MSNBC host cries over Jan 6th Anniversary

[MarathonMike]

These MAGA racists are the dregs of society.

I don't come on here to debate them. I come on here to make fun of them for the worthless racists, fascists, and traitors that they are.

They believe in fairly tales like Trump winning the 2020 election and you just can't have reasonable conversations with people that believe in such bullshit.

All you can do is vote and prevent the Nazi Repug Party and their fascist supporters from ever having power at the Federal level again.

I think our new hater Thanos is a foreign troll. Or a paid shill, her posts sound exactly like a dozen other shills on USMB.

 

[ChristisKing]

The day we almost lost America.................................................

No, that was two weeks later.

Urkel!!! I can totally picture Joe Biden saying; "Did I do thaaaaaaaaat?" inside my mind.

You are one weird little dude, MAGAt

At first when I scrolled down I thought that you were going to quote Toy Story.

 

[rightwinger]

Agreed, government agents and Capitol Police throwing flash grenades into an innocent crowd of citizens, Ashli Babbitt murdered at point blank range.

A violent Republican mob being repelled by brave Capitol Police defending our Democracy

 

[noonereal]

He will not be getting an Oscar for that fake bullshit.

Did all you cult ***** cry like that yesterday? I bet you did. I bet each and every one of you cried exactly like that…then had sex with your non binary partners.

No worries, fake, never happened.

 

[forkup]

That’s the dumbest analogy. What actions did Trump do to arm or assist the idiot rioters? Pouring gasoline and lighting matches are actions. You make no sense here, and are just connecting dot A to dot F.

Remember, Bernie Sanders called the GOP “murderers”, and then one of his rabid followers shot up a GOP softball game. You and leftists didn’t hold Bernie accountable.

Barack Obama denounced Dallas police as racist and then a BLM activist murdered multiple Dallas police officers and you and leftists didn’t hold Obama accountable.

So just STFU with your “Trump is accountable because he used inciting language” BS. You don’t hold democrats accountable, so you can’t hold Trump accountable.

Words are words, actions are actions, individuals make choices. If there are direct calls for violence, it’s bad. None of the 3 examples I cited directly called for violence, so all 3 are innocent.

You? You seem to be unable to hold a standard, thus you aren’t credible here.. unless you want to call for MAJOR crimes against Sanders and Obama to maintain your charges on Trump? You want to lead a movement to get those 2 in prison?

You? You seem to be unable to hold a standard, thus you aren’t credible here.

This is telling. And it's by the way something that happens ALL the time when people are trying to defend Trump. The idea that a person being personally hypocritical invalidates the argument being posed is LITERALLY the definition of an appeal to hypocrisy. A logical fallacy. Even IF you could show that I'm a hypocrite. That doesn't get you an inch closer. In fact, be glad it's not a good argument because only a person acting hypocritical can invoke that particular fallacious argument.

The ease and frequency people employ it in defense of Trump by the way implies a certain recognition of their own vulnerability in defending him.

It's of course also factually incorrect. You can go through every post I've ever written on this board. And I'm confident you will not find me being inconsistent ever. If I have a position it is my position, and the moment I can't defend it I will change it. My political leaning guides my positions they do not control them. For instance, this is in my first reply to you.

Me personally, I'm not comfortable with it. With the provision I mean. I think he should be allowed to run. But then again I don't believe strict Constitutionalism is the best legal doctrine to judge.

But reading the Constitution strictly, I think Trump should be barred.

This is why this will be interesting. SCOTUS will now have to judge, while the legal doctrines the judges claim to adhere to, and political affiliation are not the same. On both sides that is.

This is me taking a personal position based on principles I hold. The fact that those principles lead me to say I think a person I personally detest and indeed consider an actual danger to Democracy should be allowed to run is simply not a factor.

I even go further, and note that for the liberal judges who are purported to hold the same principles the whole question poses a problem.

That IS holding a standard. Something I can defend on principles instead of political expediency. But you don't register it. In fact, you say I do the exact opposite. I suspect because you are aware you can't defend Trump on principles, and it's vital to you that I'm a hypocrite, so you don't have to acknowledge your personal lack of them.

 

[Bell Huey]

They did have firearms, gomer.

One or two guys who lost one on the grounds, goober.

Try again.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

This is telling. And it's by the way something that happens ALL the time when people are trying to defend Trump. The idea that a person being personally hypocritical invalidates the argument being posed is LITERALLY the definition of an appeal to hypocrisy. A logical fallacy. Even IF you could show that I'm a hypocrite. That doesn't get you an inch closer. In fact, be glad it's not a good argument because only a person acting hypocritical can invoke that particular fallacious argument.

The ease and frequency people employ it in defense of Trump by the way implies a certain recognition of their own vulnerability in defending him.

It's of course also factually incorrect. You can go through every post I've ever written on this board. And I'm confident you will not find me being inconsistent ever. If I have a position it is my position, and the moment I can't defend it I will change it. My political leaning guides my positions they do not control them. For instance, this is in my first reply to you.

This is me taking a personal position based on principles I hold. The fact that those principles lead me to say I think a person I personally detest and indeed consider an actual danger to Democracy should be allowed to run is simply not a factor.

I even go further, and note that for the liberal judges who are purported to hold the same principles the whole question poses a problem.

That IS holding a standard. Something I can defend on principles instead of political expediency. But you don't register it. In fact, you say I do the exact opposite. I suspect because you are aware you can't defend Trump on principles, and it's vital to you that I'm a hypocrite, so you don't have to acknowledge your personal lack of them.

You literally just argued that because you hold inconsistent standards, thats a good thing and proves something.

Wow

 

[forkup]

You literally just argued that because you hold inconsistent standards, thats a good thing and proves something.

Wow

I don't know if you genuinely misunderstood what I'm saying or are deliberately obtuse.

There is NOTHING inconsistent about my standards.

My standards are that I think that the constitution is a living breathing document. And that it should be interpreted as such.

When someone interprets it. One should not consider every issue in the confines of what was written years ago. But rather obey the spirit of it.

And I don't think barring Trump from office is in the spirit of the fourteenth amendment.


This is opposed to the textualist reading of the Constitution, which holds that one can only hold and interpret what was actually written.

This is a consistent standard.


It wouldn't be a consistent standard if I would hold the textualist principles of the constitution when it comes to barring Trump. And the living Constitutionalist principles with for instance abortion.

In other words my principles are not dependent on outcome. That's what makes them principles.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I don't know if you genuinely misunderstood what I'm saying or are deliberately obtuse.

There is NOTHING inconsistent about my standards.

My standards are that I think that the constitution is a living breathing document. And that it should be interpreted as such.

When someone interprets it. One should not consider every issue in the confines of what was written years ago. But rather obey the spirit of it.

And I don't think barring Trump from office is in the spirit of the fourteenth amendment.


This is opposed to the textualist reading of the Constitution, which holds that one can only hold and interpret what was actually written.

This is a consistent standard.


It wouldn't be a consistent standard if I would hold the textualist principles of the constitution when it comes to barring Trump. And the living Constitutionalist principles with for instance abortion.

In other words my principles are not dependent on outcome. That's what makes them principles.

You won’t hold Sanders, Biden/Harris, and Obama accountable for inciteful rhetoric they espoused that led to violence, but you do so with Trump.

Is this a joke? You’re a hack here. Hold a standard or just leave the thread

 

[forkup]

You won’t hold Sanders, Biden/Harris, and Obama accountable for inciteful rhetoric they espoused that led to violence, but you do so with Trump.

Is this a joke? You’re a hack here. Hold a standard or just leave the thread

I'm atm engaged in another OP and you guys are nothing if not predictable. So I will use what I've been writing there.

You have the appeals to hypocrisy. "You aren't allowed to hold Trump accountable because you Democrats did (insert... well basically anything any Democrat ever did)

Usually used in conjunction with the false equivalency. (Trump had a right to take money from foreign governments, because Hunter Biden a private citizen did business with Chinese nationals

So the first paragraph is literally what you're saying and the second paragraph is this.

Trump can not be held accountable for claiming the election was stolen before a single vote was cast. Keeping that up for months at a time. Lying about what the DOJ was telling him. Calling for a rally to stop the certification of the election results. Riling up the mob. Send them to the Capitol although you were aware some were armed. Justifying their actions live by tweet as your own VP is being evacuated and cops are getting hurt. And martyring them when they have to pay a legal price for it.

Because you personally are not willing to condemn Sanders,Biden/Harris for something they said. Mind you, without even really specifying what I'm supposed to condemn.

I have a daughter. I don't know if you have children but I'm sure your parents have said something like this to you before. Two wrongs don't make a right. And the fact that you claim it does says everything about you and nothing about me.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I'm atm engaged in another OP and you guys are nothing if not predictable. So I will use what I've been writing there.


So the first paragraph is literally what you're saying and the second paragraph is this.

Trump can not be held accountable for claiming the election was stolen before a single vote was cast. Keeping that up for months at a time. Lying about what the DOJ was telling him. Calling for a rally to stop the certification of the election results. Riling up the mob. Send them to the Capitol although you were aware some were armed. Justifying their actions live by tweet as your own VP is being evacuated and cops are getting hurt. And martyring them when they have to pay a legal price for it.

Because you personally are not willing to condemn Sanders,Biden/Harris for something they said. Mind you, without even really specifying what I'm supposed to condemn.

I have a daughter. I don't know if you have children but I'm sure your parents have said something like this to you before. Two wrongs don't make a right. And the fact that you claim it does says everything about you and nothing about me.

I’m not saying 2 wrongs make a right, I’m saying you can’t assign “insurrection” to Trump for inciteful language and then nothing to Obama, Sanders, and Biden/Harris.

Inciteful language is a crime or it’s not.

I’m saying none should own the acts of radicals who get violent, as none directly called for violence.

You seem to be saying Obama, Sanders, Biden/Harris own none of the shootings/murder that their radicals committed, but somehow Trump does (and Trumps involved no shootings
Or murder)

That makes no sense. You need to make sense if you’re going to be taken seriously. Which is it? Are they all guilty or all innocent?

 

[forkup]

I’m not saying 2 wrongs make a right, I’m saying you can’t assign “insurrection” to Trump for inciteful language and then nothing to Obama, Sanders, and Biden/Harris.

Inciteful language is a crime or it’s not.

I’m saying none should own the acts of radicals who get violent, as none directly called for violence.

You seem to be saying Obama, Sanders, Biden/Harris own none of the shootings/murder that their radicals committed, but somehow Trump does (and Trumps involved no shootings
Or murder)

That makes no sense. You need to make sense if you’re going to be taken seriously. Which is it? Are they all guilty or all innocent?

I’m saying you can’t assign “insurrection” to Trump for inciteful language and then nothing to Obama, Sanders, and Biden/Harris.

If that's what you're saying than 2 wrongs make a right is exactly what you are claiming. Whether or not I personally choose to call out Trump and not Obama, Sanders or Biden/Harris has absolutely NO BEARING on Trump committing an insurrection. Firstly, I can be the biggest hypocrite in the world and still make a compelling argument about Trump. Just like you can be the biggest hypocrite in the world and still make a compelling argument concerning Obama, Sanders or Biden. That's the reason an argument from hypocrisy is a logical fallacy.

Secondly, I don't think Trump committed an insurrection because of "inciteful language". I think he committed an insurrection because I think and believe, I can make a compelling argument for him using inciteful language in the expectation that it would lead directly to people actually engaging in an insurrection against the United States or the laws thereof.

The highlighted bit is important because it speaks to intent.

Maybe if I put it in the context of Sanders. I at least have some idea about what incitement you seem to be talking.

I'm guessing you are talking about Hodgekinson shooting Scalise? This or something similar is what would have been needed for inciteful speech from Sanders to be responsible for what happened in the same way that Trump is responsible.
You would need to show specific inciteful language from Sanders towards Republicans.
And then you would need to show that Sanders's language could be expected to cause this specific event DIRECTLY.

So, something like Sanders is giving a flaming speech towards Republicans. And then him saying something like "You know they're having a baseball game right now, so why don't you show them how you feel."

That would be compelling.

You seem to be saying Obama, Sanders, Biden/Harris own none of the shootings/murder that their radicals committed, but somehow Trump does (and Trumps involved no shootings
Or murder)

El Paso Shooting Suspect’s Manifesto Echoes Trump’s Language (Published 2019) 20 dead. His rhetoric closely echoed Trump. And no, he isn't responsible for it. Simply because I can draw no DIRECT line to Trump's rhetoric and what he did. Just like I don't think you can for the 4 you mentioned.

Again, those are CONSISTENT standards.

Inciteful speech is protected speech. Unless the person using the speech is doing so with the purpose to create an IMMINENT danger. If I say "I want Charlie to disappear" my speech is not against the law. If I say "I want Charlie to disappear, and I'll pay 20000 dollars to anyone who makes it happen" to a hitman I looked up on the internet. My language is a crime.

 

[ColonelAngus]

BOMBSHELL: 200 Undercover FBI Assets at US Capitol on Jan. 6, Congressman Estimates

In an interview with Tucker Carlson, Rep. Clay Higgins estimates 200 FBI undercover assets were at the Jan. 6 protest at the U.S. Capitol.

www.dailysignal.com

Is the anchor crying because it was an inside job?

 

[Mr. Friscus]

If that's what you're saying than 2 wrongs make a right is exactly what you are claiming. Whether or not I personally choose to call out Trump and not Obama, Sanders or Biden/Harris has absolutely NO BEARING on Trump committing an insurrection. Firstly, I can be the biggest hypocrite in the world and still make a compelling argument about Trump. Just like you can be the biggest hypocrite in the world and still make a compelling argument concerning Obama, Sanders or Biden. That's the reason an argument from hypocrisy is a logical fallacy.

Secondly, I don't think Trump committed an insurrection because of "inciteful language". I think he committed an insurrection because I think and believe, I can make a compelling argument for him using inciteful language in the expectation that it would lead directly to people actually engaging in an insurrection against the United States or the laws thereof.

The highlighted bit is important because it speaks to intent.

Maybe if I put it in the context of Sanders. I at least have some idea about what incitement you seem to be talking.

I'm guessing you are talking about Hodgekinson shooting Scalise? This or something similar is what would have been needed for inciteful speech from Sanders to be responsible for what happened in the same way that Trump is responsible.
You would need to show specific inciteful language from Sanders towards Republicans.
And then you would need to show that Sanders's language could be expected to cause this specific event DIRECTLY.

So, something like Sanders is giving a flaming speech towards Republicans. And then him saying something like "You know they're having a baseball game right now, so why don't you show them how you feel."

That would be compelling.

El Paso Shooting Suspect’s Manifesto Echoes Trump’s Language (Published 2019) 20 dead. His rhetoric closely echoed Trump. And no, he isn't responsible for it. Simply because I can draw no DIRECT line to Trump's rhetoric and what he did. Just like I don't think you can for the 4 you mentioned.

Again, those are CONSISTENT standards.

Inciteful speech is protected speech. Unless the person using the speech is doing so with the purpose to create an IMMINENT danger. If I say "I want Charlie to disappear" my speech is not against the law. If I say "I want Charlie to disappear, and I'll pay 20000 dollars to anyone who makes it happen" to a hitman I looked up on the internet. My language is a crime.

LOL you’re a proud, hopeless hypocrite.

“Inciteful language is bad, but it’s okay when
democrats do it”!

 

[forkup]

LOL you’re a proud, hopeless hypocrite.

“Inciteful language is bad, but it’s okay when
democrats do it”!

Oh lord, yet another fallacy. I never said and will never say that inciteful language is okay. That's a strawman.

I'm saying that for inciteful language to rise to the level of an insurrection or basically any crime. Intent needs to be shown.

As I said before, you are so fixated on calling me a hypocrite you are willing to use MULTIPLE fallacious arguments to accomplish it. Just so you can get out having to actually make a reasonable argument in defense of Trump.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Oh lord, yet another fallacy. I never said and will never say that inciteful language is okay. That's a strawman.

I'm saying that for inciteful language to rise to the level of an insurrection or basically any crime. Intent needs to be shown.

As I said before, you are so fixated on calling me a hypocrite you are willing to use MULTIPLE fallacious arguments to accomplish it. Just so you can get out having to actually make a reasonable argument in defense of Trump.

You can’t prove intent for Trump. You can actually prove the opposite given his calls for peace.

 

[forkup]

You can’t prove intent for Trump. You can actually prove the opposite given his calls for peace.

He was the WHOLE reason they were there.... period, without Trump's ACTIONS no Jan 6th. They were there because of a lie. They were riled up because what was said. What he claimed they could do. They were at the Capitol because he directly told them to go there. AFTER they breached and WHILE his own VP was being evacuated, he justified their actions via tweet. And even NOW he's claiming these people are being sentenced not because of their actions but for political reasons. You call them idiot rioters? You know what Trump calls them? Great patriots, political prisoners and their actions justified. And yet you can't figure out that Trump wanted them to stop the certification by any means?

I could add he was informed be the Secret Service people were armed. And that he ignored multiple pleas from staff, family, Sean Hannity and Kevin McCarthy to put out a statement to calm the situation as violence was used. He ignored them all until finally the situation was under control.

Saying that he used the word peaceful and ignoring all this other stuff. Is like saying you believe that when a mobster tells a shopkeeper, "Nice store, it would be a shame something where to happen to it", is actually an expression of concern. But hey, if that's what you need to tell yourself, you be you.

 

[kaz]

No, that was two weeks later.



Urkel!!! I can totally picture Joe Biden saying; "Did I do thaaaaaaaaat?" inside my mind.




At first when I scrolled down I thought that you were going to quote Toy Story.

Thanks! And for the people ...

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I could add he was informed be the Secret Service people were armed. And that he ignored multiple pleas from staff, family, Sean Hannity and Kevin McCarthy to put out a statement to calm the situation as violence was used. He ignored them all until finally the situation was under control.

Saying that he used the word peaceful and ignoring all this other stuff. Is like saying you believe that when a mobster tells a shopkeeper, "Nice store, it would be a shame something where to happen to it", is actually an expression of concern. But hey, if that's what you need to tell yourself, you be you.

So if you call people to peacefully protest, and violence breaks out, that is proof of intent by you that you wanted violence because you set up the protest?

Is that what you’re saying?

If I invite a friend to a party and he gets drunk and starts a fight with a guy, did I intend for that guy to get attacked? I mean, the only reason he was there was Because of me, right?

That’s insanely weak logic, if there’s any at all

 

[BS Filter]

This is telling. And it's by the way something that happens ALL the time when people are trying to defend Trump. The idea that a person being personally hypocritical invalidates the argument being posed is LITERALLY the definition of an appeal to hypocrisy. A logical fallacy. Even IF you could show that I'm a hypocrite. That doesn't get you an inch closer. In fact, be glad it's not a good argument because only a person acting hypocritical can invoke that particular fallacious argument.

The ease and frequency people employ it in defense of Trump by the way implies a certain recognition of their own vulnerability in defending him.

It's of course also factually incorrect. You can go through every post I've ever written on this board. And I'm confident you will not find me being inconsistent ever. If I have a position it is my position, and the moment I can't defend it I will change it. My political leaning guides my positions they do not control them. For instance, this is in my first reply to you.

This is me taking a personal position based on principles I hold. The fact that those principles lead me to say I think a person I personally detest and indeed consider an actual danger to Democracy should be allowed to run is simply not a factor.

I even go further, and note that for the liberal judges who are purported to hold the same principles the whole question poses a problem.

That IS holding a standard. Something I can defend on principles instead of political expediency. But you don't register it. In fact, you say I do the exact opposite. I suspect because you are aware you can't defend Trump on principles, and it's vital to you that I'm a hypocrite, so you don't have to acknowledge your personal lack of them.

This is the USA. A person that you personally think is a threat to democracy still has the right to run for office. You're a fascist.