3RU7AL

In those cases the war/sports jargon are metaphors for existing legal, political processes. For example "winning the battleground states" means to earn electoral votes in swing states. So the question arises: what is "trial by combat" analogous to? Any "battle" or "contest" is over. The counting of the votes my Congress is mostly a formality. The only issues to deal with are procedural ones. So if Guiliani isn't talking about literal trial by combat, what is he talking about?

A report by Business Insider, cites an excerpt from the interview where Trump's ex-wife Ivana tells her lawyer Michael Kennedy that Trump reads a book of Hitler’s collected speeches, My New Order and keeps it in a cabinet by his bed.

This is not relevant to Trump's culpability.

Trump caused an angry mob to attack the capitol.

those are all hypotheicals

I do not base any of my decisions based on my emotions other than family matters.  The family matter decisions are basically bowing to the absurd to get along.  Emotion based decisions are the worst decisions you will ever make in your life.

Heh, gotta love that first woman who speaks up. "I still feel completely in the dark, and I'm surprised that you are one of the only people doing these public briefings. Why are we not hearing from the interim Capitol police chief?"

They certainly can and are entitled to as it's their platform.

Some were by definition no? Illegal acts of violence and/or intimidation against civilians with political purpose.

Except of course when you rule out evidence just because you don't like it. 

The news is absolutely covering this story, so why are you continuing to pretend they aren't? 

There is an investigation that will happen. Probably a whole bunch of them. Expecting the media to be able to provide you with that info now is unrealistic. 

And the truth is that very few people, if any at all, actually know that right now.

The top House appropriator charged with funding the Capitol Police vowed Wednesday to investigate the law enforcement response to the violent mob that overtook the Capitol building and alluded to firings to come among the force.

Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) told reporters after the rioting had subsided that "there were some strategic mistakes from the very beginning."

“I think it’s pretty clear that there’s going to be a number of people who are going to be without employment very, very soon," Ryan said, "because this is an embarrassment — both on behalf of the mob and the president, and the insurrection and the attempted coup, but also the lack of professional planning and dealing with what we knew was going to occur."

“You can bet your ass that we’re going to get to the bottom of it,” the Ohio Democrat said.

STRANGELY NO QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO GAVE THE ORDER FOR THE POLICE TO "STAND DOWN".

That question is being asked. There are investigations being started into what happened. Why are you insisting no one is asking questions when they are?

IT'S PRETTY HANDY TO BE ABLE TO CALL EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU "TERRORISTS".

they attacked the US government to stop them from counting the results of a democratic election. They were chanting that they wanted to murder the vice president. They brought guns, pipe bombs, molitov cocktails etc. They attacked police. 

The definition of a terrorist is "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims." That describes what those people did to a tee. They came to use violence and intimidation to influence the outcome of a democratic election. 

Scarborough is talking about how the police let them in. So your objections seems to be they aren't playing the specific footage you want them to show while the cover the story you claim they aren't covering. 

I can't define what I don't know which I've uttered before, by the looks of it your applying the principle of charity because you don't know what you're taking about either and since we both can't follow it I think the most logical move forward is to abandon the argument and present another one to make your case.

I don't need to. It's Twitters platform. You may peruse their terms of service and community guidelines at your leisure.

You pick whatever definition you personally prefer, and I'll demonstrate how it can be condensed down to its core components.

Excuse me? You're the one that's making  a claim so the burden of proof is on you to provide support of the definition your using, and for the record you can't define something by telling me what it's not you define it by telling me what it is.

i would say 8 generations back, you wouldn't connect super well to the rest

what does ideal "ASSIMILATION" mean to you in practical terms?

Assimilating to the US means learning enough English to get by.

1) Learning English for any immigrant is something that makes them fiscally wealthier and makes life easier.  More wealth per immigrant means less welfare that has to be paid to them.

2) It prevents separatist movements in the US along ethnic grounds.

That may be the case, but the Chinese don’t kill each other anymore, so can’t they all get along?

How are you going to track down the person you plan on charging a dime?

Anytime someone spreads an STI, whoever gets the disease reports it to the police and the police make the person who spread the disease get it treated, along with the person who contracted the disease.  The reward for those who get the disease telling the cops is $100, paid for by the person who spread the disease.

If you have an STI, just get it treated; it’s not that hard.

The people of China have a rich diversity of regional customs, beliefs, dialects and histories.

I can’t tell.  I’m white and I also can’t tell an ethnic Italian from an ethnic Greek, provided they are assimilated Americans.  America has different regional customs in that if you live in PA, your more likely to eat a Philly cheesesteak, the religious beliefs in China are mostly bhuddist.  History differences I fail to see how they are relevant.

Take pride in it but also know it now your responsibily to please your ancestors who look above

no, parents meeting isnt by just accidetal

I GENERALLY EXPECT THE PROFESSIONALS TO BE BETTER INFORMED THAN MYSELF.

this story has been covered on the news. They just used other clips. That has nothing to do with how well informed they are. 

It certainly seems "news-worthy" to me.

it is newsworthy. which is why it has been covered by the news.... they just used other clips of the police letting people through. 

I STILL HAVEN'T SEEN THE 57 SECOND CLIP IN QUESTION COVERED BY ANY "OFFICIAL" "NEWS" SOURCES.

so the news has been covering the exact topic you want them to, but because they didn't use the exact video clip you want them to, it must be evidence they are covering it up? even though they are covering the exact story you are talking about?

I specifically suspected that somebody else had already uploaded the video and mine would be flagged as a duplicate.

then why would you care? taking down duplicates of something is hardly evidence of any ill intent on the part of anyone. 

the police letting people through has been getting coverage.

I hadn't "heard a peep" about THE 57 SECOND CLIP IN QUESTION.

ok, but his point is that the police letting people through has been getting coverage. So the fact that you personally haven't seen it is kind of irrelevant. It is getting covered. 

this says more about you than anything else. You are surprised that some secret cabal hasn't taken down your post.

I do understand where you are coming from in that conspiratorial conversation should not be a barrier to fact based conversation. However in this instance unfettered conspiratorial nonsense has lead to unrest, death and destruction, so it's justified in this instance

Maybe, maybe not, one way I get to the bottom of this is by asking what this "logically-coherent" statement means.

"What evidence would convince you?" I don't know,

Are you saying the only way to solve murder is by seeing it happen? Is that what you are claiming? Are you saying that the only way of figuring out who washed the dishes is by seeing them wash the dishes? No. NO it's not. You can see the demonstratable effects and test them to see if they can cause predictable results, you can test, and eventually demonstrate things by running experimentation.

Is a description of general messaging insufficient to show usage of platform to sow civil unrest?

I don't know because I don't know what any of that means, but what's your point?

it's still a fact regardless of whether or not we can determine if it is,