CDZ Many Things can be true at once

[Mr. Friscus]

It's a foreign notion to most these days, especially those who are chestily speaking in public or are rage-typing on internet message boards.

However, I think many things can be true at once:
1. We need to plug the obvious holes in our domestic voting process. Many examples we saw in this election proves just that.
2. Does that mean the election was "stolen" by voter fraud? No. Sometimes even if things are true, you have to provide the appropriate proof in the court of law. Big claims require big evidence, and even though some of the reasons evidence wasn't heard (activist judges throwing out cases before any evidence can be presented) isn't on the up-and-up, I can't presume guilty until proven innocent.
3. Despite big tech censoring anyone who brings up low-level fraud and questionable voting practices, these aren't the same as claiming an election was fraudulent. And meanwhile, claiming an election is fraudulent isn't new, the entire Democrat establishment did it for a good 2 years after the 2016 election, but I digress.

Again, multiple things can be true at once
1. Trump clearly raised the temperature using inflammatory rhetoric leading up to Jan 6th, putting a foolish aspect of pressure on Mike Pence.
2. He didn't incite violence. As we all know, Inflammatory rhetoric is common today, especially among leftists such as AOC, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters. Also remember, Hours after Obama's anti-police rhetoric in Dallas, a BLM sniper killed 5 officers. Just after Bernie Sanders called the GOP "murderers" for not supporting his gigantic health care plan, a supporter of his shot up a GOP softball game. Trump used similar inflammatory rhetoric, but none of these examples are "inciting" violence. I hold none accountable, as a consistent standard is necessary.

So often we think one of the other. Many things can be true at once.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It's a foreign notion to most these days, especially those who are chestily speaking in public or are rage-typing on internet message boards.

However, I think many things can be true at once:
1. We need to plug the obvious holes in our domestic voting process. Many examples we saw in this election proves just that.
2. Does that mean the election was "stolen" by voter fraud? No. Sometimes even if things are true, you have to provide the appropriate proof in the court of law. Big claims require big evidence, and even though some of the reasons evidence wasn't heard (activist judges throwing out cases before any evidence can be presented) isn't on the up-and-up, I can't presume guilty until proven innocent.
3. Despite big tech censoring anyone who brings up low-level fraud and questionable voting practices, these aren't the same as claiming an election was fraudulent. And meanwhile, claiming an election is fraudulent isn't new, the entire Democrat establishment did it for a good 2 years after the 2016 election, but I digress.

Again, multiple things can be true at once
1. Trump clearly raised the temperature using inflammatory rhetoric leading up to Jan 6th, putting a foolish aspect of pressure on Mike Pence.
2. He didn't incite violence. As we all know, Inflammatory rhetoric is common today, especially among leftists such as AOC, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters. Also remember, Hours after Obama's anti-police rhetoric in Dallas, a BLM sniper killed 5 officers. Just after Bernie Sanders called the GOP "murderers" for not supporting his gigantic health care plan, a supporter of his shot up a GOP softball game. Trump used similar inflammatory rhetoric, but none of these examples are "inciting" violence. I hold none accountable, as a consistent standard is necessary.

So often we think one of the other. Many things can be true at once.

What is true, Rump used the most powerful "Bully Pulpit" on the face of the earth to egg on the invasion. And you want him to get off scott free?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

It's a foreign notion to most these days, especially those who are chestily speaking in public or are rage-typing on internet message boards.

However, I think many things can be true at once:
1. We need to plug the obvious holes in our domestic voting process. Many examples we saw in this election proves just that.
2. Does that mean the election was "stolen" by voter fraud? No. Sometimes even if things are true, you have to provide the appropriate proof in the court of law. Big claims require big evidence, and even though some of the reasons evidence wasn't heard (activist judges throwing out cases before any evidence can be presented) isn't on the up-and-up, I can't presume guilty until proven innocent.
3. Despite big tech censoring anyone who brings up low-level fraud and questionable voting practices, these aren't the same as claiming an election was fraudulent. And meanwhile, claiming an election is fraudulent isn't new, the entire Democrat establishment did it for a good 2 years after the 2016 election, but I digress.

Again, multiple things can be true at once
1. Trump clearly raised the temperature using inflammatory rhetoric leading up to Jan 6th, putting a foolish aspect of pressure on Mike Pence.
2. He didn't incite violence. As we all know, Inflammatory rhetoric is common today, especially among leftists such as AOC, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters. Also remember, Hours after Obama's anti-police rhetoric in Dallas, a BLM sniper killed 5 officers. Just after Bernie Sanders called the GOP "murderers" for not supporting his gigantic health care plan, a supporter of his shot up a GOP softball game. Trump used similar inflammatory rhetoric, but none of these examples are "inciting" violence. I hold none accountable, as a consistent standard is necessary.

So often we think one of the other. Many things can be true at once.

What is true, Rump used the most powerful "Bully Pulpit" on the face of the earth to egg on the invasion. And you want him to get off scott free?

Do you hold Obama accountable for the 5 police officers the BLM sniper killed?

Do you hold Bernie Sanders accountable for the follower who shot up the GOP softball game?

 

[Moonglow]

It's a foreign notion to most these days, especially those who are chestily speaking in public or are rage-typing on internet message boards.

However, I think many things can be true at once:
1. We need to plug the obvious holes in our domestic voting process. Many examples we saw in this election proves just that.
2. Does that mean the election was "stolen" by voter fraud? No. Sometimes even if things are true, you have to provide the appropriate proof in the court of law. Big claims require big evidence, and even though some of the reasons evidence wasn't heard (activist judges throwing out cases before any evidence can be presented) isn't on the up-and-up, I can't presume guilty until proven innocent.
3. Despite big tech censoring anyone who brings up low-level fraud and questionable voting practices, these aren't the same as claiming an election was fraudulent. And meanwhile, claiming an election is fraudulent isn't new, the entire Democrat establishment did it for a good 2 years after the 2016 election, but I digress.

Again, multiple things can be true at once
1. Trump clearly raised the temperature using inflammatory rhetoric leading up to Jan 6th, putting a foolish aspect of pressure on Mike Pence.
2. He didn't incite violence. As we all know, Inflammatory rhetoric is common today, especially among leftists such as AOC, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters. Also remember, Hours after Obama's anti-police rhetoric in Dallas, a BLM sniper killed 5 officers. Just after Bernie Sanders called the GOP "murderers" for not supporting his gigantic health care plan, a supporter of his shot up a GOP softball game. Trump used similar inflammatory rhetoric, but none of these examples are "inciting" violence. I hold none accountable, as a consistent standard is necessary.

So often we think one of the other. Many things can be true at once.

What is true, Rump used the most powerful "Bully Pulpit" on the face of the earth to egg on the invasion. And you want him to get off scott free?

Do you hold Obama accountable for the 5 police officers the BLM sniper killed?

Do you hold Bernie Sanders accountable for the follower who shot up the GOP softball game?

I do and I would like to see them prosecuted right along with Trump.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's a foreign notion to most these days, especially those who are chestily speaking in public or are rage-typing on internet message boards.

However, I think many things can be true at once:
1. We need to plug the obvious holes in our domestic voting process. Many examples we saw in this election proves just that.
2. Does that mean the election was "stolen" by voter fraud? No. Sometimes even if things are true, you have to provide the appropriate proof in the court of law. Big claims require big evidence, and even though some of the reasons evidence wasn't heard (activist judges throwing out cases before any evidence can be presented) isn't on the up-and-up, I can't presume guilty until proven innocent.
3. Despite big tech censoring anyone who brings up low-level fraud and questionable voting practices, these aren't the same as claiming an election was fraudulent. And meanwhile, claiming an election is fraudulent isn't new, the entire Democrat establishment did it for a good 2 years after the 2016 election, but I digress.

Again, multiple things can be true at once
1. Trump clearly raised the temperature using inflammatory rhetoric leading up to Jan 6th, putting a foolish aspect of pressure on Mike Pence.
2. He didn't incite violence. As we all know, Inflammatory rhetoric is common today, especially among leftists such as AOC, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters. Also remember, Hours after Obama's anti-police rhetoric in Dallas, a BLM sniper killed 5 officers. Just after Bernie Sanders called the GOP "murderers" for not supporting his gigantic health care plan, a supporter of his shot up a GOP softball game. Trump used similar inflammatory rhetoric, but none of these examples are "inciting" violence. I hold none accountable, as a consistent standard is necessary.

So often we think one of the other. Many things can be true at once.

What is true, Rump used the most powerful "Bully Pulpit" on the face of the earth to egg on the invasion. And you want him to get off scott free?

Interesting that Americans entering the taxpayer funded halls where their elected "representatives" "work" is considered an "invasion," but ok.

Regardless, I'd say the OP is fair enough. When you say an election is stolen enough you might not be so surprised when people might act on that claim, but I agree his rhetoric doesn't meet any standard of "incitement." And yes, that we can point to specific examples of voter fraud doesn't mean the election was actually stolen.

 

[there4eyeM]

Many things may be true at one time, though few concerning the same subject.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It's a foreign notion to most these days, especially those who are chestily speaking in public or are rage-typing on internet message boards.

However, I think many things can be true at once:
1. We need to plug the obvious holes in our domestic voting process. Many examples we saw in this election proves just that.
2. Does that mean the election was "stolen" by voter fraud? No. Sometimes even if things are true, you have to provide the appropriate proof in the court of law. Big claims require big evidence, and even though some of the reasons evidence wasn't heard (activist judges throwing out cases before any evidence can be presented) isn't on the up-and-up, I can't presume guilty until proven innocent.
3. Despite big tech censoring anyone who brings up low-level fraud and questionable voting practices, these aren't the same as claiming an election was fraudulent. And meanwhile, claiming an election is fraudulent isn't new, the entire Democrat establishment did it for a good 2 years after the 2016 election, but I digress.

Again, multiple things can be true at once
1. Trump clearly raised the temperature using inflammatory rhetoric leading up to Jan 6th, putting a foolish aspect of pressure on Mike Pence.
2. He didn't incite violence. As we all know, Inflammatory rhetoric is common today, especially among leftists such as AOC, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters. Also remember, Hours after Obama's anti-police rhetoric in Dallas, a BLM sniper killed 5 officers. Just after Bernie Sanders called the GOP "murderers" for not supporting his gigantic health care plan, a supporter of his shot up a GOP softball game. Trump used similar inflammatory rhetoric, but none of these examples are "inciting" violence. I hold none accountable, as a consistent standard is necessary.

So often we think one of the other. Many things can be true at once.

What is true, Rump used the most powerful "Bully Pulpit" on the face of the earth to egg on the invasion. And you want him to get off scott free?

Do you hold Obama accountable for the 5 police officers the BLM sniper killed?

Do you hold Bernie Sanders accountable for the follower who shot up the GOP softball game?

If they had lead the events and financed them, I would have. But they didn't. And the BLM did not invade the US Congressional Building to attempt at overthrowing the legally elected Government.

You are trying to justify a Traitor, Fascist, Wannabe Dictator and one that needs to be held responsible for his actions and his inactions. Rumps life is getting very, very interesting now and beyond. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

 

[Correll]

even though some of the reasons evidence wasn't heard (activist judges throwing out cases before any evidence can be presented) isn't on the up-and-up,

Good point.

 

[Correll]

1. Trump clearly raised the temperature using inflammatory rhetoric leading up to Jan 6th, putting a foolish aspect of pressure on Mike Pence.
2. He didn't incite violence. As we all know, Inflammatory rhetoric is common today, especially among leftists such as AOC, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters. Also remember, Hours after Obama's anti-police rhetoric in Dallas, a BLM sniper killed 5 officers. Just after Bernie Sanders called the GOP "murderers" for not supporting his gigantic health care plan, a supporter of his shot up a GOP softball game. Trump used similar inflammatory rhetoric, but none of these examples are "inciting" violence. I hold none accountable, as a consistent standard is necessary.

Agreed.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

It's a foreign notion to most these days, especially those who are chestily speaking in public or are rage-typing on internet message boards.

However, I think many things can be true at once:
1. We need to plug the obvious holes in our domestic voting process. Many examples we saw in this election proves just that.
2. Does that mean the election was "stolen" by voter fraud? No. Sometimes even if things are true, you have to provide the appropriate proof in the court of law. Big claims require big evidence, and even though some of the reasons evidence wasn't heard (activist judges throwing out cases before any evidence can be presented) isn't on the up-and-up, I can't presume guilty until proven innocent.
3. Despite big tech censoring anyone who brings up low-level fraud and questionable voting practices, these aren't the same as claiming an election was fraudulent. And meanwhile, claiming an election is fraudulent isn't new, the entire Democrat establishment did it for a good 2 years after the 2016 election, but I digress.

Again, multiple things can be true at once
1. Trump clearly raised the temperature using inflammatory rhetoric leading up to Jan 6th, putting a foolish aspect of pressure on Mike Pence.
2. He didn't incite violence. As we all know, Inflammatory rhetoric is common today, especially among leftists such as AOC, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters. Also remember, Hours after Obama's anti-police rhetoric in Dallas, a BLM sniper killed 5 officers. Just after Bernie Sanders called the GOP "murderers" for not supporting his gigantic health care plan, a supporter of his shot up a GOP softball game. Trump used similar inflammatory rhetoric, but none of these examples are "inciting" violence. I hold none accountable, as a consistent standard is necessary.

So often we think one of the other. Many things can be true at once.

Very good post

 

[Crepitus]

He didn't incite violence

You do realize that the most common defense those arrested for this are using is "tRump told me to", right?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

If they had lead the events and financed them, I would have. But they didn't. And the BLM did not invade the US Congressional Building to attempt at overthrowing the legally elected Government.

You are trying to justify a Traitor, Fascist, Wannabe Dictator and one that needs to be held responsible for his actions and his inactions. Rumps life is getting very, very interesting now and beyond. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

1. BLM rioters did invade and take over government buildings and police precincts.

2. You make eye-rolling, cliche-leftist buzzword claims without any reason for doing so. If Trump is a traitor, how? If he's trying to be a dictator, he's done a horrible job, as he's put forth anti-dictator policies. Explain.

3. And you can't discuss a topic without throwing in insults, which is telling of your capability of objective discourse.

 

[Crepitus]

It's a foreign notion to most these days, especially those who are chestily speaking in public or are rage-typing on internet message boards.

However, I think many things can be true at once:
1. We need to plug the obvious holes in our domestic voting process. Many examples we saw in this election proves just that.
2. Does that mean the election was "stolen" by voter fraud? No. Sometimes even if things are true, you have to provide the appropriate proof in the court of law. Big claims require big evidence, and even though some of the reasons evidence wasn't heard (activist judges throwing out cases before any evidence can be presented) isn't on the up-and-up, I can't presume guilty until proven innocent.
3. Despite big tech censoring anyone who brings up low-level fraud and questionable voting practices, these aren't the same as claiming an election was fraudulent. And meanwhile, claiming an election is fraudulent isn't new, the entire Democrat establishment did it for a good 2 years after the 2016 election, but I digress.

Again, multiple things can be true at once
1. Trump clearly raised the temperature using inflammatory rhetoric leading up to Jan 6th, putting a foolish aspect of pressure on Mike Pence.
2. He didn't incite violence. As we all know, Inflammatory rhetoric is common today, especially among leftists such as AOC, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters. Also remember, Hours after Obama's anti-police rhetoric in Dallas, a BLM sniper killed 5 officers. Just after Bernie Sanders called the GOP "murderers" for not supporting his gigantic health care plan, a supporter of his shot up a GOP softball game. Trump used similar inflammatory rhetoric, but none of these examples are "inciting" violence. I hold none accountable, as a consistent standard is necessary.

So often we think one of the other. Many things can be true at once.

This is just another attempt to excuse the inexcusable and let tRump and his fellow insurrectionists off the hook.

 

[sartre play]

How much you want to blame Trump or defend him is one thing, attempting to blame ANY one but disgruntled unhappy Trump supporters for the crime at the capital means you have closed your mind. scary way to live.

 

[Coyote]

Public Service Reminder - this is the CDZ. Stay on topic. Treat each other respectfully. No flames, no put downs. While not against the rules, try to discuss the topic with respect - schoolyard nicknames degrade it. The idea is to have civil discourse, ok?

 

[JoeMoma]

He didn't incite violence

You do realize that the most common defense those arrested for this are using is "tRump told me to", right?

Since Trump obviously didn't tell them individually in person or in a phone call, the exact words of "Trump telling them to" should be recorded somewhere and easy to produce to prove that Trump told them to.

 

[Crepitus]

He didn't incite violence

You do realize that the most common defense those arrested for this are using is "tRump told me to", right?

Since Trump obviously didn't tell them individually in person or in a phone call, the exact words of "Trump telling them to" should be recorded somewhere and easy to produce to prove that Trump told them to.

Eyewitness testimony.

 

[JustAGuy1]

It's a foreign notion to most these days, especially those who are chestily speaking in public or are rage-typing on internet message boards.

However, I think many things can be true at once:
1. We need to plug the obvious holes in our domestic voting process. Many examples we saw in this election proves just that.
2. Does that mean the election was "stolen" by voter fraud? No. Sometimes even if things are true, you have to provide the appropriate proof in the court of law. Big claims require big evidence, and even though some of the reasons evidence wasn't heard (activist judges throwing out cases before any evidence can be presented) isn't on the up-and-up, I can't presume guilty until proven innocent.
3. Despite big tech censoring anyone who brings up low-level fraud and questionable voting practices, these aren't the same as claiming an election was fraudulent. And meanwhile, claiming an election is fraudulent isn't new, the entire Democrat establishment did it for a good 2 years after the 2016 election, but I digress.

Again, multiple things can be true at once
1. Trump clearly raised the temperature using inflammatory rhetoric leading up to Jan 6th, putting a foolish aspect of pressure on Mike Pence.
2. He didn't incite violence. As we all know, Inflammatory rhetoric is common today, especially among leftists such as AOC, Nancy Pelosi, and Maxine Waters. Also remember, Hours after Obama's anti-police rhetoric in Dallas, a BLM sniper killed 5 officers. Just after Bernie Sanders called the GOP "murderers" for not supporting his gigantic health care plan, a supporter of his shot up a GOP softball game. Trump used similar inflammatory rhetoric, but none of these examples are "inciting" violence. I hold none accountable, as a consistent standard is necessary.

So often we think one of the other. Many things can be true at once.

What is true, Rump used the most powerful "Bully Pulpit" on the face of the earth to egg on the invasion. And you want him to get off scott free?

Do you hold Obama accountable for the 5 police officers the BLM sniper killed?

Do you hold Bernie Sanders accountable for the follower who shot up the GOP softball game?

If they had lead the events and financed them, I would have. But they didn't. And the BLM did not invade the US Congressional Building to attempt at overthrowing the legally elected Government.

You are trying to justify a Traitor, Fascist, Wannabe Dictator and one that needs to be held responsible for his actions and his inactions. Rumps life is getting very, very interesting now and beyond. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time.

You're simply a hyperbolic partisan. NOBODY tried to "overthrow" the Government.

 

[Leo123]

Nothing is true and everything is true. It's called perception.

 

[Leo123]

What is true, Rump used the most powerful "Bully Pulpit" on the face of the earth to egg on the invasion. And you want him to get off scott free?

Obama used the "Bully Pulpit" to 'egg on' hyped up racism. Biden is using the "Bully Pulpit" to 'egg on' hatred of Trump and anyone who supports him. Biden also is using the "Bully Pulpit" to 'egg on' fake Covid tyrannical dictates and fake 'climate change' draconian mandates that are making thousands suffer. BTW Trump did nothing of the kind, so far no one has produced one iota of evidence. So.....