FBI Director says no evidence ANTIFA was at Capitol riot

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
24,359
Reaction score
7,059
Points
290
You do not think Congress should react when that many people feel that way? You do not know anything about this country, do you?
What country do you think you're talking about?
 

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
24,359
Reaction score
7,059
Points
290
You're claiming that you're more credible than the FBI and calling me silly. LoL
Millions of people are more credible than the FBI.
Can you point to one case that you think could have proved massive fraud that was dismissed? Let’s look at it and why it was dismissed. Be specific
I, like the courts, have not seen the evidence. Therefore I am just as ignorant as the judges and you are. You haven't seen the evidence either.
You're flailing. I'll take the FBI's word over yours.
Then it could be you that is the fool.
You lose.
No. You lose!
You think I'm lying when I say that the FBI is more credible than you.
You very well could be. The FBI has lied and withheld information to get the results they want or to cover up things they don't want exposed.

You are naive to accept everything the FBI says as the gospel truth. Jim Comey is a lying son-of-a-bitch also. So is John Brennan. So is James Clapper.

Being high up in the intelligence community or the DoJ does not conflate to being honest.

Our government is replete with liars.
The president has the biggest megaphone in the world, he has appointed more judges than any modern president, he has the SCOTUS heavily in his side and you honestly think he couldn’t get proof out there?! That’s just retarded, I’m sorry. There isnt proof. It’s a media game he is playing. One he set up before the election even happened. How can you be so gullible
Read the news, goofy! The Supreme Court refused to hear the cases.

Even the minority dissenters on the SCOTUS were perplexed that Roberts and the majority refused to hear the cases.




The evidence must be presented to the courts by lawyers after the courts agree TO HEAR THE CASES IN THE COURTROOM. They do not make decisions based of what the media claims or what the litigants say outside of the courtroom. You are a naive, uneducated, dumbass twit.


Do a little research before you attempt to appear knowledgeable. You don't know jack shit about how the courts work.
The cases were dismissed because they didn’t have merit. They didn’t have merit because they didn’t have evidence or legal standing to back them up.. It’s pretty simple. Evidence isn’t only presented in court it is proven in court. Trumps BS claims couldn’t even get through the front door because they were baseless
Try again, Clarence! You're full of shit.
Not full of shit. Just stating the obvious. Do you have a better counter argument than “try again”?
Not for you. You fail repeatedly.
Sorry buddy but if your counter argument is only “try again” then you’ve lost the debate. Butter luck next time
The only fact exposed in your post is that you don't know the difference between better and butter.

Try again, Clarence!:ahole-1:
Wrong again, I said the cases were dismissed because they didn't have merit. This isn't me making shit up it is me quoting what dozens of judges said. Lets just leave it at that as you seem to get overwhelmed when I make multiple points and then forget that I made any. So do you got anything more than "Thats it" ??
SCOTUS dismissed cases for lack of standing, not lack of merit. Determination of lack of merit by the judge (or justices) of the court (not by some outside judge's media driven opinion) require that the case be heard IN COURT. Several of them were denied a hearing for lack of standing, not lack of merit.
Several judges literally said the cases lacked merit. Here is an example...

I repeat. It makes no difference what several judges may say based on the public knowledge of a case. Lack of merit must be determine BY THE JUDGE THAT HEARS THE CASE IN COURT. If the court refuses to even hear a case, the court cannot dismiss it for lack of merit.
The public knowledge?! You mean what the public hears in the media?! Where as in court legit evidence and cases need to be presented. You are joking right?
Cool. Then call for a day in Court.
Allow witnesses to be heard. Let CCTV be shown. Subpoena those people with boxes under the table. Allow a full audit.
We've done all that. It's over
 

Lastamender

Platinum Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2011
Messages
11,490
Reaction score
6,506
Points
1,050
You do not think Congress should react when that many people feel that way? You do not know anything about this country, do you?
What country do you think you're talking about?
A country where politicians represent their constituents. That did not hapen. Remember when Biden took office America died.
 

Foreigner Looking In.

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
2,788
Reaction score
3,821
Points
1,893
You're claiming that you're more credible than the FBI and calling me silly. LoL
Millions of people are more credible than the FBI.
Can you point to one case that you think could have proved massive fraud that was dismissed? Let’s look at it and why it was dismissed. Be specific
I, like the courts, have not seen the evidence. Therefore I am just as ignorant as the judges and you are. You haven't seen the evidence either.
You're flailing. I'll take the FBI's word over yours.
Then it could be you that is the fool.
You lose.
No. You lose!
You think I'm lying when I say that the FBI is more credible than you.
You very well could be. The FBI has lied and withheld information to get the results they want or to cover up things they don't want exposed.

You are naive to accept everything the FBI says as the gospel truth. Jim Comey is a lying son-of-a-bitch also. So is John Brennan. So is James Clapper.

Being high up in the intelligence community or the DoJ does not conflate to being honest.

Our government is replete with liars.
The president has the biggest megaphone in the world, he has appointed more judges than any modern president, he has the SCOTUS heavily in his side and you honestly think he couldn’t get proof out there?! That’s just retarded, I’m sorry. There isnt proof. It’s a media game he is playing. One he set up before the election even happened. How can you be so gullible
Read the news, goofy! The Supreme Court refused to hear the cases.

Even the minority dissenters on the SCOTUS were perplexed that Roberts and the majority refused to hear the cases.




The evidence must be presented to the courts by lawyers after the courts agree TO HEAR THE CASES IN THE COURTROOM. They do not make decisions based of what the media claims or what the litigants say outside of the courtroom. You are a naive, uneducated, dumbass twit.


Do a little research before you attempt to appear knowledgeable. You don't know jack shit about how the courts work.
The cases were dismissed because they didn’t have merit. They didn’t have merit because they didn’t have evidence or legal standing to back them up.. It’s pretty simple. Evidence isn’t only presented in court it is proven in court. Trumps BS claims couldn’t even get through the front door because they were baseless
Try again, Clarence! You're full of shit.
Not full of shit. Just stating the obvious. Do you have a better counter argument than “try again”?
Not for you. You fail repeatedly.
Sorry buddy but if your counter argument is only “try again” then you’ve lost the debate. Butter luck next time
The only fact exposed in your post is that you don't know the difference between better and butter.

Try again, Clarence!:ahole-1:
Wrong again, I said the cases were dismissed because they didn't have merit. This isn't me making shit up it is me quoting what dozens of judges said. Lets just leave it at that as you seem to get overwhelmed when I make multiple points and then forget that I made any. So do you got anything more than "Thats it" ??
SCOTUS dismissed cases for lack of standing, not lack of merit. Determination of lack of merit by the judge (or justices) of the court (not by some outside judge's media driven opinion) require that the case be heard IN COURT. Several of them were denied a hearing for lack of standing, not lack of merit.
Several judges literally said the cases lacked merit. Here is an example...

I repeat. It makes no difference what several judges may say based on the public knowledge of a case. Lack of merit must be determine BY THE JUDGE THAT HEARS THE CASE IN COURT. If the court refuses to even hear a case, the court cannot dismiss it for lack of merit.
The public knowledge?! You mean what the public hears in the media?! Where as in court legit evidence and cases need to be presented. You are joking right?
Cool. Then call for a day in Court.
Allow witnesses to be heard. Let CCTV be shown. Subpoena those people with boxes under the table. Allow a full audit.
We've done all that. It's over
Link to the audit. Link to the subpoenas. Link to the witnesses taking the stand.
Link to the "Day in Court".
 

asaratis

Uppity Senior Citizen
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
16,300
Reaction score
4,989
Points
350
Location
Stockbridge
You're claiming that you're more credible than the FBI and calling me silly. LoL
Millions of people are more credible than the FBI.
Can you point to one case that you think could have proved massive fraud that was dismissed? Let’s look at it and why it was dismissed. Be specific
I, like the courts, have not seen the evidence. Therefore I am just as ignorant as the judges and you are. You haven't seen the evidence either.
You're flailing. I'll take the FBI's word over yours.
Then it could be you that is the fool.
You lose.
No. You lose!
You think I'm lying when I say that the FBI is more credible than you.
You very well could be. The FBI has lied and withheld information to get the results they want or to cover up things they don't want exposed.

You are naive to accept everything the FBI says as the gospel truth. Jim Comey is a lying son-of-a-bitch also. So is John Brennan. So is James Clapper.

Being high up in the intelligence community or the DoJ does not conflate to being honest.

Our government is replete with liars.
The president has the biggest megaphone in the world, he has appointed more judges than any modern president, he has the SCOTUS heavily in his side and you honestly think he couldn’t get proof out there?! That’s just retarded, I’m sorry. There isnt proof. It’s a media game he is playing. One he set up before the election even happened. How can you be so gullible
Read the news, goofy! The Supreme Court refused to hear the cases.

Even the minority dissenters on the SCOTUS were perplexed that Roberts and the majority refused to hear the cases.




The evidence must be presented to the courts by lawyers after the courts agree TO HEAR THE CASES IN THE COURTROOM. They do not make decisions based of what the media claims or what the litigants say outside of the courtroom. You are a naive, uneducated, dumbass twit.


Do a little research before you attempt to appear knowledgeable. You don't know jack shit about how the courts work.
The cases were dismissed because they didn’t have merit. They didn’t have merit because they didn’t have evidence or legal standing to back them up.. It’s pretty simple. Evidence isn’t only presented in court it is proven in court. Trumps BS claims couldn’t even get through the front door because they were baseless
Try again, Clarence! You're full of shit.
Not full of shit. Just stating the obvious. Do you have a better counter argument than “try again”?
Not for you. You fail repeatedly.
Sorry buddy but if your counter argument is only “try again” then you’ve lost the debate. Butter luck next time
The only fact exposed in your post is that you don't know the difference between better and butter.

Try again, Clarence!:ahole-1:
Wrong again, I said the cases were dismissed because they didn't have merit. This isn't me making shit up it is me quoting what dozens of judges said. Lets just leave it at that as you seem to get overwhelmed when I make multiple points and then forget that I made any. So do you got anything more than "Thats it" ??
SCOTUS dismissed cases for lack of standing, not lack of merit. Determination of lack of merit by the judge (or justices) of the court (not by some outside judge's media driven opinion) require that the case be heard IN COURT. Several of them were denied a hearing for lack of standing, not lack of merit.
Several judges literally said the cases lacked merit. Here is an example...

I repeat. It makes no difference what several judges may say based on the public knowledge of a case. Lack of merit must be determine BY THE JUDGE THAT HEARS THE CASE IN COURT. If the court refuses to even hear a case, the court cannot dismiss it for lack of merit.
The public knowledge?! You mean what the public hears in the media?! Where as in court legit evidence and cases need to be presented. You are joking right?
No. In order to be dismissed in court for lack of merit (essentially lack of sufficient evidence), the case must be heard (presented to the court). I have agreed that the particular case linked was indeed heard in a lower court and dismissed for lack of merit. The cases I linked that were sent to the SCOTUS were NOT heard by the SCOTUS because the court refused to hear them. They were NOT dismissed for lack of merit because the majority of the justices REFUSED TO HEAR THE CASES. They could not dismiss them for lack of merit without first HEARING THE EVIDENCE AS PRESENTED IN COURT DURING THE TRIAL. There was no trial.

SCOTUS does not make rulings based upon the opinions of the public or the media. The justices base their decisions on EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THEM IN A TRIAL. Refusing to hear a case based on lack of standing or any other technicality precludes them from officially seeing evidence.

That you cannot understand this is not surprising to me.

Here is one definition regarding merit: (emphasis is mine)
Merit in the legal context, refers to a claim which has a valid basis, setting forth sufficient facts from which the court could find a valid claim of deprivation of a legal right. Therefore, a merit hearing is one in which one side presents to the judge the facts which support their side of a case or ruling. Conversely, the other side will attempt to prove that the proponent's case has NO merit.
If the court refuses to hear the case, the purported facts cannot be presented to the judge. Therefore there can be no ruling of lack of merit.
 

Slade3200

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
40,201
Reaction score
6,547
Points
1,840
If my country had a fraudulent election to the scale of November 2020, and the Nation's Intel agencyy refused to investigate, and the media ignored it, and people who peacefull protested were censored and attacked....
I'd see it as a coup and would probably be attacking my Parliament as well
Exactly, it was foreseeable, which makes Trump and his puppets lies about the election fraud so much worse. It wasn't political hyperbole, it was incitement to violence which is what it lead to. He made false claims many of which can be directly disproven and the others he was never able to verify, yet he keeps saying them, his idiot followers believe them, and the nutters are acting on them.

I did not see it coming. Generally conservatives are pretty mild. I expected the demonstration to just stand there and make some noise and be forgotten.


I was surprised when the riot broke out.
I wasn't... I literally called my family while Trump was giving his speech and told them to tune in because shit was about to go down. I told them Trump just threw Pence under the bus and there is a mob of angry people that are about to go mess things up. It was clear and obvious what Trump was doing and what was about to happen. If you couldn't see that then you have blinders on. But you support Trump so I guess the blinders are a given

My expectation of a peaceful demonstration was based on decades of observation of demonstration conservatives who, even when pissed off, almost always obeyed the law and demonstrated peacefully and then went home.


What was yours based on?
Mine was based on common sense. You can’t use historical precedent when you have a president that breaks all the norms. My observations were correct. I called my family before the riot to tell them there was about to be a riot. How did I know?! Because it was obvious. The real question you should be asking yourself is why you were surprised and why you couldn’t see it coming when it was so easy to see what Trump was doing.

Trump did not break all the norms.

His style was odd. He was disagreeable and vulgar. But his policies and actions were measured and restrained.

So, you were right, but for the wrong reasons. That happens. Like the way I was initially attracted to my wife because of her, well, never mind.
I was right for the right reasons. Because I can see the effects that a con man has on his followers. The question is why couldn’t you see it coming?

I asked what you based your conclusion on, and the reasons you gave were not true.


THus, you were right for the wrong reasons.


Hey, better than being wrong for the right reasons.


YOur spin is dismissed.
Well this is coming from somebody who was wrong and blindsided so perhaps what you think im wrong about isn’t really wrong.

No one is prefect. Being wrong once does not mean that my judgement is valueless.

YOur stated reasons were not true. Thus you were right for the wrong reasons.
My stated reasons weren’t true yet I was right. So I must have seen something that you didn’t see. Your Perceived reality was wrong and left you blindsided. That should tell you something

People can be right though blind stupid luck. You have to know that. So your pretense that being right is proof of being more perceptive, is you lying.


If I found that I was consistently wrong, then your point that I should reexamine my perceptions would be correct.


BUt so far, this was a one off.
What do you think I lied about. What I observed was obvious and predictable... yet it surprised you. Gee, let’s think about that for a sec
People can be right though blind stupid luck. You have to know that. So your pretense that being right is proof of being more perceptive, is you lying.
You admitted that you were surprised at the riot. I said it was obvious and easy to see coming. I’m not lying about that, If you think I’m lying then why don’t you tell me what really happened. What am I getting wrong?

I fully explained what you were lying about. YOur pretense of confusion is you lying again.

Your need to avoid being honest about what I say, how can that not be a red flag for you?
Wow, that was a lot of words for a non answer. What a waste of space. Want to try again?

Nope. Your tactic of pretending to misunderstand a clear statement to then ask stupid questions, is an odd game, but one I am willing to play.


Pretend to be too retarded to understand a simple sentence again, and I will call you on your lying again.


I'm not sure of the point, but I am sure that I am kidding your ass.
Where in that statement was a clear sentence stating what the hell you’re talking about?! Nowhere!!! If you’ve been so clear then just copy and paste it. I honestly have no clue what you’re talking about. I think you got schooled and are just trying to confuse things to distract from the fact you lack a solid argument.

I don't believe that you are so retarded that you did not understand it initially.

I am willing to consider that you might be stupid enough to have forgotten since it has been several posts so here it is again.



People can be right though blind stupid luck. You have to know that. So your pretense that being right is proof of being more perceptive, is you lying.
Oh ok, well I agree that people can be correct through luck. I don’t think that’s the case here, I just think I was more perceptive because what Trump was doing had a painfully obvious effect which I could see coming from a mile away.... you on the other hand were cause blindsided so you obviously didn’t see it.

now you are able to look at things in hindsight. If you think what I’ve said was wrong then state why... see this is how normal debate works. It shouldn’t take pages and me explaining it like to a third grader.

I already explained my reasoning. DECADES of watching conservatives protest, even angry, but obeying the law and being peaceful.

THe violence and destruction has almost solely been on the left..


So, this change up was a surprise.

IN HINDSIGHT. it is less surprising considering the normalization of violence by five years of riots by antifa and blm.
Ok but after the surprise wore off what did you see what caused the change?

Sure. THe years of political violence from your side that made it the new norm.
Haha, this is the best one yet. So since the left is violent it inspired the right to be violent? You really want to go with that? Has the lefts push for big government also inspired the right to support big government? Your arguments are getting dumber and dumber.

Violence begets violence. You put in out there into our society, and especially with it not being given the negative feedback it used to get, and it normalizes that behavior.


That is my point. I made it very clear. YOu don't need to restate it using your own words. (and thus adding your own spin, dishonestly).


ADDRESS MY POINT OR DON'T POST.
Your point is absolute bullshit. There has been violence from the right wing forever just as there has been from the left wing. At trump rallies in 2016 he had supporter punching protesters in the face, he encouraged it......

there I directly addressed your point. Now you address mine. Don’t distract

Punching a HECKLER, is a pretty minor example to lead off with, considering the 5 years of riots from your side. Charlettosville was the FAR right, not conservatives.


Violence begets violence. You put in out there into our society, and especially with it not being given the negative feedback it used to get, and it normalizes that behavior.


That is my point.
Haha, ok so my examples just don’t count. I could give more but I guess those wouldn’t count either. Why do I bother. You’re hopeless.

I can play that game though... the summer riots were just the FAR Left not liberals. So they don’t count either. How’s that for ya?

not bad. The actual rioters, imo, were far left.


The support they got from elected dem officials, that were not denounced by the dem party as a whole, though that is more troubling.
Ahhh right, you’re probably stuck in the right wing media bubble. Here is the leader of the Dems condemning violence... Fact check: Joe Biden has condemned protest-related violence all summer

Interesting. I clearly was discussing not the violence, but the support of the violence by dem mayors.

DId Biden ever denounce the mayors that ordered the cops to stand down so that rioters could riot, loot and kill?
Which mayor? Can you give me a name?

Ted Wheeler is the most obvious.
This guy? Do you wanna try somebody else?


lol, you really do love those empty words, don't you?




By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Sunday, October 14, 2018


"Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler came under fire over a viral video showing antifa protesters blocking traffic and harassing drivers, but he says he supports the decision by police to watch from a distance without getting involved.
“I was appalled by what I saw in the video, but I support the Portland Police Bureau’s decision not to intervene,” he said at a press conference. “This whole incident will be investigated.”
The video posted by journalist Andy C. Ngo showed protesters, including members of antifa and Black Lives Matter, blocking an intersection and attempting to direct traffic at while officers on motorcycle watched from a block away.



At one point, the activists chased down 74-year-old Kent Houser after he made a right turn against their wishes, pounding on his silver Lexus and breaking a window. The car sustained thousands of dollars in damage, he told the Oregonian.

Even so, Mr. Wheeler insisted that “motorists should feel completely safe coming into downtown Portland.”

Demonstrators did not obtain a permit before holding the Oct. 6 march...

The mayor has been accused of taking a kid-gloved approach to the protests that routinely roil the liberal enclave, such as the summer occupation of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building, which saw Portland police refuse to assist the immigration-enforcement officers unless they were in physical danger."
Empty words? Not really... your critique is that he stood by the decision of his police chief and that somehow is supposed to prove what exactly?? You said the Mayors never spoke out against the violence. I showed otherwise.
 

Slade3200

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
40,201
Reaction score
6,547
Points
1,840
You're claiming that you're more credible than the FBI and calling me silly. LoL
Millions of people are more credible than the FBI.
Can you point to one case that you think could have proved massive fraud that was dismissed? Let’s look at it and why it was dismissed. Be specific
I, like the courts, have not seen the evidence. Therefore I am just as ignorant as the judges and you are. You haven't seen the evidence either.
You're flailing. I'll take the FBI's word over yours.
Then it could be you that is the fool.
You lose.
No. You lose!
You think I'm lying when I say that the FBI is more credible than you.
You very well could be. The FBI has lied and withheld information to get the results they want or to cover up things they don't want exposed.

You are naive to accept everything the FBI says as the gospel truth. Jim Comey is a lying son-of-a-bitch also. So is John Brennan. So is James Clapper.

Being high up in the intelligence community or the DoJ does not conflate to being honest.

Our government is replete with liars.
The president has the biggest megaphone in the world, he has appointed more judges than any modern president, he has the SCOTUS heavily in his side and you honestly think he couldn’t get proof out there?! That’s just retarded, I’m sorry. There isnt proof. It’s a media game he is playing. One he set up before the election even happened. How can you be so gullible
Read the news, goofy! The Supreme Court refused to hear the cases.

Even the minority dissenters on the SCOTUS were perplexed that Roberts and the majority refused to hear the cases.




The evidence must be presented to the courts by lawyers after the courts agree TO HEAR THE CASES IN THE COURTROOM. They do not make decisions based of what the media claims or what the litigants say outside of the courtroom. You are a naive, uneducated, dumbass twit.


Do a little research before you attempt to appear knowledgeable. You don't know jack shit about how the courts work.
The cases were dismissed because they didn’t have merit. They didn’t have merit because they didn’t have evidence or legal standing to back them up.. It’s pretty simple. Evidence isn’t only presented in court it is proven in court. Trumps BS claims couldn’t even get through the front door because they were baseless
Try again, Clarence! You're full of shit.
Not full of shit. Just stating the obvious. Do you have a better counter argument than “try again”?
Not for you. You fail repeatedly.
Sorry buddy but if your counter argument is only “try again” then you’ve lost the debate. Butter luck next time
The only fact exposed in your post is that you don't know the difference between better and butter.

Try again, Clarence!:ahole-1:
Wrong again, I said the cases were dismissed because they didn't have merit. This isn't me making shit up it is me quoting what dozens of judges said. Lets just leave it at that as you seem to get overwhelmed when I make multiple points and then forget that I made any. So do you got anything more than "Thats it" ??
SCOTUS dismissed cases for lack of standing, not lack of merit. Determination of lack of merit by the judge (or justices) of the court (not by some outside judge's media driven opinion) require that the case be heard IN COURT. Several of them were denied a hearing for lack of standing, not lack of merit.
Several judges literally said the cases lacked merit. Here is an example...

I repeat. It makes no difference what several judges may say based on the public knowledge of a case. Lack of merit must be determine BY THE JUDGE THAT HEARS THE CASE IN COURT. If the court refuses to even hear a case, the court cannot dismiss it for lack of merit.
The public knowledge?! You mean what the public hears in the media?! Where as in court legit evidence and cases need to be presented. You are joking right?
Cool. Then call for a day in Court.
Allow witnesses to be heard. Let CCTV be shown. Subpoena those people with boxes under the table. Allow a full audit.
There was a full audit and investigations by Republican elections officials. This happened in multiple states. There were not hidden crates. That’s a lie. Your claims fall apart when scrutinized because they are based on lies. That’s why they all crumbled in court
 

Slade3200

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
40,201
Reaction score
6,547
Points
1,840
You're claiming that you're more credible than the FBI and calling me silly. LoL
Millions of people are more credible than the FBI.
Can you point to one case that you think could have proved massive fraud that was dismissed? Let’s look at it and why it was dismissed. Be specific
I, like the courts, have not seen the evidence. Therefore I am just as ignorant as the judges and you are. You haven't seen the evidence either.
You're flailing. I'll take the FBI's word over yours.
Then it could be you that is the fool.
You lose.
No. You lose!
You think I'm lying when I say that the FBI is more credible than you.
You very well could be. The FBI has lied and withheld information to get the results they want or to cover up things they don't want exposed.

You are naive to accept everything the FBI says as the gospel truth. Jim Comey is a lying son-of-a-bitch also. So is John Brennan. So is James Clapper.

Being high up in the intelligence community or the DoJ does not conflate to being honest.

Our government is replete with liars.
The president has the biggest megaphone in the world, he has appointed more judges than any modern president, he has the SCOTUS heavily in his side and you honestly think he couldn’t get proof out there?! That’s just retarded, I’m sorry. There isnt proof. It’s a media game he is playing. One he set up before the election even happened. How can you be so gullible
Read the news, goofy! The Supreme Court refused to hear the cases.

Even the minority dissenters on the SCOTUS were perplexed that Roberts and the majority refused to hear the cases.




The evidence must be presented to the courts by lawyers after the courts agree TO HEAR THE CASES IN THE COURTROOM. They do not make decisions based of what the media claims or what the litigants say outside of the courtroom. You are a naive, uneducated, dumbass twit.


Do a little research before you attempt to appear knowledgeable. You don't know jack shit about how the courts work.
The cases were dismissed because they didn’t have merit. They didn’t have merit because they didn’t have evidence or legal standing to back them up.. It’s pretty simple. Evidence isn’t only presented in court it is proven in court. Trumps BS claims couldn’t even get through the front door because they were baseless
Try again, Clarence! You're full of shit.
Not full of shit. Just stating the obvious. Do you have a better counter argument than “try again”?
Not for you. You fail repeatedly.
Sorry buddy but if your counter argument is only “try again” then you’ve lost the debate. Butter luck next time
The only fact exposed in your post is that you don't know the difference between better and butter.

Try again, Clarence!:ahole-1:
Wrong again, I said the cases were dismissed because they didn't have merit. This isn't me making shit up it is me quoting what dozens of judges said. Lets just leave it at that as you seem to get overwhelmed when I make multiple points and then forget that I made any. So do you got anything more than "Thats it" ??
SCOTUS dismissed cases for lack of standing, not lack of merit. Determination of lack of merit by the judge (or justices) of the court (not by some outside judge's media driven opinion) require that the case be heard IN COURT. Several of them were denied a hearing for lack of standing, not lack of merit.
Several judges literally said the cases lacked merit. Here is an example...

I repeat. It makes no difference what several judges may say based on the public knowledge of a case. Lack of merit must be determine BY THE JUDGE THAT HEARS THE CASE IN COURT. If the court refuses to even hear a case, the court cannot dismiss it for lack of merit.
The public knowledge?! You mean what the public hears in the media?! Where as in court legit evidence and cases need to be presented. You are joking right?
No. In order to be dismissed in court for lack of merit (essentially lack of sufficient evidence), the case must be heard (presented to the court). I have agreed that the particular case linked was indeed heard in a lower court and dismissed for lack of merit. The cases I linked that were sent to the SCOTUS were NOT heard by the SCOTUS because the court refused to hear them. They were NOT dismissed for lack of merit because the majority of the justices REFUSED TO HEAR THE CASES. They could not dismiss them for lack of merit without first HEARING THE EVIDENCE AS PRESENTED IN COURT DURING THE TRIAL. There was no trial.

SCOTUS does not make rulings based upon the opinions of the public or the media. The justices base their decisions on EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO THEM IN A TRIAL. Refusing to hear a case based on lack of standing or any other technicality precludes them from officially seeing evidence.

That you cannot understand this is not surprising to me.

Here is one definition regarding merit: (emphasis is mine)
Merit in the legal context, refers to a claim which has a valid basis, setting forth sufficient facts from which the court could find a valid claim of deprivation of a legal right. Therefore, a merit hearing is one in which one side presents to the judge the facts which support their side of a case or ruling. Conversely, the other side will attempt to prove that the proponent's case has NO merit.
If the court refuses to hear the case, the purported facts cannot be presented to the judge. Therefore there can be no ruling of lack of merit.
I don’t know what you are going on about... some cases were dismissed because they lacked merit, others were dismissed for lack of standing. Either way Trumps team could not present a valid case. Why is that complicated? Why do you think there is a substantial case when dozens of Republican trump appointed judges who have spent a lifetime studying and understanding the law disagree with you? What magic insight do you think you have??
 

asaratis

Uppity Senior Citizen
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2009
Messages
16,300
Reaction score
4,989
Points
350
Location
Stockbridge
I don’t know what you are going on about... some cases were dismissed because they lacked merit, others were dismissed for lack of standing. Either way Trumps team could not present a valid case. Why is that complicated? Why do you think there is a substantial case when dozens of Republican trump appointed judges who have spent a lifetime studying and understanding the law disagree with you? What magic insight do you think you have??
I have no magic insight and have not claimed such. I am speaking directly to the SCOTUS refusal to hear certain cases.

Did you bother to read Justice Clarence Thomas' minority dissenting opinion of the SCOTUS' refusal to hear the election fraud lawsuits?

Take your pick! As is normally the case, news articles such as this are repetitive since they are all reporting the same story. The gist of the story and the quotes attributed to the Justices should be the same in each link even though some may offer more quotes and different reporter comments. There are several more that I did not link, but I wanted reduce the opportunity for rejection based solely on the source.










 

Slade3200

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
40,201
Reaction score
6,547
Points
1,840
I don’t know what you are going on about... some cases were dismissed because they lacked merit, others were dismissed for lack of standing. Either way Trumps team could not present a valid case. Why is that complicated? Why do you think there is a substantial case when dozens of Republican trump appointed judges who have spent a lifetime studying and understanding the law disagree with you? What magic insight do you think you have??
I have no magic insight and have not claimed such. I am speaking directly to the SCOTUS refusal to hear certain cases.

Did you bother to read Justice Clarence Thomas' minority dissenting opinion of the SCOTUS' refusal to hear the election fraud lawsuits?

Take your pick! As is normally the case, news articles such as this are repetitive since they are all reporting the same story. The gist of the story and the quotes attributed to the Justices should be the same in each link even though some may offer more quotes and different reporter comments. There are several more that I did not link, but I wanted reduce the opportunity for rejection based solely on the source.










You're going to have to ask each justice why they decided not to hear the case. Perhaps it’s because there were so many over politicized lies and an obvious effort to overturn the results of a legitimate election by the losing president which presented a clear threat to our democracy. That could have played a small part.

This case that was before SCOTUS wasn’t even about fraud, it was about a state legislatures ability to extend deadlines for mail in ballots. Nothing to do with fake votes or rigged results.
 
OP
JimH52

JimH52

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
33,053
Reaction score
7,876
Points
1,170
Location
US
You're claiming that you're more credible than the FBI and calling me silly. LoL
Millions of people are more credible than the FBI.
Can you point to one case that you think could have proved massive fraud that was dismissed? Let’s look at it and why it was dismissed. Be specific
I, like the courts, have not seen the evidence. Therefore I am just as ignorant as the judges and you are. You haven't seen the evidence either.
You're flailing. I'll take the FBI's word over yours.
Then it could be you that is the fool.
You lose.
No. You lose!
You think I'm lying when I say that the FBI is more credible than you.
You very well could be. The FBI has lied and withheld information to get the results they want or to cover up things they don't want exposed.

You are naive to accept everything the FBI says as the gospel truth. Jim Comey is a lying son-of-a-bitch also. So is John Brennan. So is James Clapper.

Being high up in the intelligence community or the DoJ does not conflate to being honest.

Our government is replete with liars.
The president has the biggest megaphone in the world, he has appointed more judges than any modern president, he has the SCOTUS heavily in his side and you honestly think he couldn’t get proof out there?! That’s just retarded, I’m sorry. There isnt proof. It’s a media game he is playing. One he set up before the election even happened. How can you be so gullible
Read the news, goofy! The Supreme Court refused to hear the cases.

Even the minority dissenters on the SCOTUS were perplexed that Roberts and the majority refused to hear the cases.




The evidence must be presented to the courts by lawyers after the courts agree TO HEAR THE CASES IN THE COURTROOM. They do not make decisions based of what the media claims or what the litigants say outside of the courtroom. You are a naive, uneducated, dumbass twit.


Do a little research before you attempt to appear knowledgeable. You don't know jack shit about how the courts work.
The cases were dismissed because they didn’t have merit. They didn’t have merit because they didn’t have evidence or legal standing to back them up.. It’s pretty simple. Evidence isn’t only presented in court it is proven in court. Trumps BS claims couldn’t even get through the front door because they were baseless
Try again, Clarence! You're full of shit.
Not full of shit. Just stating the obvious. Do you have a better counter argument than “try again”?
Not for you. You fail repeatedly.
Sorry buddy but if your counter argument is only “try again” then you’ve lost the debate. Butter luck next time
The only fact exposed in your post is that you don't know the difference between better and butter.

Try again, Clarence!:ahole-1:
Wrong again, I said the cases were dismissed because they didn't have merit. This isn't me making shit up it is me quoting what dozens of judges said. Lets just leave it at that as you seem to get overwhelmed when I make multiple points and then forget that I made any. So do you got anything more than "Thats it" ??
SCOTUS dismissed cases for lack of standing, not lack of merit. Determination of lack of merit by the judge (or justices) of the court (not by some outside judge's media driven opinion) require that the case be heard IN COURT. Several of them were denied a hearing for lack of standing, not lack of merit.
Several judges literally said the cases lacked merit. Here is an example...

I repeat. It makes no difference what several judges may say based on the public knowledge of a case. Lack of merit must be determine BY THE JUDGE THAT HEARS THE CASE IN COURT. If the court refuses to even hear a case, the court cannot dismiss it for lack of merit.
The public knowledge?! You mean what the public hears in the medou frigin
Cool. Then call for a day in Court.
Allow witnesses to be heard. Let CCTV be shown. Subpoena those people with boxes under the table. Allow a full audit.
You frigin people just cannot let the lies and conspiracy theories go....can you? You realize that repeating the same lie over and over is making you look really stupid?
 
OP
JimH52

JimH52

Platinum Member
Joined
Oct 14, 2007
Messages
33,053
Reaction score
7,876
Points
1,170
Location
US
I don’t know what you are going on about... some cases were dismissed because they lacked merit, others were dismissed for lack of standing. Either way Trumps team could not present a valid case. Why is that complicated? Why do you think there is a substantial case when dozens of Republican trump appointed judges who have spent a lifetime studying and understanding the law disagree with you? What magic insight do you think you have??
I have no magic insight and have not claimed such. I am speaking directly to the SCOTUS refusal to hear certain cases.

Did you bother to read Justice Clarence Thomas' minority dissenting opinion of the SCOTUS' refusal to hear the election fraud lawsuits?

Take your pick! As is normally the case, news articles such as this are repetitive since they are all reporting the same story. The gist of the story and the quotes attributed to the Justices should be the same in each link even though some may offer more quotes and different reporter comments. There are several more that I did not link, but I wanted reduce the opportunity for rejection based solely on the source.










AND YOU STILL LOSE!
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
75,290
Reaction score
17,193
Points
2,220
I addressed Trump's one riot.
Thanks for the admission that it WAS "Trump's riot".

And we see the threat you're making about another

Trump called for a demonstration of his supporters and it turned into a riot. I think calling it Trump's riot is reasonable.

My warning about your side's increasing tyranny and bullying leading to more violence, stands.

Do you want a civil war or not? my warnings were made under the assumption that most of you do not want an actual, literal war.


But perhaps I was wrong about that.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
75,290
Reaction score
17,193
Points
2,220
If my country had a fraudulent election to the scale of November 2020, and the Nation's Intel agencyy refused to investigate, and the media ignored it, and people who peacefull protested were censored and attacked....
I'd see it as a coup and would probably be attacking my Parliament as well
Exactly, it was foreseeable, which makes Trump and his puppets lies about the election fraud so much worse. It wasn't political hyperbole, it was incitement to violence which is what it lead to. He made false claims many of which can be directly disproven and the others he was never able to verify, yet he keeps saying them, his idiot followers believe them, and the nutters are acting on them.

I did not see it coming. Generally conservatives are pretty mild. I expected the demonstration to just stand there and make some noise and be forgotten.


I was surprised when the riot broke out.
I wasn't... I literally called my family while Trump was giving his speech and told them to tune in because shit was about to go down. I told them Trump just threw Pence under the bus and there is a mob of angry people that are about to go mess things up. It was clear and obvious what Trump was doing and what was about to happen. If you couldn't see that then you have blinders on. But you support Trump so I guess the blinders are a given

My expectation of a peaceful demonstration was based on decades of observation of demonstration conservatives who, even when pissed off, almost always obeyed the law and demonstrated peacefully and then went home.


What was yours based on?
Mine was based on common sense. You can’t use historical precedent when you have a president that breaks all the norms. My observations were correct. I called my family before the riot to tell them there was about to be a riot. How did I know?! Because it was obvious. The real question you should be asking yourself is why you were surprised and why you couldn’t see it coming when it was so easy to see what Trump was doing.

Trump did not break all the norms.

His style was odd. He was disagreeable and vulgar. But his policies and actions were measured and restrained.

So, you were right, but for the wrong reasons. That happens. Like the way I was initially attracted to my wife because of her, well, never mind.
I was right for the right reasons. Because I can see the effects that a con man has on his followers. The question is why couldn’t you see it coming?

I asked what you based your conclusion on, and the reasons you gave were not true.


THus, you were right for the wrong reasons.


Hey, better than being wrong for the right reasons.


YOur spin is dismissed.
Well this is coming from somebody who was wrong and blindsided so perhaps what you think im wrong about isn’t really wrong.

No one is prefect. Being wrong once does not mean that my judgement is valueless.

YOur stated reasons were not true. Thus you were right for the wrong reasons.
My stated reasons weren’t true yet I was right. So I must have seen something that you didn’t see. Your Perceived reality was wrong and left you blindsided. That should tell you something

People can be right though blind stupid luck. You have to know that. So your pretense that being right is proof of being more perceptive, is you lying.


If I found that I was consistently wrong, then your point that I should reexamine my perceptions would be correct.


BUt so far, this was a one off.
What do you think I lied about. What I observed was obvious and predictable... yet it surprised you. Gee, let’s think about that for a sec
People can be right though blind stupid luck. You have to know that. So your pretense that being right is proof of being more perceptive, is you lying.
You admitted that you were surprised at the riot. I said it was obvious and easy to see coming. I’m not lying about that, If you think I’m lying then why don’t you tell me what really happened. What am I getting wrong?

I fully explained what you were lying about. YOur pretense of confusion is you lying again.

Your need to avoid being honest about what I say, how can that not be a red flag for you?
Wow, that was a lot of words for a non answer. What a waste of space. Want to try again?

Nope. Your tactic of pretending to misunderstand a clear statement to then ask stupid questions, is an odd game, but one I am willing to play.


Pretend to be too retarded to understand a simple sentence again, and I will call you on your lying again.


I'm not sure of the point, but I am sure that I am kidding your ass.
Where in that statement was a clear sentence stating what the hell you’re talking about?! Nowhere!!! If you’ve been so clear then just copy and paste it. I honestly have no clue what you’re talking about. I think you got schooled and are just trying to confuse things to distract from the fact you lack a solid argument.

I don't believe that you are so retarded that you did not understand it initially.

I am willing to consider that you might be stupid enough to have forgotten since it has been several posts so here it is again.



People can be right though blind stupid luck. You have to know that. So your pretense that being right is proof of being more perceptive, is you lying.
Oh ok, well I agree that people can be correct through luck. I don’t think that’s the case here, I just think I was more perceptive because what Trump was doing had a painfully obvious effect which I could see coming from a mile away.... you on the other hand were cause blindsided so you obviously didn’t see it.

now you are able to look at things in hindsight. If you think what I’ve said was wrong then state why... see this is how normal debate works. It shouldn’t take pages and me explaining it like to a third grader.

I already explained my reasoning. DECADES of watching conservatives protest, even angry, but obeying the law and being peaceful.

THe violence and destruction has almost solely been on the left..


So, this change up was a surprise.

IN HINDSIGHT. it is less surprising considering the normalization of violence by five years of riots by antifa and blm.
Ok but after the surprise wore off what did you see what caused the change?

Sure. THe years of political violence from your side that made it the new norm.
Haha, this is the best one yet. So since the left is violent it inspired the right to be violent? You really want to go with that? Has the lefts push for big government also inspired the right to support big government? Your arguments are getting dumber and dumber.

Violence begets violence. You put in out there into our society, and especially with it not being given the negative feedback it used to get, and it normalizes that behavior.


That is my point. I made it very clear. YOu don't need to restate it using your own words. (and thus adding your own spin, dishonestly).


ADDRESS MY POINT OR DON'T POST.
Your point is absolute bullshit. There has been violence from the right wing forever just as there has been from the left wing. At trump rallies in 2016 he had supporter punching protesters in the face, he encouraged it......

there I directly addressed your point. Now you address mine. Don’t distract

Punching a HECKLER, is a pretty minor example to lead off with, considering the 5 years of riots from your side. Charlettosville was the FAR right, not conservatives.


Violence begets violence. You put in out there into our society, and especially with it not being given the negative feedback it used to get, and it normalizes that behavior.


That is my point.
Haha, ok so my examples just don’t count. I could give more but I guess those wouldn’t count either. Why do I bother. You’re hopeless.

I can play that game though... the summer riots were just the FAR Left not liberals. So they don’t count either. How’s that for ya?

not bad. The actual rioters, imo, were far left.


The support they got from elected dem officials, that were not denounced by the dem party as a whole, though that is more troubling.
Ahhh right, you’re probably stuck in the right wing media bubble. Here is the leader of the Dems condemning violence... Fact check: Joe Biden has condemned protest-related violence all summer

Interesting. I clearly was discussing not the violence, but the support of the violence by dem mayors.

DId Biden ever denounce the mayors that ordered the cops to stand down so that rioters could riot, loot and kill?
Which mayor? Can you give me a name?

Ted Wheeler is the most obvious.
This guy? Do you wanna try somebody else?


lol, you really do love those empty words, don't you?




By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Sunday, October 14, 2018


"Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler came under fire over a viral video showing antifa protesters blocking traffic and harassing drivers, but he says he supports the decision by police to watch from a distance without getting involved.
“I was appalled by what I saw in the video, but I support the Portland Police Bureau’s decision not to intervene,” he said at a press conference. “This whole incident will be investigated.”
The video posted by journalist Andy C. Ngo showed protesters, including members of antifa and Black Lives Matter, blocking an intersection and attempting to direct traffic at while officers on motorcycle watched from a block away.



At one point, the activists chased down 74-year-old Kent Houser after he made a right turn against their wishes, pounding on his silver Lexus and breaking a window. The car sustained thousands of dollars in damage, he told the Oregonian.

Even so, Mr. Wheeler insisted that “motorists should feel completely safe coming into downtown Portland.”

Demonstrators did not obtain a permit before holding the Oct. 6 march...

The mayor has been accused of taking a kid-gloved approach to the protests that routinely roil the liberal enclave, such as the summer occupation of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building, which saw Portland police refuse to assist the immigration-enforcement officers unless they were in physical danger."
Empty words? Not really... your critique is that he stood by the decision of his police chief and that somehow is supposed to prove what exactly?? You said the Mayors never spoke out against the violence. I showed otherwise.

Police chiefs don't set policy, they follow it. That the mayor shifted teh blame for his policies onto his police chief is him being a democrat, nothing more.


The police stood by while the rioters rioted. and people were assaulted.


That the mayor was too much of a democrat to admit that he ordered that, is to be expected.
 

Slade3200

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2016
Messages
40,201
Reaction score
6,547
Points
1,840
If my country had a fraudulent election to the scale of November 2020, and the Nation's Intel agencyy refused to investigate, and the media ignored it, and people who peacefull protested were censored and attacked....
I'd see it as a coup and would probably be attacking my Parliament as well
Exactly, it was foreseeable, which makes Trump and his puppets lies about the election fraud so much worse. It wasn't political hyperbole, it was incitement to violence which is what it lead to. He made false claims many of which can be directly disproven and the others he was never able to verify, yet he keeps saying them, his idiot followers believe them, and the nutters are acting on them.

I did not see it coming. Generally conservatives are pretty mild. I expected the demonstration to just stand there and make some noise and be forgotten.


I was surprised when the riot broke out.
I wasn't... I literally called my family while Trump was giving his speech and told them to tune in because shit was about to go down. I told them Trump just threw Pence under the bus and there is a mob of angry people that are about to go mess things up. It was clear and obvious what Trump was doing and what was about to happen. If you couldn't see that then you have blinders on. But you support Trump so I guess the blinders are a given

My expectation of a peaceful demonstration was based on decades of observation of demonstration conservatives who, even when pissed off, almost always obeyed the law and demonstrated peacefully and then went home.


What was yours based on?
Mine was based on common sense. You can’t use historical precedent when you have a president that breaks all the norms. My observations were correct. I called my family before the riot to tell them there was about to be a riot. How did I know?! Because it was obvious. The real question you should be asking yourself is why you were surprised and why you couldn’t see it coming when it was so easy to see what Trump was doing.

Trump did not break all the norms.

His style was odd. He was disagreeable and vulgar. But his policies and actions were measured and restrained.

So, you were right, but for the wrong reasons. That happens. Like the way I was initially attracted to my wife because of her, well, never mind.
I was right for the right reasons. Because I can see the effects that a con man has on his followers. The question is why couldn’t you see it coming?

I asked what you based your conclusion on, and the reasons you gave were not true.


THus, you were right for the wrong reasons.


Hey, better than being wrong for the right reasons.


YOur spin is dismissed.
Well this is coming from somebody who was wrong and blindsided so perhaps what you think im wrong about isn’t really wrong.

No one is prefect. Being wrong once does not mean that my judgement is valueless.

YOur stated reasons were not true. Thus you were right for the wrong reasons.
My stated reasons weren’t true yet I was right. So I must have seen something that you didn’t see. Your Perceived reality was wrong and left you blindsided. That should tell you something

People can be right though blind stupid luck. You have to know that. So your pretense that being right is proof of being more perceptive, is you lying.


If I found that I was consistently wrong, then your point that I should reexamine my perceptions would be correct.


BUt so far, this was a one off.
What do you think I lied about. What I observed was obvious and predictable... yet it surprised you. Gee, let’s think about that for a sec
People can be right though blind stupid luck. You have to know that. So your pretense that being right is proof of being more perceptive, is you lying.
You admitted that you were surprised at the riot. I said it was obvious and easy to see coming. I’m not lying about that, If you think I’m lying then why don’t you tell me what really happened. What am I getting wrong?

I fully explained what you were lying about. YOur pretense of confusion is you lying again.

Your need to avoid being honest about what I say, how can that not be a red flag for you?
Wow, that was a lot of words for a non answer. What a waste of space. Want to try again?

Nope. Your tactic of pretending to misunderstand a clear statement to then ask stupid questions, is an odd game, but one I am willing to play.


Pretend to be too retarded to understand a simple sentence again, and I will call you on your lying again.


I'm not sure of the point, but I am sure that I am kidding your ass.
Where in that statement was a clear sentence stating what the hell you’re talking about?! Nowhere!!! If you’ve been so clear then just copy and paste it. I honestly have no clue what you’re talking about. I think you got schooled and are just trying to confuse things to distract from the fact you lack a solid argument.

I don't believe that you are so retarded that you did not understand it initially.

I am willing to consider that you might be stupid enough to have forgotten since it has been several posts so here it is again.



People can be right though blind stupid luck. You have to know that. So your pretense that being right is proof of being more perceptive, is you lying.
Oh ok, well I agree that people can be correct through luck. I don’t think that’s the case here, I just think I was more perceptive because what Trump was doing had a painfully obvious effect which I could see coming from a mile away.... you on the other hand were cause blindsided so you obviously didn’t see it.

now you are able to look at things in hindsight. If you think what I’ve said was wrong then state why... see this is how normal debate works. It shouldn’t take pages and me explaining it like to a third grader.

I already explained my reasoning. DECADES of watching conservatives protest, even angry, but obeying the law and being peaceful.

THe violence and destruction has almost solely been on the left..


So, this change up was a surprise.

IN HINDSIGHT. it is less surprising considering the normalization of violence by five years of riots by antifa and blm.
Ok but after the surprise wore off what did you see what caused the change?

Sure. THe years of political violence from your side that made it the new norm.
Haha, this is the best one yet. So since the left is violent it inspired the right to be violent? You really want to go with that? Has the lefts push for big government also inspired the right to support big government? Your arguments are getting dumber and dumber.

Violence begets violence. You put in out there into our society, and especially with it not being given the negative feedback it used to get, and it normalizes that behavior.


That is my point. I made it very clear. YOu don't need to restate it using your own words. (and thus adding your own spin, dishonestly).


ADDRESS MY POINT OR DON'T POST.
Your point is absolute bullshit. There has been violence from the right wing forever just as there has been from the left wing. At trump rallies in 2016 he had supporter punching protesters in the face, he encouraged it......

there I directly addressed your point. Now you address mine. Don’t distract

Punching a HECKLER, is a pretty minor example to lead off with, considering the 5 years of riots from your side. Charlettosville was the FAR right, not conservatives.


Violence begets violence. You put in out there into our society, and especially with it not being given the negative feedback it used to get, and it normalizes that behavior.


That is my point.
Haha, ok so my examples just don’t count. I could give more but I guess those wouldn’t count either. Why do I bother. You’re hopeless.

I can play that game though... the summer riots were just the FAR Left not liberals. So they don’t count either. How’s that for ya?

not bad. The actual rioters, imo, were far left.


The support they got from elected dem officials, that were not denounced by the dem party as a whole, though that is more troubling.
Ahhh right, you’re probably stuck in the right wing media bubble. Here is the leader of the Dems condemning violence... Fact check: Joe Biden has condemned protest-related violence all summer

Interesting. I clearly was discussing not the violence, but the support of the violence by dem mayors.

DId Biden ever denounce the mayors that ordered the cops to stand down so that rioters could riot, loot and kill?
Which mayor? Can you give me a name?

Ted Wheeler is the most obvious.
This guy? Do you wanna try somebody else?


lol, you really do love those empty words, don't you?




By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Sunday, October 14, 2018


"Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler came under fire over a viral video showing antifa protesters blocking traffic and harassing drivers, but he says he supports the decision by police to watch from a distance without getting involved.
“I was appalled by what I saw in the video, but I support the Portland Police Bureau’s decision not to intervene,” he said at a press conference. “This whole incident will be investigated.”
The video posted by journalist Andy C. Ngo showed protesters, including members of antifa and Black Lives Matter, blocking an intersection and attempting to direct traffic at while officers on motorcycle watched from a block away.



At one point, the activists chased down 74-year-old Kent Houser after he made a right turn against their wishes, pounding on his silver Lexus and breaking a window. The car sustained thousands of dollars in damage, he told the Oregonian.

Even so, Mr. Wheeler insisted that “motorists should feel completely safe coming into downtown Portland.”

Demonstrators did not obtain a permit before holding the Oct. 6 march...

The mayor has been accused of taking a kid-gloved approach to the protests that routinely roil the liberal enclave, such as the summer occupation of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building, which saw Portland police refuse to assist the immigration-enforcement officers unless they were in physical danger."
Empty words? Not really... your critique is that he stood by the decision of his police chief and that somehow is supposed to prove what exactly?? You said the Mayors never spoke out against the violence. I showed otherwise.

Police chiefs don't set policy, they follow it. That the mayor shifted teh blame for his policies onto his police chief is him being a democrat, nothing more.


The police stood by while the rioters rioted. and people were assaulted.


That the mayor was too much of a democrat to admit that he ordered that, is to be expected.
My bad I must have missed the policy or order that the mayor gave to the police chief. Can you post a link, I can’t find info on that .
 

Foreigner Looking In.

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 10, 2021
Messages
2,788
Reaction score
3,821
Points
1,893
You're claiming that you're more credible than the FBI and calling me silly. LoL
Millions of people are more credible than the FBI.
Can you point to one case that you think could have proved massive fraud that was dismissed? Let’s look at it and why it was dismissed. Be specific
I, like the courts, have not seen the evidence. Therefore I am just as ignorant as the judges and you are. You haven't seen the evidence either.
You're flailing. I'll take the FBI's word over yours.
Then it could be you that is the fool.
You lose.
No. You lose!
You think I'm lying when I say that the FBI is more credible than you.
You very well could be. The FBI has lied and withheld information to get the results they want or to cover up things they don't want exposed.

You are naive to accept everything the FBI says as the gospel truth. Jim Comey is a lying son-of-a-bitch also. So is John Brennan. So is James Clapper.

Being high up in the intelligence community or the DoJ does not conflate to being honest.

Our government is replete with liars.
The president has the biggest megaphone in the world, he has appointed more judges than any modern president, he has the SCOTUS heavily in his side and you honestly think he couldn’t get proof out there?! That’s just retarded, I’m sorry. There isnt proof. It’s a media game he is playing. One he set up before the election even happened. How can you be so gullible
Read the news, goofy! The Supreme Court refused to hear the cases.

Even the minority dissenters on the SCOTUS were perplexed that Roberts and the majority refused to hear the cases.




The evidence must be presented to the courts by lawyers after the courts agree TO HEAR THE CASES IN THE COURTROOM. They do not make decisions based of what the media claims or what the litigants say outside of the courtroom. You are a naive, uneducated, dumbass twit.


Do a little research before you attempt to appear knowledgeable. You don't know jack shit about how the courts work.
The cases were dismissed because they didn’t have merit. They didn’t have merit because they didn’t have evidence or legal standing to back them up.. It’s pretty simple. Evidence isn’t only presented in court it is proven in court. Trumps BS claims couldn’t even get through the front door because they were baseless
Try again, Clarence! You're full of shit.
Not full of shit. Just stating the obvious. Do you have a better counter argument than “try again”?
Not for you. You fail repeatedly.
Sorry buddy but if your counter argument is only “try again” then you’ve lost the debate. Butter luck next time
The only fact exposed in your post is that you don't know the difference between better and butter.

Try again, Clarence!:ahole-1:
Wrong again, I said the cases were dismissed because they didn't have merit. This isn't me making shit up it is me quoting what dozens of judges said. Lets just leave it at that as you seem to get overwhelmed when I make multiple points and then forget that I made any. So do you got anything more than "Thats it" ??
SCOTUS dismissed cases for lack of standing, not lack of merit. Determination of lack of merit by the judge (or justices) of the court (not by some outside judge's media driven opinion) require that the case be heard IN COURT. Several of them were denied a hearing for lack of standing, not lack of merit.
Several judges literally said the cases lacked merit. Here is an example...

I repeat. It makes no difference what several judges may say based on the public knowledge of a case. Lack of merit must be determine BY THE JUDGE THAT HEARS THE CASE IN COURT. If the court refuses to even hear a case, the court cannot dismiss it for lack of merit.
The public knowledge?! You mean what the public hears in the medou frigin
Cool. Then call for a day in Court.
Allow witnesses to be heard. Let CCTV be shown. Subpoena those people with boxes under the table. Allow a full audit.
You frigin people just cannot let the lies and conspiracy theories go....can you? You realize that repeating the same lie over and over is making you look really stupid?
Point out the lie.
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
75,290
Reaction score
17,193
Points
2,220
If my country had a fraudulent election to the scale of November 2020, and the Nation's Intel agencyy refused to investigate, and the media ignored it, and people who peacefull protested were censored and attacked....
I'd see it as a coup and would probably be attacking my Parliament as well
Exactly, it was foreseeable, which makes Trump and his puppets lies about the election fraud so much worse. It wasn't political hyperbole, it was incitement to violence which is what it lead to. He made false claims many of which can be directly disproven and the others he was never able to verify, yet he keeps saying them, his idiot followers believe them, and the nutters are acting on them.

I did not see it coming. Generally conservatives are pretty mild. I expected the demonstration to just stand there and make some noise and be forgotten.


I was surprised when the riot broke out.
I wasn't... I literally called my family while Trump was giving his speech and told them to tune in because shit was about to go down. I told them Trump just threw Pence under the bus and there is a mob of angry people that are about to go mess things up. It was clear and obvious what Trump was doing and what was about to happen. If you couldn't see that then you have blinders on. But you support Trump so I guess the blinders are a given

My expectation of a peaceful demonstration was based on decades of observation of demonstration conservatives who, even when pissed off, almost always obeyed the law and demonstrated peacefully and then went home.


What was yours based on?
Mine was based on common sense. You can’t use historical precedent when you have a president that breaks all the norms. My observations were correct. I called my family before the riot to tell them there was about to be a riot. How did I know?! Because it was obvious. The real question you should be asking yourself is why you were surprised and why you couldn’t see it coming when it was so easy to see what Trump was doing.

Trump did not break all the norms.

His style was odd. He was disagreeable and vulgar. But his policies and actions were measured and restrained.

So, you were right, but for the wrong reasons. That happens. Like the way I was initially attracted to my wife because of her, well, never mind.
I was right for the right reasons. Because I can see the effects that a con man has on his followers. The question is why couldn’t you see it coming?

I asked what you based your conclusion on, and the reasons you gave were not true.


THus, you were right for the wrong reasons.


Hey, better than being wrong for the right reasons.


YOur spin is dismissed.
Well this is coming from somebody who was wrong and blindsided so perhaps what you think im wrong about isn’t really wrong.

No one is prefect. Being wrong once does not mean that my judgement is valueless.

YOur stated reasons were not true. Thus you were right for the wrong reasons.
My stated reasons weren’t true yet I was right. So I must have seen something that you didn’t see. Your Perceived reality was wrong and left you blindsided. That should tell you something

People can be right though blind stupid luck. You have to know that. So your pretense that being right is proof of being more perceptive, is you lying.


If I found that I was consistently wrong, then your point that I should reexamine my perceptions would be correct.


BUt so far, this was a one off.
What do you think I lied about. What I observed was obvious and predictable... yet it surprised you. Gee, let’s think about that for a sec
People can be right though blind stupid luck. You have to know that. So your pretense that being right is proof of being more perceptive, is you lying.
You admitted that you were surprised at the riot. I said it was obvious and easy to see coming. I’m not lying about that, If you think I’m lying then why don’t you tell me what really happened. What am I getting wrong?

I fully explained what you were lying about. YOur pretense of confusion is you lying again.

Your need to avoid being honest about what I say, how can that not be a red flag for you?
Wow, that was a lot of words for a non answer. What a waste of space. Want to try again?

Nope. Your tactic of pretending to misunderstand a clear statement to then ask stupid questions, is an odd game, but one I am willing to play.


Pretend to be too retarded to understand a simple sentence again, and I will call you on your lying again.


I'm not sure of the point, but I am sure that I am kidding your ass.
Where in that statement was a clear sentence stating what the hell you’re talking about?! Nowhere!!! If you’ve been so clear then just copy and paste it. I honestly have no clue what you’re talking about. I think you got schooled and are just trying to confuse things to distract from the fact you lack a solid argument.

I don't believe that you are so retarded that you did not understand it initially.

I am willing to consider that you might be stupid enough to have forgotten since it has been several posts so here it is again.



People can be right though blind stupid luck. You have to know that. So your pretense that being right is proof of being more perceptive, is you lying.
Oh ok, well I agree that people can be correct through luck. I don’t think that’s the case here, I just think I was more perceptive because what Trump was doing had a painfully obvious effect which I could see coming from a mile away.... you on the other hand were cause blindsided so you obviously didn’t see it.

now you are able to look at things in hindsight. If you think what I’ve said was wrong then state why... see this is how normal debate works. It shouldn’t take pages and me explaining it like to a third grader.

I already explained my reasoning. DECADES of watching conservatives protest, even angry, but obeying the law and being peaceful.

THe violence and destruction has almost solely been on the left..


So, this change up was a surprise.

IN HINDSIGHT. it is less surprising considering the normalization of violence by five years of riots by antifa and blm.
Ok but after the surprise wore off what did you see what caused the change?

Sure. THe years of political violence from your side that made it the new norm.
Haha, this is the best one yet. So since the left is violent it inspired the right to be violent? You really want to go with that? Has the lefts push for big government also inspired the right to support big government? Your arguments are getting dumber and dumber.

Violence begets violence. You put in out there into our society, and especially with it not being given the negative feedback it used to get, and it normalizes that behavior.


That is my point. I made it very clear. YOu don't need to restate it using your own words. (and thus adding your own spin, dishonestly).


ADDRESS MY POINT OR DON'T POST.
Your point is absolute bullshit. There has been violence from the right wing forever just as there has been from the left wing. At trump rallies in 2016 he had supporter punching protesters in the face, he encouraged it......

there I directly addressed your point. Now you address mine. Don’t distract

Punching a HECKLER, is a pretty minor example to lead off with, considering the 5 years of riots from your side. Charlettosville was the FAR right, not conservatives.


Violence begets violence. You put in out there into our society, and especially with it not being given the negative feedback it used to get, and it normalizes that behavior.


That is my point.
Haha, ok so my examples just don’t count. I could give more but I guess those wouldn’t count either. Why do I bother. You’re hopeless.

I can play that game though... the summer riots were just the FAR Left not liberals. So they don’t count either. How’s that for ya?

not bad. The actual rioters, imo, were far left.


The support they got from elected dem officials, that were not denounced by the dem party as a whole, though that is more troubling.
Ahhh right, you’re probably stuck in the right wing media bubble. Here is the leader of the Dems condemning violence... Fact check: Joe Biden has condemned protest-related violence all summer

Interesting. I clearly was discussing not the violence, but the support of the violence by dem mayors.

DId Biden ever denounce the mayors that ordered the cops to stand down so that rioters could riot, loot and kill?
Which mayor? Can you give me a name?

Ted Wheeler is the most obvious.
This guy? Do you wanna try somebody else?


lol, you really do love those empty words, don't you?




By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Sunday, October 14, 2018


"Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler came under fire over a viral video showing antifa protesters blocking traffic and harassing drivers, but he says he supports the decision by police to watch from a distance without getting involved.
“I was appalled by what I saw in the video, but I support the Portland Police Bureau’s decision not to intervene,” he said at a press conference. “This whole incident will be investigated.”
The video posted by journalist Andy C. Ngo showed protesters, including members of antifa and Black Lives Matter, blocking an intersection and attempting to direct traffic at while officers on motorcycle watched from a block away.



At one point, the activists chased down 74-year-old Kent Houser after he made a right turn against their wishes, pounding on his silver Lexus and breaking a window. The car sustained thousands of dollars in damage, he told the Oregonian.

Even so, Mr. Wheeler insisted that “motorists should feel completely safe coming into downtown Portland.”

Demonstrators did not obtain a permit before holding the Oct. 6 march...

The mayor has been accused of taking a kid-gloved approach to the protests that routinely roil the liberal enclave, such as the summer occupation of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building, which saw Portland police refuse to assist the immigration-enforcement officers unless they were in physical danger."
Empty words? Not really... your critique is that he stood by the decision of his police chief and that somehow is supposed to prove what exactly?? You said the Mayors never spoke out against the violence. I showed otherwise.

Police chiefs don't set policy, they follow it. That the mayor shifted teh blame for his policies onto his police chief is him being a democrat, nothing more.


The police stood by while the rioters rioted. and people were assaulted.


That the mayor was too much of a democrat to admit that he ordered that, is to be expected.
My bad I must have missed the policy or order that the mayor gave to the police chief. Can you post a link, I can’t find info on that .

Even dem mayors are smart enough to LIE about that. But the results are clear. THe cops stand down while antifa and/or blm riot though the streets.
 

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
24,359
Reaction score
7,059
Points
290
Trump called for a demonstration of his supporters and it turned into a riot. I think calling it Trump's riot is reasonable.
I agree with you. It was Trump's riot.
My warning about your side's increasing tyranny and bullying leading to more violence, stands.
SO unless people kiss the asses of these violent thugs (your buddies) there's going to be more violence?

Well they'll certainly be sorry.

A lot of the ones from the Capitol attack (ya know...Trump's LAST riot) are pretty unhappy about losing jobs money and freedom.
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
106,092
Reaction score
40,691
Points
2,260
Location
Brooklyn, NY
If my country had a fraudulent election to the scale of November 2020, and the Nation's Intel agencyy refused to investigate, and the media ignored it, and people who peacefull protested were censored and attacked....
I'd see it as a coup and would probably be attacking my Parliament as well
Exactly, it was foreseeable, which makes Trump and his puppets lies about the election fraud so much worse. It wasn't political hyperbole, it was incitement to violence which is what it lead to. He made false claims many of which can be directly disproven and the others he was never able to verify, yet he keeps saying them, his idiot followers believe them, and the nutters are acting on them.

I did not see it coming. Generally conservatives are pretty mild. I expected the demonstration to just stand there and make some noise and be forgotten.


I was surprised when the riot broke out.
I wasn't... I literally called my family while Trump was giving his speech and told them to tune in because shit was about to go down. I told them Trump just threw Pence under the bus and there is a mob of angry people that are about to go mess things up. It was clear and obvious what Trump was doing and what was about to happen. If you couldn't see that then you have blinders on. But you support Trump so I guess the blinders are a given

My expectation of a peaceful demonstration was based on decades of observation of demonstration conservatives who, even when pissed off, almost always obeyed the law and demonstrated peacefully and then went home.


What was yours based on?
Mine was based on common sense. You can’t use historical precedent when you have a president that breaks all the norms. My observations were correct. I called my family before the riot to tell them there was about to be a riot. How did I know?! Because it was obvious. The real question you should be asking yourself is why you were surprised and why you couldn’t see it coming when it was so easy to see what Trump was doing.

Trump did not break all the norms.

His style was odd. He was disagreeable and vulgar. But his policies and actions were measured and restrained.

So, you were right, but for the wrong reasons. That happens. Like the way I was initially attracted to my wife because of her, well, never mind.
I was right for the right reasons. Because I can see the effects that a con man has on his followers. The question is why couldn’t you see it coming?

I asked what you based your conclusion on, and the reasons you gave were not true.


THus, you were right for the wrong reasons.


Hey, better than being wrong for the right reasons.


YOur spin is dismissed.
Well this is coming from somebody who was wrong and blindsided so perhaps what you think im wrong about isn’t really wrong.

No one is prefect. Being wrong once does not mean that my judgement is valueless.

YOur stated reasons were not true. Thus you were right for the wrong reasons.
My stated reasons weren’t true yet I was right. So I must have seen something that you didn’t see. Your Perceived reality was wrong and left you blindsided. That should tell you something

People can be right though blind stupid luck. You have to know that. So your pretense that being right is proof of being more perceptive, is you lying.


If I found that I was consistently wrong, then your point that I should reexamine my perceptions would be correct.


BUt so far, this was a one off.
What do you think I lied about. What I observed was obvious and predictable... yet it surprised you. Gee, let’s think about that for a sec
People can be right though blind stupid luck. You have to know that. So your pretense that being right is proof of being more perceptive, is you lying.
You admitted that you were surprised at the riot. I said it was obvious and easy to see coming. I’m not lying about that, If you think I’m lying then why don’t you tell me what really happened. What am I getting wrong?

I fully explained what you were lying about. YOur pretense of confusion is you lying again.

Your need to avoid being honest about what I say, how can that not be a red flag for you?
Wow, that was a lot of words for a non answer. What a waste of space. Want to try again?

Nope. Your tactic of pretending to misunderstand a clear statement to then ask stupid questions, is an odd game, but one I am willing to play.


Pretend to be too retarded to understand a simple sentence again, and I will call you on your lying again.


I'm not sure of the point, but I am sure that I am kidding your ass.
Where in that statement was a clear sentence stating what the hell you’re talking about?! Nowhere!!! If you’ve been so clear then just copy and paste it. I honestly have no clue what you’re talking about. I think you got schooled and are just trying to confuse things to distract from the fact you lack a solid argument.

I don't believe that you are so retarded that you did not understand it initially.

I am willing to consider that you might be stupid enough to have forgotten since it has been several posts so here it is again.



People can be right though blind stupid luck. You have to know that. So your pretense that being right is proof of being more perceptive, is you lying.
Oh ok, well I agree that people can be correct through luck. I don’t think that’s the case here, I just think I was more perceptive because what Trump was doing had a painfully obvious effect which I could see coming from a mile away.... you on the other hand were cause blindsided so you obviously didn’t see it.

now you are able to look at things in hindsight. If you think what I’ve said was wrong then state why... see this is how normal debate works. It shouldn’t take pages and me explaining it like to a third grader.

I already explained my reasoning. DECADES of watching conservatives protest, even angry, but obeying the law and being peaceful.

THe violence and destruction has almost solely been on the left..


So, this change up was a surprise.

IN HINDSIGHT. it is less surprising considering the normalization of violence by five years of riots by antifa and blm.
Ok but after the surprise wore off what did you see what caused the change?

Sure. THe years of political violence from your side that made it the new norm.
Haha, this is the best one yet. So since the left is violent it inspired the right to be violent? You really want to go with that? Has the lefts push for big government also inspired the right to support big government? Your arguments are getting dumber and dumber.

Violence begets violence. You put in out there into our society, and especially with it not being given the negative feedback it used to get, and it normalizes that behavior.


That is my point. I made it very clear. YOu don't need to restate it using your own words. (and thus adding your own spin, dishonestly).


ADDRESS MY POINT OR DON'T POST.
Your point is absolute bullshit. There has been violence from the right wing forever just as there has been from the left wing. At trump rallies in 2016 he had supporter punching protesters in the face, he encouraged it......

there I directly addressed your point. Now you address mine. Don’t distract

Punching a HECKLER, is a pretty minor example to lead off with, considering the 5 years of riots from your side. Charlettosville was the FAR right, not conservatives.


Violence begets violence. You put in out there into our society, and especially with it not being given the negative feedback it used to get, and it normalizes that behavior.


That is my point.
Haha, ok so my examples just don’t count. I could give more but I guess those wouldn’t count either. Why do I bother. You’re hopeless.

I can play that game though... the summer riots were just the FAR Left not liberals. So they don’t count either. How’s that for ya?

not bad. The actual rioters, imo, were far left.


The support they got from elected dem officials, that were not denounced by the dem party as a whole, though that is more troubling.
Ahhh right, you’re probably stuck in the right wing media bubble. Here is the leader of the Dems condemning violence... Fact check: Joe Biden has condemned protest-related violence all summer

Interesting. I clearly was discussing not the violence, but the support of the violence by dem mayors.

DId Biden ever denounce the mayors that ordered the cops to stand down so that rioters could riot, loot and kill?
Which mayor? Can you give me a name?

Ted Wheeler is the most obvious.
This guy? Do you wanna try somebody else?


lol, you really do love those empty words, don't you?




By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Sunday, October 14, 2018


"Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler came under fire over a viral video showing antifa protesters blocking traffic and harassing drivers, but he says he supports the decision by police to watch from a distance without getting involved.
“I was appalled by what I saw in the video, but I support the Portland Police Bureau’s decision not to intervene,” he said at a press conference. “This whole incident will be investigated.”
The video posted by journalist Andy C. Ngo showed protesters, including members of antifa and Black Lives Matter, blocking an intersection and attempting to direct traffic at while officers on motorcycle watched from a block away.



At one point, the activists chased down 74-year-old Kent Houser after he made a right turn against their wishes, pounding on his silver Lexus and breaking a window. The car sustained thousands of dollars in damage, he told the Oregonian.

Even so, Mr. Wheeler insisted that “motorists should feel completely safe coming into downtown Portland.”

Demonstrators did not obtain a permit before holding the Oct. 6 march...

The mayor has been accused of taking a kid-gloved approach to the protests that routinely roil the liberal enclave, such as the summer occupation of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement building, which saw Portland police refuse to assist the immigration-enforcement officers unless they were in physical danger."
Empty words? Not really... your critique is that he stood by the decision of his police chief and that somehow is supposed to prove what exactly?? You said the Mayors never spoke out against the violence. I showed otherwise.

Police chiefs don't set policy, they follow it. That the mayor shifted teh blame for his policies onto his police chief is him being a democrat, nothing more.


The police stood by while the rioters rioted. and people were assaulted.


That the mayor was too much of a democrat to admit that he ordered that, is to be expected.
My bad I must have missed the policy or order that the mayor gave to the police chief. Can you post a link, I can’t find info on that .

Even dem mayors are smart enough to LIE about that. But the results are clear. THe cops stand down while antifa and/or blm riot though the streets.

First collusion, collusion, collusion, Russia, Russia, Russia, Obstruction, Obstruction, Obstruction. Racist, Racist, Racist, Impeach, Impeach, Impeach, Recession, Recession, Recession, Emoluments, 25th amendment, Stormy Daniels, lies about Charlottesville fine Nazis, Kurds, Ukraine, Quid Pro Quo, ‘lynching,’ the GAO charges, Lev Parnas, impeachment, coronavirus ‘hoax,’ General Flynn perjury trap, no evidence of voter fraud in the stolen election.....

...and this week, AOC lying about her near-death experience in the Capitol Riots.....when she wasn't even in the Capitol.
And that Biden voters as agents provocateur weren't behind the Capitol Riot.....
They lie about everything.......
 

Correll

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2015
Messages
75,290
Reaction score
17,193
Points
2,220
Trump called for a demonstration of his supporters and it turned into a riot. I think calling it Trump's riot is reasonable.
I agree with you. It was Trump's riot.
My warning about your side's increasing tyranny and bullying leading to more violence, stands.
SO unless people kiss the asses of these violent thugs (your buddies) there's going to be more violence?

Well they'll certainly be sorry.

A lot of the ones from the Capitol attack (ya know...Trump's LAST riot) are pretty unhappy about losing jobs money and freedom.

Got it. YOu want a civil war. Your vote will be counted. Don't come whining to me down the road.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days