRUMP! is the figurehead for the leftwing democrats' (but I repeat myself) attempt to gain and maintain power. So naturally, the narrative is that he is responsible for every single ill that has fallen on this country for the last 4 years and for the foreseeable future. Therefore, it doesn't matter what he actually says, the mere fact that he held a rally and violence broke out at the same general time means he's to blame for every single thing that happened.
There’s some serious downplaying.

Violence broke out at the “same general time” by the “same general people” for the “same general purpose”.

This wasn’t some random act. It was Trump supporters attacking the Capitol to benefit Trump because Trump had convinced them he needed their help or else everything is doomed.
I didn't say it was random. I said it would likely have happened without the rally and speech. That was your question, remember? Now you're going to have to prove that he deliberately incited them to violence when he clearly told them to be peaceful and, "they assumed", "he spoke in code", etc. isn't proof.
Exactly.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top