ILikePie5

We see this again in the J6 hearings where Kevin McCarthy planted at least one poison pill in his selections and then used the rejection of that pill to pull everyone out and claim this is a purely partisan committee. So now every witness who testifies, every video produced, every revelation can now be dismissed as a product of pure partisanship. Right wing networks do not even cover it, using this as an excuse.

I’ve lost 2.4kgs or about 5 pounds for you imperialists. Overall weight now is about 90kgs or 198lbs

I think his chances of winning if he became the nominee have gone up as his social media bans have forced him to be quiet and Biden’s presidency continues to be a disaster…but I think his odds of winning the nomination have dropped drastically in the last six months or so 

Prolly not going to matter much TBH. Inflation's gonna be around for another year and nobody wants to touch a Democrat or a RINO with a 10 foot pole while that's going on.

I think he has around a 55-60% chance of becoming president again although it’s dropping imo

No, it’s not. I am thoroughly convinced you are just trolling at this point, there is no way you don’t understand this by now.

I’ve pointed out repeatedly what this is about. Let’s go back to the OP:

This isn’t a criminal trial nor is this a discussion regarding the legality of some future criminal case. It is about how you, as a Trump supporter, continue to justify your support for this man despite everything he has done. And it’s also about the mental gymnastics you and others continue to engage in to avoid discussing the topic.

Brandenburg v Ohio is irrelevant to this thread. Logic, reason, and facts, what we do with those facts as every day Americans, and how what we do with those facts affects our politics… that’s what this thread is about.

Why is this so difficult for you?

The example is entirely relevant because the example doesn’t address legality, it addresses common sense. The example demonstrates that there are situations where you actually have to do the work of connecting the dots yourself. In the example I provided, no one element alone made my intentions clear, but when you add them up my mindset became clear. That’s how it works, sometimes you actually have to think.

And when you start to think, you realize how absurd it is to dismiss the entire case because Trump planted one exculpatory line in his speech.

You realize that this months long effort to get to this point adds up to a very clear picture, his one-liner included. You realize that Trump has been doing this his entire life, and everyone around him knew it. Everyone at that rally knew it. Everyone in congress knew it. So the question I’m asking is; why don’t you know it? What is it that makes you so blatantly partisan that you cannot see something so simple which you would see in any other instance?

Do yourself a favor, read the above, then note how your response is completely disconnected from what I actually said.

Nowhere in this statement or anywhere in this thread have I in any way endorsed the idea of illegals being able to cast a ballot. You made that up whole cloth.

In my statement I clearly and explicitly talk about legal voters. In a democracy, that’s the point. Not whether they submit their ballots through their own mail boxes, a drop box, or a polling station. Yes there are rules and those rules need to be followed, but you’re claiming an election was stolen. That is a completely different type of claim and conversion.

To support claiming the election was stolen, you need to show that the people (because that is what a democracy is actually about) who were supposed to be choosing their candidate, did not actually do that. Do you have evidence that they didn’t? Yes or no?

And let’s spare a thought for how absurd it is that a man using Donald Trump’s face as his avatar is lecturing someone else about fascism. Wow.

https://youtu.be/ty9nKYq-qqI

Classic argument from ignorance fallacy.

It’s not congress’s job to refute your conspiracy theories. You’re the one making the claim that Ray Epps is a federal plant, therefore it is your job to provide evidence for your claims.

This is logic 101 and is how every conspiracy theory works. 9/11 truthers still argue that flight 77 didn’t hit the pentagon. Their evidence? The fact that the pentagon won’t release all of the tapes. Same exact logic.

Never said anything remotely resembling this. You are having a full blown discussion with your imaginary foe.

I can’t respond to every single nonsense sentence you post, so I have to pick and choose otherwise is be here all day. The arguments I drop are those that are irrelevant to this thread. I’m sorry that I won’t go down your little rabbit hole distractions. Stick to the topic and that won’t be an issue.

The discussion here isn’t about constitutional checks and balances, it’s about the mental gymnastics needed to blame Biden for global gas prices while absolving Trump of his own lack of involvement in his own federal government’s response to the US Capitol being under attack to the point where Congress had to evacuate.

If Joe Biden did that you would be all over it for months and you know it.

Something which Americans tune out in the 'political offseason' (by your own admission) having an audience comparable to that of a weekly sporting event should be significant even by your standards.

it is NOT a "criminal conspiracy" to organize a protest march

This statement pretty much sums it all up.

A post or so ago I used the money laundering example. The point was to illustrate that the conclusion takes multiple steps to get to, the fact that you cannot get there in one fell swoop does not negate the validity of that conclusion. This is basic common sense.

Trump supporters will never accept anything negative about him unless it’s spelled out in the clearest of terms possible all in one sound bite. Unless he stands up and says “I want you to fraudulently steal the election for me” you guys will always pretend his mindset was unclear. It’s beyond pathetic.

And no, this is not a requirement of the court. The requirement is that the jurors use their common sense in the same way that they would in any other situation. If I smiled at your wife, then bought her a drink, then invited her to my place… you wouldn’t need for me to spell out my intentions to know damn well what they were. But when it comes to Trump suddenly it’s impossible to know. That’s ridiculous.

Which is irrelevant to this conversation. The executives are not the ones who decided Joe Biden would get WI’s electoral votes, that decision was made by the people of WI. That’s what this conversation is actually about.

Again, any reasonable interpretation of the phrase “the election was stolen” points to the idea that the candidate the people chose did not come away as the victor.

That’s not what happened here, which is why you need to go down this hole of “but the drop boxes”.

Trump lost WI because more legal WI voters decided that they wanted Biden instead. Whether they cast their ballots through the mail, in a drop box, or in person is irrelevant to that fact.

I’m sorry you cannot handle that and so you need to find a technicality to disqualify legal WI voters from consideration, but the whole point of elections is for the results to match the will of the people.

Until you can argue that that this not happen here the rest of your points are nonsense red herrings.

Prove:

1. That Ray Epps was working for out with the federal government on January 6th

2. That anyone attacked the US Capitol who would not have if Ray Epps was not present.

My sides advocacy? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

In your attempt to swat away the allegation you end up proving it by projecting.

I don’t give a rats ass about sides, I’m arguing what I believe because I find it to be true.

My side are those who care about reality, which is why I’m challenging folks who are defending Trump here to make the counter argument, yet all you have is red herrings.

That only affirms the point I started off with; his actions are indefensible. If they were defendable, people like you would be able to. But here we are.

That's a really nice family you got there, would be a shame if something were to happen to them.

That's literally what these hearings are about.

And I can tell you the moon is made of cheese, which is my opinion and based on some fact. Turns out that whenever you are free to make up definitions you get to say whatever you want.

Rewriting the rules on voting in order to account for the conditions created by a pandemic is not only not "stealing an election", it's one of three most basic reasonabilities a government/legislature has. The fact that you disagree with those rules does not change that.

No one changed to rules to say that black people get to vote twice, or that illegals get to vote. All they did was make voting more convenient for people who feared COVID and to help prevent public spread.

To call that "stealing an election" is ridiculous. If the drop boxes weren't there those voters would have just voted elsewhere.

And if your argument is that many of them wouldn't have voted at all then you're literally arguing that the election was stolen because republicans were not allowed to stop enough democratic voters from voting. That's beyond absurd.

We're not talking about the judicial process. This is a Congressional hearing. The topic in this thread is about what you, as a Trump supporter, think about the actual evidence of the case. You know, the thing you have completely avoided discussing?

I don't care about your legal ducks and dodges, do you have an actual opinion on the reasonableness of the committee's findings based on the evidence they have presented?

The Pentagon refuses to release the footage of flight 77. Let's all march to demand they tell us what they're hiding.

Anyone can insinuate conspiracy garbage behind the veil of just asking questions. Make a claim and support your claim, then I will be happy to address.

When the US president is a democrat they're responsible for literally everything, including globally high gas prices and another country on the other side of the world invading it's neighbor.

But when they're a republican they're not even responsible for the federal government's response to the US Capitol being overrun by mob rioters.

Your partisan hackery is showing.

Whether a speech is a threat depends on what is said in the speech. You understand this even though you pretend you don't. What also matters just as much is the context in which that speech was given. It never ceases to amaze me how Trump defenders ignore that at all costs.

Once again, the speech he gave was the culmination of a months long effort to convince the public of his complete bullshit lie that the election was stolen, then rile them up and invite them all to the Capitol to set them loose. Whatwere talking about is the entire picture, not any oneaction. I've made this point repeatedly in this thread, why has that not sunk in? What is so difficult about this?

Are you familiar with money laundering? That's when one uses a business transaction to hide the true nature of a payment. Proving the crime requires multiple elements committed at multiple points. It's only when you put all of the elements together that you establish a crime. That's what this is. You are not dense enough to not understand this concept, you either just don't want to get it or you do and are pretending you don't.

Another example of you pretending not to understand basic concepts you no doubt understand is your claim that he cannot he held responsible for the actions of others. It's a literal legal term and people get prosecuted for it all the time;

Incitement

the action of provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully.

"this amounted to an incitement to commit murder"

- Google

And as far as your silly little claim regarding federal plants rallying people up, I haven't addressed that because it's just plain stupid. Provide evidence and state what you're claiming clearly and I will happily address.

Wow.

I'm acting like Trump is the President, as in the person running the federal government. As in the person responsible for protecting the nation.

You can't be serious.

So in your eyes, are the J6 hearings to get Trump or is it to help develop plans to defend the capitol in the future? Because outside of partisan theatrics, it seems they are objectively doing neither.

None of these points are relavant to the issue. There is a term called stochastic terrorism, which is where one makes vague notions of something bad that should happen, and then given the odds of someone listening to them will carry it out, it happens. This is danger that while the speaker is in fact responsible for, cannot be charged because they get to claim they didn't really mean it or that they weren't the one who actually did it.

Everytime we talk about J6 right wingers love to ignore the actual concept here and go with the stupid defense that Trump didn't tell them to go in. Everyone knew in real time today Trump's actions were a threat, and everyone knew in real time that he was responsible. Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, and Kevin McCarthy all said so the day it happened.

But then something else happened... In the days and weeks later they realized Trump sycophants like yourself didn't give a shit and the political consequences of sticking to what they knew to be the case was greater than pretending Trump did nothing wrong. So here we are where the stupid arguments like "well Trump did say X" or "well some people didn't go in" actually make sense and address the issue here. They don't.

You left out what Trump actually told him.

"Fill it and do whatever was necessary to protect the demonstrators that were executing their constitutionally protected rights," Miller said Trump told him on January 3.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-told-christopher-miller-do-whatever-necessary-protect-demonstrators-ahead-capitol-riot-1590993?amp=1

It's very telling that this is the best defense you can come up with for why Trump did absolutely nothing while the US Capitol was being attacked by his own supporters in his name as the rest of the country watched on in real time wondering where the president was.

It's very telling that this is the best defense you can come up with for why Trump did absolutely nothing while the US Capitol was being attacked by his own supporters in his name as the rest of the country watched on in real time wondering where the president was.

Let's make this real easy...

Kevin McCarthy, the same guy who stood up and said on the house for on January 6th that Trump was responsible for the attack on the US Capitol, weeks later flew down to Mar-A-Lago to see Trump and then post a picture of the two of them together in an obviously apparent attempt to show the world they stand together.

Tell me with a straight face that this man had a genuine interest in investigating January 6th. I'll wait.

This is such a stupid retort. If you actually believe this I pray for you that you never get caught up dealing with a mob boss. When they tell you "eh, nice family you have there, would be shame if something were to happen to them" you would be dumb enough to think he was expressing genuine concern for the safety of your family.

This is in law what's referred to as a false exculpatory. Something one says so that when they are charged for their actions they point back and say "no, look at what I said". It's like when a prostetute tells you they are charging you for their time.

Trump's effort to rile up this crowd was months in the making and his own aids have testified to it. Everyone in that crowd knew he wanted violence, his own aids testified to that too. This is why you are such an obvious partisan hack, you're just not stupid enough to believe this.

Trump just told a mob of angry supporters that their country had been stolen from them and they have to take it back by showing strength because it will never happen with weakness, and you seriously think the take away for that crowd was that they were supposed to make their voices heard peacefully?

No, you can't possibly seriously think this.

Why did they need extra troops in the first place?

Have you ever bothered to ask yourself that question? January 6th congress and goes every election, it is hardly even covered. What was different this year?

First off, let's just point out that you are actually comparing Nancy Pelosi's decision to not request additional troops in the days and weeks prior to J6 to Trump's decision to not request additional troops as the attacks were unfolding. That's absurd, and I think you know that.

But to your question, YES, Trump was supposed to deploy the national guard. The DC national guard reports to the president, and yet on J6 it was Mike Pence who gave the orders for them to be deployed because Trump was MIA.  Why does this not concern you?

What was the point of a President anyway?

We know why she rejected two of McCarthy's picks; because they are unquestionable partisan hacks who had no interest in investigating January 6th and one of them is a literal material witness to the events being investigated. They were poison pills McCarthy threw in there on purpose just so he could have an excuse to not participate, and he thought this would be good best option because he knew partisan hacks liked yourself would carry his water. I mean seriously, the guy flew down to Mar-A-Lago to kiss the ring. You can't be serious to claim he had any interest in this.

Funny how you don't share that same interest to know what Trump knew about it and what he did in response, especially considering that what they did was done in his name.

Also funny that you care to know what Pelosi did about it in the days prior, but no interest to know what Trump was doing about it as it was happening.

You're not a serious person to talk to about this.

Guns are being less and less depended on within all of society. Today you literally don't need a gun in order to live a life unlike in the 1800s. Not in a few years, but I believe in a bunch of decades.

citation please

An assault rifle is a selective fire rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine. Assault rifles were first put into mass production and accepted into widespread service during World War II. The first assault rifle to see major usage was the German StG 44 [**]

All weapons are assault weapons.

Great. So since reasonable exceptions are constitutionally valid, what do you guys think of an assault weapons ban?

There exists no rights in any of the constitution that does not have exceptions.

I didn't accuse you of that. Read my post again.

I was pointing out how the 2A advocate argument that owning guns are a constitutional right goes out the window the moment you accept that we should background check someone to make sure they meet the government's qualifications before allowing them the privilege of owning a gun.

What does it mean to be pro-second amendment anyways. You don't care about the constitution and the bill of rights. You just wanna blast your guns, right? If one day an amendment comes against your favor, you would be protesting against it, occupying the white house and shit, and not just accepting it because "it is the law". If that is what some of you guys will do, please don't.

I never stated my position, I only criticized yours. Not surprising that you pretended I did the former in order to not have to address the latter...

Who would have thought endless political theatre while the USA burns could have resurrected DJT from obscurity.

Not only I support the change of the 2nd amendment, I believe it is inevitable that it will be changed.

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Searching someone's background so you can tell them whether they are allowed to buy a gun sounds like an infringement to me.

So does telling someone they cannot buy a gun because they went to prison.

So does telling someone they can't buy a gun because of a few social media posts.

Sounds like you're anti second amendment.

these background checks don't seem to do so well against people who massacre but don't have a particular record.

We get it; your a gun grabber.  The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I live here. I can tell you Highland Park is the complete opposite of Chicago. It would be the least expected place for something like this.

Highland Park crime rates were nonexistant. Statistically, what you said is laughably incorrect

Facts are facts. Care to discuss any of those?

No, the issue is deeper than that and this would continually encourage webs of dealers and suppliers encasing themselves in bodyshields and mules.

I want regular undercover workers, using taxpayer's money on a nationwide campaign to rid America of guns in the hands of civilians, yes 'illegal guns' first and then once it's proven effective, legal guns too.

doesn't mean a thing if it can get in from the nearby cities.