To Everybody Calling Trump Mean

[Stann]

They weren't needed because it wasn't an "armed coup" despite how many times the left describes it that way! They weren't overthrowing the government...they were there to stop the certification of the vote. The violent clash between police and protesters occurred at one spot and that clash was spurred by Capital Police using pepper spray. Show me a single act of violence against anyone once those protesters were INSIDE the building and had accomplished what they'd come for? You can't because it didn't happen. Before Ashli Babbitt was assassinated by Byrd the group she was with pleaded with Police to get out of the way because they didn't want them to get hurt and allowed them to leave.

I suppose in your mind shooting an unarmed woman at point blank range is "wonderful restraint"?

I don't care what anyone else thinks . I am not the left. I am speaking , as me , a person and what I witnessed was a terrible disgrace as well as a heinous crimes. You can believe whatever you wish , I don't care I know you're wrong.

 

[forkup]

For one day? It was a protest by unarmed people. Congress was back in session the next day. Let's be honest here for a change, Konradv...if that was an "insurrection" it was the mildest one EVER!

What you're saying is that we should link wether or not something is an insurrection on the competency of the insurrectionists. Would you do that in any other venue?

Should we link the definition of bank robbery to the success of the heist?

That's not how it works in my opinion. It's the intent of a crime that defines it. Not wether or not you successfully executed the crime.

 

[konradv]

For one day? It was a protest by unarmed people. Congress was back in session the next day. Let's be honest here for a change, Konradv...if that was an "insurrection" it was the mildest one EVER!

#MAGALIES

 

[Care4all]

For one day? It was a protest by unarmed people. Congress was back in session the next day. Let's be honest here for a change, Konradv...if that was an "insurrection" it was the mildest one EVER!

Have you ever heard the term, Bloodless Coup

It was an attempted Bloodless Coup de'tat.

Also an attempted Self Coup.... a form of coup d'état in which a nation's head, having come to power through legal means, stays in power through illegal means.

 

[Man With A Plan]

A "protest doesn't result in over 140 injured leo. Some quite serious.

With all due respect, Forkup? Riots across a multitude of American cities raged for MONTHS and a lot more than 140 law enforcement officers were injured including some that died! So were those riots "insurrections" as well?

 

[Man With A Plan]

Have you ever heard the term, Bloodless Coup

It was an attempted Bloodless Coup de'tat.

Also an attempted Self Coup.... a form of coup d'état in which a nation's head, having come to power through legal means, stays in power through illegal means.

They stopped the certification of an election they believed to be fraudulent for ONE day! I'm sorry but it THAT is a "coup" then it's stretching the definition to the breaking point!

 

[candycorn]

458. Until Biden stopped construction of the Wall

Remarks by President Trump at the 45th Mile of New Border Wall | Reynosa-McAllen, TX – The White House

trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov

45 miles...according to your blob.

When can I expect you to apologize?

 

[candycorn]

With all due respect, Forkup? Riots across a multitude of American cities raged for MONTHS and a lot more than 140 law enforcement officers were injured including some that died! So were those riots "insurrections" as well?

no

They were not aimed at stopping the legitimate transfer of power.

 

[hadit]

Given that he's already been found guilty of business fraud and fined $450 million, it's a cold hard fact, bitch.

Make them fire-breathing. That helps.

 

[bendog]

So he just started being obnoxious, juvenile, absurd, pugilistic, shameless and embarrassingly unpresidential AFTER he was indicted.

Okay. Got it.

I was talking to my SIL and we agreed .... "if he just wasn't SUCH an asshole......."

 

[hadit]

Guess you missed post 494.

Didn't miss it, nope. It verified what I was saying. Why, are you a sock?

 

[hadit]

I was talking to my SIL and we agreed .... "if he just wasn't SUCH an asshole......."

That's the only thing keeping you from voting for him?

 

[Man With A Plan]

no

They were not aimed at stopping the legitimate transfer of power.

What were they aimed at, Candy? When rioters are taking over complete blocks of a city and calling it their own sovereign territory run by them and only them...could you possibly come up with a better example of a "transfer of power"? There was no vote for that...that territory was taken by FORCE!

 

[forkup]

With all due respect, Forkup? Riots across a multitude of American cities raged for MONTHS and a lot more than 140 law enforcement officers were injured including some that died! So were those riots "insurrections" as well?

A protest doesn't always become a riot, and a riot isn't always an insurrection. You seem to conflate them, I'm guessing purposely. You claimed it was a protest. Only the change the wording to riot when pressed. Why use the word protest at all when you mean riot? I'll tell you. It's an attempt to put as benign word on something in order to minimize it. That's why I responded.

Don't get me wrong I understand why you do it. And it works both ways, because in all honesty I don't know if you would characterize Jan 6th as a riot or an insurrection. I could easily defend both arguments.

But to me it misses the point, again, I suspect purposefully. (Not by you necessarily but by those information sources that give context to your beliefs) See, as long as we are squabbling over the precise semantics to describe Jan 6th we aren't talking about the actual stated goal of Jan 6th. You can go round and round but, in the end, what happened on Jan 6th. Was a group of people, who at the behest of the losing candidate of a presidential campaign tried to pressure the Vice-President to reject the certified electoral votes, with votes this candidate knew to be false, on account of his campaign falsifying them.

I don't care if you call what happened on Jan 6th an insurrection, riot, protest, or tourist visit. Those facts aren't in dispute because they happened out in the open.

Can you honestly claim that that is anything but criminal behavior?

 

[candycorn]

What were they aimed at, Candy?

Mostly knuckleheads being knuckleheads.

When rioters are taking over complete blocks of a city and calling it their own sovereign territory run by them and only them...could you possibly come up with a better example of a "transfer of power"?

Are you trying to be funny?

There was no vote for that...that territory was taken by FORCE!

Lol...

 

[hadit]

What were they aimed at, Candy? When rioters are taking over complete blocks of a city and calling it their own sovereign territory run by them and only them...could you possibly come up with a better example of a "transfer of power"? There was no vote for that...that territory was taken by FORCE!

CHAZ was an insurrection, plain and simple. You might as well have had the city of Sacramento secede and form their own government. The fact that they gave up once they realized nobody owed them Starbucks and phone recharging was humorous.

 

[Man With A Plan]

A protest doesn't always become a riot, and a riot isn't always an insurrection. You seem to conflate them, I'm guessing purposely. You claimed it was a protest. Only the change the wording to riot when pressed. Why use the word protest at all when you mean riot? I'll tell you. It's an attempt to put as benign word on something in order to minimize it. That's why I responded.

Don't get me wrong I understand why you do it. And it works both ways, because in all honesty I don't know if you would characterize Jan 6th as a riot or an insurrection. I could easily defend both arguments.

But to me it misses the point, again, I suspect purposefully. (Not by you necessarily but by those information sources that give context to your beliefs) See, as long as we are squabbling over the precise semantics to describe Jan 6th we aren't talking about the actual stated goal of Jan 6th. You can go round and round but, in the end, what happened on Jan 6th. Was a group of people, who at the behest of the losing candidate of a presidential campaign tried to pressure the Vice-President to reject the certified electoral votes, with votes this candidate knew to be false, on account of his campaign falsifying them.

I don't care if you call what happened on Jan 6th an insurrection, riot, protest, or tourist visit. Those facts aren't in dispute because they happened out in the open.

Can you honestly claim that that is anything but criminal behavior?

You seem to think it's a "fact" that Donald Trump knew the election was on the up and up and simply chose to ignore that and somehow steal it away from Joe Biden! I don't feel that's the case at all. I think Donald Trump honestly thought that he had won that election and that election fraud was employed to steal it from him. How you make it "criminal behavior" to have a candidate challenge election results is something you'll need to explain.

As for how things are worded? It was a protest that turned violent...thus becoming a riot. It was never an insurrection. Anyone who says that it was is sensationalizing what took place.

 

[forkup]

You seem to think it's a "fact" that Donald Trump knew the election was on the up and up and simply chose to ignore that and somehow steal it away from Joe Biden! I don't feel that's the case at all. I think Donald Trump honestly thought that he had won that election and that election fraud was employed to steal it from him. How you make it "criminal behavior" to have a candidate challenge election results is something you'll need to explain.

As for how things are worded? It was a protest that turned violent...thus becoming a riot. It was never an insurrection. Anyone who says that it was is sensationalizing what took place.

votes this candidate knew to be false, on account of his campaign falsifying them.

Already did.

I don't care what Trump believed. Although plenty of courts not to mention his own DOJ told him he was wrong. That still doesn't give him the right to falsify electoral votes and pressure his VP to accept them as real.

If you believe bankers, are crooks. Does that give you the right to do a bank robbery?

 

[Man With A Plan]

Already did.

I don't care what Trump believed. Although plenty of courts not to mention his own DOJ told him he was wrong. That still doesn't give him the right to falsify electoral votes and pressure his VP to accept them as real.

If you believe bankers, are crooks. Does that give you the right to do a bank robbery?

If you believe that someone at the bank did something funny with your accounts does it give you the right to challenge what the bank says you HAVE in those accounts?

 

[forkup]

If you believe that someone at the bank did something funny with your accounts does it give you the right to challenge what the bank says you HAVE in those accounts?

Sure, that's what courts are for. If I pull out a gun though and demand my money back, I can expect to be charged with a pretty serious crime.

So I'll ask again.

If you believe bankers are crooks, would you be allowed to rob banks?