Trump supporters: What do you think of this information?

[XponentialChaos]

Because my opinion is supported by a clear contradiction between your own words.

So you agree with yourself. That’s cute.

Well I stated my opinion and laid out my reasoning for it, and I also agree with myself.

Why should I care if you don’t believe me?

 

[XponentialChaos]

Hold them without trial, without contact, and terrorize them until they confess,


is hardly "elaborate".


It is "nefarious". It also fits what happened very nicely.

It is elaborate when you come up with a completely baseless and nefarious conspiracy theory to explain something that doesn’t need such a ridiculous explanation.

I swear you guys can’t get into a car accident without concluding that it was the government out to get you.

 

[BertramN]

I'll keep this as short and clean as I can. I'll leave everything that led to the attack on Capitol out of it:

We know that...

1. President Trump sat in the dining room next to the Oval Office for about two hours during the attack on the Capitol
2. Virtually everyone around him was pleading with him to do whatever it took to stop the attack
3. A wide variety of political allies were texting his Chief of Staff, pleading with him as well
4. With the Media Room and national cameras not 60 seconds from him, he refused to act, and instead chose to watch Fox News as it covered the attack

And here's a very, very specific question: What do you think of his refusal? Do you feel it was justified? Do you believe any of the above is fake news?

Trump 'chose not to act' as mob attacked, Jan. 6 committee says

The House Jan. 6 committee held a second prime-time hearing to focus on the 187 minutes after President Donald Trump told supporters to march on the U.S. Capitol.

abcnews.go.com

Everything you wrote is true and makes the trump Nazis love him more.

.

 

[Correll]

So you agree with yourself. That’s cute.

Well I stated my opinion and laid out my reasoning for it, and I also agree with myself.

Why should I care if you don’t believe me?

It's not about what I believe. It is about the clear contradiction between your stated position of wanting "to the full extent of the law",

and your being fine with the guy's rights being violated, without any consequences or responsibility.

 

[XponentialChaos]

It's not about what I believe. It is about the clear contradiction between your stated position of wanting "to the full extent of the law",

A clear contradiction according to you. I disagree with what you believe to be a clear contradiction.

I would know. It’s what I believe, after all. Kind of weird how you insist on telling me what I think.

 

[Correll]

It is elaborate when you come up with a completely baseless and nefarious conspiracy theory to explain something that doesn’t need such a ridiculous explanation.

I swear you guys can’t get into a car accident without concluding that it was the government out to get you.

It is not ridiculous to think that politically motivated prosecutors are willing to cheap to get their targets.

 

[XponentialChaos]

It is not ridiculous to think that politically motivated prosecutors are willing to cheap to get their targets.

It is ridiculous when you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support your idiotic conspiracy theory.

A restaurant over-charged me recently. Clearly it was the government trying to penalize me.

 

[Correll]

A clear contradiction according to you. I disagree with what you believe to be a clear contradiction.

You talk about "teh law" and when I show you a case where the prosecutors ADMITTED that they violated the law and the rights of the accused, and requested that their own case be throw out,

your response was, "well, he shouldn't have violated the law".


That is not just "according to me". That is a clear contradiction.

 

[Correll]

It is ridiculous when you have absolutely no evidence whatsoever behind your idiotic conspiracy theory.

What evidence would you accept?

 

[XponentialChaos]

What evidence would you accept?

I don’t know. Let me know when you find some evidence and I’ll be sure to take a look at it objectively. At this point, you have exactly none.

A restaurant over-charged me recently. Clearly it was the government trying to penalize me.

 

[XponentialChaos]

You talk about "teh law" and when I show you a case where the prosecutors ADMITTED that they violated the law and the rights of the accused, and requested that their own case be throw out,

your response was, "well, he shouldn't have violated the law".


That is not just "according to me". That is a clear contradiction.

The contradiction is according to you. As I have explained, I disagree with your assessment that it is a contradiction.

Now what?

 

[Correll]

I don’t know. Let me know when you find some evidence and I’ll be sure to take a look at it objectively. At this point, you have exactly none.

A restaurant over-charged me recently. Clearly it was the government trying to penalize me.

Good analogy. Except, it was clearly the government that violated the mans rights. They admitted that they did it.


I'm not sure you got that.

The government official ADMITTED THAT THEY VIOLATED THE MAN'S RIGHTS AND REQUESTED THAT THEIR OWN CASE BE THROWN OUT AS A RESULT.

 

[Correll]

The contradiction is according to you. As I have explained, I disagree with your assessment that it is a contradiction.

Now what?

Not "according to me". Anyone can see it in your contradictory words.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Good analogy. Except, it was clearly the government that violated the mans rights. They admitted that they did it.


I'm not sure you got that.

The government official ADMITTED THAT THEY VIOLATED THE MAN'S RIGHTS AND REQUESTED THAT THEIR OWN CASE BE THROWN OUT AS A RESULT.

The restaurant admitted that they over-charged me. Clearly a nefarious plot against me.

 

[XponentialChaos]

Not "according to me". Anyone can see it in your contradictory words.

Things you say aren’t according to you? LoL

 

[Correll]

The restaurant admitted that they over-charged me. Clearly a nefarious plot against me.

And then you built on top of that a leap, to blame the government.


There was no such leap in my posts. THe government officials readily admitted their crime.


See the difference. In your analogy, you had to just make up the role of government.

In my real life example, the government was doing it, and they admitted it.


That you're not able to make the distinction here, is kind of sad.

 

[Correll]

Things you say aren’t according to you? LoL

Things that are clearly in the thread, are clearly in the thread.

 

[XponentialChaos]

And then you built on top of that a leap, to blame the government.


There was no such leap in my posts. THe government officials readily admitted their crime.


See the difference. In your analogy, you had to just make up the role of government.

Ah so it was a nefarious plot from the restaurant owner. That son of a *****!!

 

[XponentialChaos]

Things that are clearly in the thread, are clearly in the thread.

Neat. I still disagree with your creative interpretation of what is in this thread.

 

[Correll]

Ah so it was a nefarious plot from the restaurant owner. That son of a *****!!

It was a weak analogy you came up with.

The fact remains. You demand proof of everything, except when it comes to the motives of the your side, where you just assume the best and give them a pass.