Which Form Of Treason Do You Prefer.

[maybelooking]

Then we have Trump. Who clearly tried to perform a coup on the U.S. government by supporting the assault on the Capitol Building to overturn the election.

never happened retard.

and theres VIDEO proving it never happened. So STFU.

 

[brainsee]

I'd stick with scummy, lying conman Trump. Trump can't do much on his own. And the military seems to support dems and not Trump. So that is a safeguard.

View attachment 893998

If I wasn't an American and not living smack dab in the middle of it...I'd go for Biden. It makes for good clean entertainment watching America implode under the dems...but only at a distance.

Where was the military when the Capitol Building was being attacked.

 

[BluesLegend]

Lawless Democrats are the greatest threat the country has ever faced.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Kind of true. But it needs more definition. What government are we talking about. The American government as is is supposed to be

That was actually pretty shitty. Constitutional protections are weak, the document is poorly written, and our White nationalist founders didn't write into the Constitution that we would be a White nation.

or ZOG.

Well, that's even worse.

And loyalty to what people. The American people or the illegal invaders.

White Americans.

 

[Godboy]

Where was the military when the Capitol Building was being attacked.

They were nowhere near it because, Pelosi ignored Trumps multiple requests for National Guard support.

 

[Godboy]

Immigration was an issue before Biden took office. It has gotten worse during Biden's administration as a carry-over from trump's failed policies.

No. Not true at all.

PolitiFact - Is illegal immigration the lowest in 17 years, as Trump said?

President Donald Trump hasn’t been decisive on whether he’d sign a spending bill that did not include funding for his pr

www.politifact.com

https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN27D1UG/

 

[BluesLegend]

It wasn't Democrats who attacked their own country in 2020 just because they didn't like the election results.

There are more Democrats in this country than Republicans - not Republicans anymore - but lawless magas.

Had Democrats been violent and attacked the country like magas did, trump would have never been allowed to be president.

Pull your head out of your ass, Dems staged a national insurrection when Trump won in 2016. Several key Dem leaders claimed Trump was illegitimate, including his opponent in the election. One Dem leader vowed to impeach Trump before he was even sworn into office. FACTS

 

[brainsee]

never happened retard.

and theres VIDEO proving it never happened. So STFU.

Are you hallucinating? Trump was behind the whole thing. And as I said, he wanted to personally lead the attack. But his Secret Service guard wouldn't let him. Which pissed him off. There is testimony from at least one White House staffer who was there that says as much. There was also messages between the Secret Service agents about all of this. But guess what. An event that was probably the most pivotal in American History for our democracy, the Secret Service decided to destroy all such communication. What a "coincidence."

 

[Godboy]

Are you hallucinating? Trump was behind the whole thing. And as I said, he wanted to personally lead the attack. But his Secret Service guard wouldn't let him.

Thats a wild claim! Now you just have to prove it. If you can prove it, you become the hero of this thread. If you fail, you become a clown. Good luck.

 

[brainsee]

Thats a wild claim! Now you just have to prove it. If you can prove it, you become the hero of this thread. If you fail, you become a clown. Good luck.

Luck? Didn't you see Trump's speech before the attack where he told people, "you have to fight like hell." That's what they did, didn't they. Also, here's the proof you seek.


Ex-White House staffer details Trump's behavior leading up to the Capitol attack : NPR
npr.org › 2022 › 06 › 29 › 1108513246 › ex-white-house-staffer-details-trumps-behavior-leading-up-to-the-capitol-attack

 

[Godboy]

Luck? Didn't you see Trump's speech before the attack where he told people, "you have to fight like hell." That's what they did, didn't they. Also, here's the proof you seek.


Ex-White House staffer details Trump's behavior leading up to the Capitol attack : NPR
npr.org › 2022 › 06 › 29 › 1108513246 › ex-white-house-staffer-details-trumps-behavior-leading-up-to-the-capitol-attack

"Fight" is a word that has been used in politics since the beginning of politics, not to mention the fact that he also told them to be peaceful.

Here is a LONG montage of democrats using the exact same rhetoric. Hell, they say MUCH worse things than Trump EVER has.

 

[brainsee]

"Fight" is a word that has been used in politics since the beginning of politics, not to mention the fact that he also told them to be peaceful.

Here is a LONG montage of democrats using the exact same rhetoric. Hell, they say MUCH worse things than Trump EVER has.

Interesting how you ignore the proof you wanted. But that aside, to hell with any other usage of the word "fight." Using "fight" in context to going to the Capitol Building gives it a whole new meaning. And a fight it led to.

 

[BluesLegend]

"Fight" is a word that has been used in politics since the beginning of politics, not to mention the fact that he also told them to be peaceful.

Here is a LONG montage of democrats using the exact same rhetoric. Hell, they say MUCH worse things than Trump EVER has.

FACT! Violent Dems refuse to accept the will of the American people in elections.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

Interesting how you ignore the proof you wanted. But that aside, to hell with any other usage of the word "fight." Using "fight" in context to going to the Capitol Building gives it a whole new meaning. And a fight it led to.

Except he told them to be peaceful which means that the word fight had the same typical political meaning that it always had. Contrast with Democrats fomenting the violence that lead to the BLM riots. Every Democrats that used violent language should be expelled from Congress.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Your Democrat Masters redefined what "insurrection" means to further shred the Constitution to take Trump out of the 2024 election. Clowns like you are their useful minions.

They tried with inflation also

 

[Lone Wanderer]

I prefer the treason that Jefferson engaged in -- the treason that involved overthrowing an oppressive government.

For some reason, it feels very familiar.

 

[sparky]

And we don’t have an immigration crisis. We have an illegal immigration crisis.

yes BA, but dig into the immigration bills in Congress, and you'll find them purposely introducing a lotta grey area for 'illegal' to hide behind ...~S~

 

[BackAgain]

yes BA, but dig into the immigration bills in Congress, and you'll find them purposely introducing a lotta grey area for 'illegal' to hide behind ...~S~

That’s a subjective claim. Our immigration law is a fucking wreck. It needs to be overhauled. And that will be enormously hard work. It wil be time consuming. But it doesn’t have to result in the legalese that reads like our Tax code.

And yes, it will nevertheless involve thorny details which will result in emotionalism mostly from the left. So be it. Let’s get on with the discussions, anyway.

We need (among many other things) to make clear distinctions between “immigration” and “illegal immigrarion” as well as between valid “asylum” seekers and other would-be immigrants.

We need to jettison the absurd notion of “anchor babies.” We need to address what happens if a family of illegals has been here so long that the children only know the U.S. as “home,” even though they aren’t actual citizens.

We need clear laws for our immigration “judges” to follow. (And we shouldn’t be referring to them as “judges” in reality since they are not judges under Article III.)

 

[sparky]

That’s a subjective claim. Our immigration law is a fucking wreck. It needs to be overhauled. And that will be enormously hard work. It wil be time consuming. But it doesn’t have to result in the legalese that reads like our Tax code.

And yes, it will nevertheless involve thorny details which will result in emotionalism mostly from the left. So be it. Let’s get on with the discussions, anyway.

We need (among many other things) to make clear distinctions between “immigration” and “illegal immigrarion” as well as between valid “asylum” seekers and other would-be immigrants.

We need to jettison the absurd notion of “anchor babies.” We need to address what happens if a family of illegals has been here so long that the children only know the U.S. as “home,” even though they aren’t actual citizens.

We need clear laws for our immigration “judges” to follow. (And we shouldn’t be referring to them as “judges” in reality since they are not judges under Article III.)

Well I agree BA, but you know how these lengthly litigant gems work , they go back/forth until everyone involved gets their piece of pork, corporate allocations ,or political pitchforks ....until they start to resemble something almost the reverse of what their intent was

Here, i'm starting to wonder if they'll use it against Trump , who's voiced his opposition to it , because he can read the negative impacts

~S~

 

[brainsee]

FACT! Violent Dems refuse to accept the will of the American people in elections.

Oh, those were democrats that attacked the Capitol Building?