Let's make something clear.

Derp…

There would have to have been an insurrection for one to be accused of inciting insurrection. :rolleyes:
Yes...

That's certainly the INFERENCE, isn't it?

Something I very happily conceded...

But when you're contemplating the banning of a former President from a ballot...

You'd better come out of your (boxing) corner with more than INFERENCE in your hands...


  1. Explicit definition of the event as a stand-alone pronouncement.

  2. Authoritative.

  3. Timely.
------

And, unfortunately, that train has already left the station.

I want him banned myself... it's just that I don't think it's gonna hold up in court.

And... right or wrong... I've outlined my own reasoning for our purposes here.

I'll have to be content to let it rest with that... the idea is going to have to stand or fall on its own merits. :cool:
 
No. Actually. It’s not.

A riot did happen. But that’s not an insurrection. Words have meaning, Fakey, regardless of your libturd insistence that they don’t matter.
It’s been adjudicated as insurrection.
None of your tears will wash that away.
 
It has all the relevance as the SOS determines who is eligible to be on the ballots in their state.

Those same Dem / Marxists also understand the relevance of the USSC weighing in on edicts by partisan hacks who overstepped their authority.
 
I did indeed.
The fact that no one has been charged directly is irrelevant to the fact that it happened.
The fact that you weren’t charged with raping your neighbor is irrelevant as well. Let’s punish you for something you were never convicted of, and never even charged with.
 
You’re a dupe. Right?
Why im in that cult of undesirables. The ones you keep talking about. I just bought some voodoo dolls need to try them out.

Ok. Im gomna sticks pins in yours. Tell me if it hurts.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom