January 6th Protest/Stolen Election Thread (Was: Trump Nuts Storm the Capitol)

[CHEEZY17]

Oh, and also you fucking disingenuous hack: no one here is defending what happened January 6th as you keep claiming.
Claiming something while knowing its false is the definition of disingenuous which is what you do on a consistent basis for all to see. Easily pointing out that you are in disagreement with the people smarter than you who do this for a living is not the same as "defending" you fucking retard. Unless you think the DOJ is "defending" it too.

[dot]

I didn't think you could man up. be careful how you throw around that "disingenuous hack" routine.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to cope with defending traitorous actions. Because you had to admit January 6 was an insurrection which colors every dodge you've ever made and will make in the future over what took place that day and that you're willing to accept instead of our democracy.

Oh, and also you fucking disingenuous hack: no one here is defending what happened January 6th as you keep claiming.
Claiming something while knowing its false is the definition of disingenuous which is what you do on a consistent basis for all to see. Easily pointing out that you are in disagreement with the people smarter than you who do this for a living is not the same as "defending" you fucking retard. Unless you think the DOJ is "defending" it too.

Hack does hack things. If you can't admit what January 6 was, then you are defending it as acceptable especially when hacks such as yourself are on record as being ready and willing to vote for it again. Enjoy being a duped traitor.

[necronomous]

so, let me ask one simple question then. would you be willing to have a eureka moment and admit that what was done on Jan 6 does NOT fit the definition of the crime of insurrection? because then we would have two clearly defined differences of opinion on what this argument boils down to.

1. Did the events on Jan 6th meet the definition of the word "insurrection".
2. Did the events on Jan 6th meet the definition of the "law against insurrection".

I would be willing to go on record as "yes" to #1 and "no" to #2.

The argument was never about charges filed, it's about whether it was what it was. But I applaud you conceding the point that January 6 was an insurrection. Now time for you to self reflect and ask yourself why you and your ideological allies are so willing to defend the insurrection. Let's see what they say.

It's not about like or not. It's common sense. According to you, we have proof people committed treason, we just aren't going to do anything about it. And I'm not defending anyone. If they committed treason, by all means put them in jail. YOU are defending the traitors by not demanding that they use this so called proof to put them in jail.

Either they have the proof and they themselves are committing treason by not putting them in jail.

Or they don't have proof, just pretending they have to make people like you feel good and can't do shit but lie. One or the other chuck.

Your idea of common sense would dictate that because a crime is not charged, the crime is erased from being committed in the first place. That is not common sense, that is your irrational defense of the indefensible. Because if you are so dug in on the idea that because no charges were filed and thus what happened in front of our eyes didn't happen, then that means you are in fact defending what happened. This also demonstrates why the tactic of shifting the argument to whether charges were filed is nothing more than a distraction ploy. You can't prove January 6 was not an insurrection because you will never argue using the facts of what happened that day, you will only argue the aftermath which does not change what took place.

That's one that refuses to admit reality.

Nope. It just comes back to this:
Dodgin' Dot, the single most important point you cant reconcile is this: Everyone knows all of the same facts you do; including the definition and legal standard. The people that matter actually know MORE than you do and they did not reach the same conclusion you did after evaluating and investigating the "events of that day" for 3 years.

Now, I'll save you the trouble because youre just going to trot out the same bullshit dodge about it not being about the charges. Where that argument fails time after time no matter how many times you try it is here: "the charges" are based on "the facts of that day". "the charges" are determined by the careful examination of "the facts" which include the definition and legal standard. "The charges" are EXACTLY what matters because those are where the facts have led. To put it as plainly as possible for you: "the charges" were determined by "the facts". You can argue that all you want but you'll simply again be arguing against the judgement and conclusion of the legal prosecutorial authority of the United States government.

Which leads us right back to yet another question you habitually dodge:
Do you think the legal authorities are wrong in their conclusion and how did they get to that conclusion?

Once again, we see that disingenuous partisan hacks have no interest in actually proving their apologist's assertion that January 6 was not an insurrection. Shifted arguments, moved goalposts, that's all that's employed. Hack wants the argument to be about charges filed, and tries to head off the reason his shifted argument holds no water but fails in his logic conclusion. According to hack, charges filed are based on the facts of that day. But hack forgets that clear crimes were committed by his party reps and they escaped charges. The facts bear out that his reps defied subpoenas, that fact is indisputable. The facts bear out that those same reps were not charged and no one, not even the most partisan hack amongst you, is about to claim they didn't defy a lawful subpoena because charges were not filed. But applying hack's insurrection excuse logic to the defiance of subpoenas would mean the subpoenas were never defied, it didn't happen. Hack's insurrection escape hatch logic about charges being filed is therefore wrong on its face because the core facts do not change absent charges. Subpoenas defied and not charged are still defied subpoenas, much like insurrection not charged is still insurrection. The charges filed after the fact never change what took place. And what took place was an insurrection, and who incited that insurrection is still the same person all along because he did not win his election and tried to overturn it and usurp power in a multitude of ways. That is what is being defended with hack's distractions and dodges, because he and they refuse to actually acknowledge what took place.

That's two that refuse to admit reality. Disingenuous delusional intellectually dishonest functionally retarded hypocritical duped partisan hack mark.

What you just said was, nuh uh. You and others who have "proof" of said insurrection are deciding to not charge treasonous people with treason. I'm saying do it if you have the proof.

The conclusion is if they don't do it then they are just as treasonous. Or they know they have no proof and can't. That's it. That's the only two explanations.

You are completely full shit with the idea of, yes we have evidence, they in fact did it, we just are going to not charge anyone with anything even though we are very adamant about this being an insurrection. Yes they committed treason, but doesn't matter. That is literally your argument.

If that was an insurrection, put them in jail, and execute. That's my stance. I'm not going call it an insurrection until someone is tried for insurrection. You are not only going against the tenets of the constitution of innocent until proven guilty, but totally ignoring it and saying, as long as someone official has said they did it, good enough.

And what my eyes saw was, definitely not an insurrection. If you think so, prove it.

[dot]

What you just said was, nuh uh. You and others who have "proof" of said insurrection are deciding to not charge treasonous people with treason. I'm saying do it if you have the proof.

This is still not a refutation of the finding of fact by a court. You're the one disputing it. So prove it's not an insurrection. Use facts.

The conclusion is if they don't do it then they are just as treasonous. Or they know they have no proof and can't. That's it. That's the only two explanations.

You are completely full shit with the idea of, yes we have evidence, they in fact did it, we just are going to not charge anyone with anything even though we are very adamant about this being an insurrection. Yes they committed treason, but doesn't matter. That is literally your argument.

Yet another shifting of the argument tactic, yay. You say January 6 is not an insurrection? Then prove it. You have the investigations, fact finding, factual finding by the courts still unrefuted. If it is as you say, then prove it, red.

If that was an insurrection, put them in jail, and execute. That's my stance. I'm not going call it an insurrection until someone is tried for insurrection.

Regardless of whether it fits the definition or not, yeah, your position has been apparent for a while now despite your purported Both Sides™ gimmick.

You are not only going against the tenets of the constitution of innocent until proven guilty, but totally ignoring it and saying, as long as someone official has said they did it, good enough.

And what my eyes saw was, definitely not an insurrection. If you think so, prove it.

If two sides no longer agree on reality, then commonality must be reached if progress is to be made. It's real simple, January 6 was an insurrection. It was so by definition, functionality, conception. Anybody that supports the actual Constitution would acknowledge that and reject the efforts to overturn a lawful election usurping the power of government through organized violence. If you don't agree that January 6 was what it was, then you are accepting what happened that day and defending it. In other words, if you don't reject the efforts from that day both in public and behind closed doors, then you have no business talking about anyone else going against the "tenets of the Constitution." So I have the benefit of arguing from the side of facts which include those pesky investigations and fact finding and court rulings and even the definition of the word you cannot or will not refute. My side's done already. I pity that you chose to take the side of traitors but I didn't force you to do that, your loyalty to all things red did. So if you say what your eyes saw was definitely not an insurrection, then it's really simple, red. Prove. It.

[necronomous]

What you just said was, nuh uh. You and others who have "proof" of said insurrection are deciding to not charge treasonous people with treason. I'm saying do it if you have the proof.

This is still not a refutation of the finding of fact by a court. You're the one disputing it. So prove it's not an insurrection. Use facts.

The conclusion is if they don't do it then they are just as treasonous. Or they know they have no proof and can't. That's it. That's the only two explanations.

You are completely full shit with the idea of, yes we have evidence, they in fact did it, we just are going to not charge anyone with anything even though we are very adamant about this being an insurrection. Yes they committed treason, but doesn't matter. That is literally your argument.

Yet another shifting of the argument tactic, yay. You say January 6 is not an insurrection? Then prove it. You have the investigations, fact finding, factual finding by the courts still unrefuted. If it is as you say, then prove it, red.

If that was an insurrection, put them in jail, and execute. That's my stance. I'm not going call it an insurrection until someone is tried for insurrection.

Regardless of whether it fits the definition or not, yeah, your position has been apparent for a while now despite your purported Both Sides™ gimmick.

You are not only going against the tenets of the constitution of innocent until proven guilty, but totally ignoring it and saying, as long as someone official has said they did it, good enough.

And what my eyes saw was, definitely not an insurrection. If you think so, prove it.

If two sides no longer agree on reality, then commonality must be reached if progress is to be made. It's real simple, January 6 was an insurrection. It was so by definition, functionality, conception. Anybody that supports the actual Constitution would acknowledge that and reject the efforts to overturn a lawful election usurping the power of government through organized violence. If you don't agree that January 6 was what it was, then you are accepting what happened that day and defending it. In other words, if you don't reject the efforts from that day both in public and behind closed doors, then you have no business talking about anyone else going against the "tenets of the Constitution." So I have the benefit of arguing from the side of facts which include those pesky investigations and fact finding and court rulings and even the definition of the word you cannot or will not refute. My side's done already. I pity that you chose to take the side of traitors but I didn't force you to do that, your loyalty to all things red did. So if you say what your eyes saw was definitely not an insurrection, then it's really simple, red. Prove. It.

No dumbass. You don't prove a negative. You prove they did it. You're asking me to prove unicorns don't exist.
If they did it, prosecute. No court has found them guilty of insurrection. None. Zero. You're making shit up because you've been told to. A court saying they did it and then nothing about it, is fucking pointless. Anyone can say anyone did anything. It's meaningless. If they did it and you are adamant they did it, go tell them to put them in jail.

[Animal]

I didn't think you could man up. be careful how you throw around that "disingenuous hack" routine.

Whatever you need to tell yourself to cope with defending traitorous actions. Because you had to admit January 6 was an insurrection which colors every dodge you've ever made and will make in the future over what took place that day and that you're willing to accept instead of our democracy.

look, you stupid fuck. If you voted for Biden in 2020 instead of Trump, then by definition you participated in an insurrection. Your vote that day was an attempt to over throw our government. Trump was president. You voted against him. Insurrectionist!!

[dot]

No dumbass. You don't prove a negative. You prove they did it. You're asking me to prove unicorns don't exist.

Wrong, I'm asking you to prove it isn't the literal definition of insurrection. What you and the rest of your ilk keep pivoting to is whether charges were filed. People that have a vested interest in never admitting that what took place that day was insurrection because they're ideologically aligned with the traitorous orchestrators. I get that you cannot stand admitting it, but you can't make the parallel of unicorns don't exist when it happened in front of our collective faces. The aftermath of investigations and revelations bore out it was exactly what insurrection is defined as. "Nice" try, but try again.

If they did it, prosecute. No court has found them guilty of insurrection. None. Zero. You're making shit up because you've been told to. A court saying they did it and then nothing about it, is fucking pointless. Anyone can say anyone did anything. It's meaningless. If they did it and you are adamant they did it, go tell them to put them in jail.

I acknowledge your tantrum, but if you still can't refute the factual finding of inciting insurrection, then you're not gaining any ground. It either is or it isn't. Take a stand. If you say it's not, then prove it. I'm not even asking you to do it in a court of law like with your failed fraud defense. I'm simply asking you to consider what happened that day and whether it meets what an insurrection is defined as, in this very thread even. Show your work, red. For once, show us some critical thinking against what you keep sticking up for over and over and over again.

look, you stupid fuck. If you voted for Biden in 2020 instead of Trump, then by definition you participated in an insurrection. Your vote that day was an attempt to over throw our government. Trump was president. You voted against him. Insurrectionist!!

Weak, even for you, that's super weak. But I'm not surprised, you still haven't learned that your Achilles heel is and always will be definitions. How are you coping with defending traitors?

[Animal]

I am sure that Dot's mom drank a lot during her pregnancy.

[dot]

I am sure that Dot's mom drank a lot during her pregnancy.

Do you even know what "sure" means at this point?

[necronomous]

No dumbass. You don't prove a negative. You prove they did it. You're asking me to prove unicorns don't exist.

Wrong, I'm asking you to prove it isn't the literal definition of insurrection. What you and the rest of your ilk keep pivoting to is whether charges were filed. People that have a vested interest in never admitting that what took place that day was insurrection because they're ideologically aligned with the traitorous orchestrators. I get that you cannot stand admitting it, but you can't make the parallel of unicorns don't exist when it happened in front of our collective faces. The aftermath of investigations and revelations bore out it was exactly what insurrection is defined as. "Nice" try, but try again.

If they did it, prosecute. No court has found them guilty of insurrection. None. Zero. You're making shit up because you've been told to. A court saying they did it and then nothing about it, is fucking pointless. Anyone can say anyone did anything. It's meaningless. If they did it and you are adamant they did it, go tell them to put them in jail.

I acknowledge your tantrum, but if you still can't refute the factual finding of inciting insurrection, then you're not gaining any ground. It either is or it isn't. Take a stand. If you say it's not, then prove it. I'm not even asking you to do it in a court of law like with your failed fraud defense. I'm simply asking you to consider what happened that day and whether it meets what an insurrection is defined as, in this very thread even. Show your work, red. For once, show us some critical thinking against what you keep sticking up for over and over and over again.

look, you stupid fuck. If you voted for Biden in 2020 instead of Trump, then by definition you participated in an insurrection. Your vote that day was an attempt to over throw our government. Trump was president. You voted against him. Insurrectionist!!

Weak, even for you, that's super weak. But I'm not surprised, you still haven't learned that your Achilles heel is and always will be definitions. How are you coping with defending traitors?

It didn't happen in front of our faces. It didn't occur .You're making shit up. Being let into a building and following the velvet ropes is not an insurrection and you're a moron if you think so.

And you're still wanting me to prove something that didn't happen. You can't prove a negative. If they did it arrest them charge them with actual insurrection and sentence them. If you aren't demanding that, if that is what you believe, you are failing. You have proved nothing, yet want me to prove something that never occurred. Answer the question, why has no one been charged with insurrection and tried with treason if that's what it was? Why?

[Animal]

dot may need skin grafts after these burns.

[CHEEZY17]

It either is or it isn't. Take a stand.

The DOJ has decided it isnt. I'll stand with the experts.

[dot]

It didn't happen in front of our faces. It didn't occur .You're making shit up. Being let into a building and following the velvet ropes is not an insurrection and you're a moron if you think so.

"Being let into a building and following the velvet ropes" in the same breath as "didn't happen in front of our faces." Every accusation is a confession with you reds. Thanks for confirming you're a bad faith operative as well, if that's the new line you're gonna be touting, moron.

And you're still wanting me to prove something that didn't happen. You can't prove a negative. If they did it arrest them charge them with actual insurrection and sentence them. If you aren't demanding that, if that is what you believe, you are failing. You have proved nothing, yet want me to prove something that never occurred. Answer the question, why has no one been charged with insurrection and tried with treason if that's what it was? Why?

You can keep dodging this all you want, I really don't care at this point as you've lowered yourself to where you're denying reality. Since that is all you have, I really don't know what you hope to accomplish since you refuse to function on the same plane of existence as rational people. But if this is what you're reduced to, then fine, square your "you can't prove a negative" with the fact that it was investigated and (still unrefuted to this day) found to be factual in a court of law which previously was your benchmark that he incited insurrection. The opposite of your point of view has already been proven, and as of now you're still refusing to prove what you say, that it was not insurrection. So it's real simple, was January 6 an insurrection or was it not? Look at the definition and tell us how it doesn't qualify.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insurrection

insurrection
noun
in·​sur·​rec·​tion ˌin(t)-sə-ˈrek-shən
Synonyms of insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

dot may need skin grafts after these burns.

Says the guy that had to concede I am right.

The DOJ has decided it isnt. I'll stand with the experts.

Charges filed will never change the crime committed, hack still dodges because he can't admit reality.

[necronomous]

It didn't happen in front of our faces. It didn't occur .You're making shit up. Being let into a building and following the velvet ropes is not an insurrection and you're a moron if you think so.

"Being let into a building and following the velvet ropes" in the same breath as "didn't happen in front of our faces." Every accusation is a confession with you reds. Thanks for confirming you're a bad faith operative as well, if that's the new line you're gonna be touting, moron.

And you're still wanting me to prove something that didn't happen. You can't prove a negative. If they did it arrest them charge them with actual insurrection and sentence them. If you aren't demanding that, if that is what you believe, you are failing. You have proved nothing, yet want me to prove something that never occurred. Answer the question, why has no one been charged with insurrection and tried with treason if that's what it was? Why?

You can keep dodging this all you want, I really don't care at this point as you've lowered yourself to where you're denying reality. Since that is all you have, I really don't know what you hope to accomplish since you refuse to function on the same plane of existence as rational people. But if this is what you're reduced to, then fine, square your "you can't prove a negative" with the fact that it was investigated and (still unrefuted to this day) found to be factual in a court of law which previously was your benchmark that he incited insurrection. The opposite of your point of view has already been proven, and as of now you're still refusing to prove what you say, that it was not insurrection. So it's real simple, was January 6 an insurrection or was it not? Look at the definition and tell us how it doesn't qualify.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insurrection

insurrection
noun
in·​sur·​rec·​tion ˌin(t)-sə-ˈrek-shən
Synonyms of insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

dot may need skin grafts after these burns.

Says the guy that had to concede I am right.

The DOJ has decided it isnt. I'll stand with the experts.

Charges filed will never change the crime committed, hack still dodges because he can't admit reality.

Hey look, I can do that too


No court of law has prosecuted anyone. Glad we agree that your "plane of rationality" is bullshit.

[dot]

Hey look, I can do that too

And the existence of your bad faith mischaracterization example is entirely negated by mine. I applaud the balls for you to try and pull it off, you look stupid doing it, but I applaud the confidence it took to announce you're that stupid.

No court of law has prosecuted anyone. Glad we agree that your "plane of rationality" is bullshit.

No court of law has refuted the factual finding of inciting insurrection. And guess what, neither have you. Try again.

[CHEEZY17]

Charges filed will never change the crime committed, hack still dodges because he can't admit reality.

And yet after all of this time you still cant reconcile the most basic point:
"the charges" are and were determined by "the facts of that day".
"The facts of that day" that you yourself claim are indisputable led the legal prosecutorial authority of the United States Government to a different conclusion than yours. That leaves us, once again, to this:
Either you think you know more than the DOJ and how to evaluate the "facts of that day" OR you have some evidence that they are missing which is why your conclusion differs from theirs.
If its the first option, then here once again, is their contact info for you to give them a hand in their evaluation. I'm sure they will welcome your help.
Phone # 1-202-514-2000
https://www.usa.gov/agencies/u-s-department-of-justice
If its the second option and you have evidence that they havent already seen which makes your conclusion "indisputable", well, I'm sure they'd love to see that too.
The bottom line bud, is this: the authorities have all of the same information you do. And even more that you dont know about. They have seen those pictures. They know and understand the definition and legal standard better than you do. They have read the texts and emails. Theyve seen the videos. Thay have done the investigations and interviews. Know what? In every instance, numbering into the hundreds, they decided "insurrection" was not the way to go; it didnt fit. Failing to reconcile and explain that very simple and undeniable fact just leaves you pissing in the wind. Sorry bud. Either explain why the DOJ after 3 years of investigations came to a different conclusion than you despite your claims of the evidence being "indisputable" or admit that youre conclusion isnt as rock solid as you think. Stating "charges doesnt equal crime" does NOT explain or eliminate your foundational problem. You have to explain WHY the disparity in your conclusions. We have a binary choice here so one of you must be wrong. Go ahead and explain why the experts are wrong.

[necronomous]

Hey look, I can do that too

And the existence of your bad faith mischaracterization example is entirely negated by mine. I applaud the balls for you to try and pull it off, you look stupid doing it, but I applaud the confidence it took to announce you're that stupid.

No court of law has prosecuted anyone. Glad we agree that your "plane of rationality" is bullshit.

No court of law has refuted the factual finding of inciting insurrection. And guess what, neither have you. Try again.

Lol, your picture bad, mine good. Oogah boogah. That's your argument. No court of law has to find it something that it's not.

[Animal]

Charges filed will never change the crime committed, hack still dodges because he can't admit reality.

And yet after all of this time you still cant reconcile the most basic point:
"the charges" are and were determined by "the facts of that day".
"The facts of that day" that you yourself claim are indisputable led the legal prosecutorial authority of the United States Government to a different conclusion than yours. That leaves us, once again, to this:
Either you think you know more than the DOJ and how to evaluate the "facts of that day" OR you have some evidence that they are missing which is why your conclusion differs from theirs.
If its the first option, then here once again, is their contact info for you to give them a hand in their evaluation. I'm sure they will welcome your help.
Phone # 1-202-514-2000
https://www.usa.gov/agencies/u-s-department-of-justice
If its the second option and you have evidence that they havent already seen which makes your conclusion "indisputable", well, I'm sure they'd love to see that too.
The bottom line bud, is this: the authorities have all of the same information you do. And even more that you dont know about. They have seen those pictures. They know and understand the definition and legal standard better than you do. They have read the texts and emails. Theyve seen the videos. Thay have done the investigations and interviews. Know what? In every instance, numbering into the hundreds, they decided "insurrection" was not the way to go; it didnt fit. Failing to reconcile and explain that very simple and undeniable fact just leaves you pissing in the wind. Sorry bud. Either explain why the DOJ after 3 years of investigations came to a different conclusion than you despite your claims of the evidence being "indisputable" or admit that youre conclusion isnt as rock solid as you think. Stating "charges doesnt equal crime" does NOT explain or eliminate your foundational problem. You have to explain WHY the disparity in your conclusions. We have a binary choice here so one of you must be wrong. Go ahead and explain why the experts are wrong.

dot is trying to compare killing someone to be the same as first degree murder. You can have done something that meets the definition of killing someone but not be guilty of first degree murder. Its not the same thing. But he thinks that the definition of insurrection is somehow the same thing as breaking the law of insurrection. he's too fucking stupid to understand the difference.

[dot]

And yet after all of this time you still cant reconcile the most basic point:

Your point is and always will be a moving of the goalposts in refusing to talk about what took place that day. It's why you won't prove what you claim, that there was no insurrection. The most basic point is always going to be, what took place that day fits the definition of insurrection. You have dodged that every time you come to this thread because you know as the disingenuous partisan hack that you are, you can't defend that on the merits. You can only obfuscate and distract. It continues to be real simple, was what took place on January 6 an insurrection or not or is the word itself incorrectly defined? If you can't prove either of these two things as your claim would require, then your apologist's premise is wrong. Get to work, hack.

Lol, your picture bad, mine good. Oogah boogah. That's your argument. No court of law has to find it something that it's not.

This is the depths a red will stoop to in order to deny reality. You are going to actually declare that the violence did not happen because it wasn't taking place in a moment of time captured on video. You're going to disregard the hours of violence in which it did take place on video otherwise because it destroys your narrative. That's your argument, to disregard reality and believe liars. Now I see why you don't dare follow up on your false bravado about fraud or corruption. It takes a real coward willing to ignore his allies' calls to hang the vice president echoing through the halls of the capitol building so he can say there was no insurrection taking place.

dot is trying to compare killing someone to be the same as first degree murder. You can have done something that meets the definition of killing someone but not be guilty of first degree murder. Its not the same thing. But he thinks that the definition of insurrection is somehow the same thing as breaking the law of insurrection. he's too fucking stupid to understand the difference.

Once again, as has had to be pointed out to the mental midgets among you, the only people trying to shift the goalposts to charges filed and prosecuted is those of you arguing in bad faith. The one person brave enough to engage on the facts for this has had to concede January 6 was in fact insurrection. And lo and behold, that one person brave enough just happens to be the guy now trying to downplay what he had to admit. I know full well that you guys don't want to admit that what you side with ideologically tried to overthrow the government and install America's first dictator. Never forget, the guy you're defending lost his election and tried to use multiple illegal means to usurp power to remain in office against the majority of the people and their votes. So split hairs, move your goalposts, shift your arguments, the fact remains and is still unrefuted that he incited insurrection against our own government in order to keep from the votes certifying his election loss to be made official. He pressured state governments to manufacture votes in his favor to change the outcome of their elections. He and his conspirators organized fake slates of electors to go to the capitol to cast their illegitimate votes for him when he did not win. There is so much you have to ignore for your apologist's narrative, or maybe you're just too stupid to understand the difference. How about that, yet another of y'all's accusations being a confession, imagine that.

[CHEEZY17]

And when faced with the simple facts yet again Dodgin' Dot cant answer or explain. Shocker!
You base your whole argument on the "facts of that day". Cool.
"the charges" are and were determined by "the facts of that day". Thats the bottom line that you are afraid to tackle, bud. Its not our fault the legal experts took all of your facts, and then some, and decided insurrection didnt fit.
Stating "charges doesnt equal crime" does NOT explain or eliminate your foundational problem. You have to explain WHY the disparity in your conclusions. We have a binary choice here so one of you must be wrong. Go ahead and explain why the experts are wrong. I mean, it should be pretty simple since your claim is so rock solid, right?

[necronomous]

And yet after all of this time you still cant reconcile the most basic point:

Your point is and always will be a moving of the goalposts in refusing to talk about what took place that day. It's why you won't prove what you claim, that there was no insurrection. The most basic point is always going to be, what took place that day fits the definition of insurrection. You have dodged that every time you come to this thread because you know as the disingenuous partisan hack that you are, you can't defend that on the merits. You can only obfuscate and distract. It continues to be real simple, was what took place on January 6 an insurrection or not or is the word itself incorrectly defined? If you can't prove either of these two things as your claim would require, then your apologist's premise is wrong. Get to work, hack.

Lol, your picture bad, mine good. Oogah boogah. That's your argument. No court of law has to find it something that it's not.

This is the depths a red will stoop to in order to deny reality. You are going to actually declare that the violence did not happen because it wasn't taking place in a moment of time captured on video. You're going to disregard the hours of violence in which it did take place on video otherwise because it destroys your narrative. That's your argument, to disregard reality and believe liars. Now I see why you don't dare follow up on your false bravado about fraud or corruption. It takes a real coward willing to ignore his allies' calls to hang the vice president echoing through the halls of the capitol building so he can say there was no insurrection taking place.

dot is trying to compare killing someone to be the same as first degree murder. You can have done something that meets the definition of killing someone but not be guilty of first degree murder. Its not the same thing. But he thinks that the definition of insurrection is somehow the same thing as breaking the law of insurrection. he's too fucking stupid to understand the difference.

Once again, as has had to be pointed out to the mental midgets among you, the only people trying to shift the goalposts to charges filed and prosecuted is those of you arguing in bad faith. The one person brave enough to engage on the facts for this has had to concede January 6 was in fact insurrection. And lo and behold, that one person brave enough just happens to be the guy now trying to downplay what he had to admit. I know full well that you guys don't want to admit that what you side with ideologically tried to overthrow the government and install America's first dictator. Never forget, the guy you're defending lost his election and tried to use multiple illegal means to usurp power to remain in office against the majority of the people and their votes. So split hairs, move your goalposts, shift your arguments, the fact remains and is still unrefuted that he incited insurrection against our own government in order to keep from the votes certifying his election loss to be made official. He pressured state governments to manufacture votes in his favor to change the outcome of their elections. He and his conspirators organized fake slates of electors to go to the capitol to cast their illegitimate votes for him when he did not win. There is so much you have to ignore for your apologist's narrative, or maybe you're just too stupid to understand the difference. How about that, yet another of y'all's accusations being a confession, imagine that.

My pics good, yours bad. Like I said. You can't explain why no one has been charged with insurrection, even though we supposedly have plenty of evidence. And you can't explain how what Trump did was illegal with his property that most every other American has done. You're 0 for 2. When you're able to answer either one of those things, we can have an honest discussion, until then you've basically admitted you're wrong by not being able to answer the questions. Have a good one.

[dot]

And when faced with the simple facts yet again Dodgin' Dot cant answer or explain. Shocker!

The simple facts that you cannot address, argue, dispute because you have not done so to date? Yeah, shocked. Hack does hack things.

My pics good, yours bad. Like I said.

Your pictures do not erase the violence happening that day, simple fact that you cannot refute. Denying reality doesn't erase it, but being a red, you're still going to try.

You can't explain why no one has been charged with insurrection, even though we supposedly have plenty of evidence. And you can't explain how what Trump did was illegal with his property that most every other American has done. You're 0 for 2. When you're able to answer either one of those things, we can have an honest discussion, until then you've basically admitted you're wrong by not being able to answer the questions. Have a good one.

Two rulings against the apologist's viewpoint you've taken, and you think that makes you 2 and 0? You're the one going against facts unrefuted. Still really simple, if you think fraud isn't fraud then go to New York and argue his case for him. Law, verdict, testimony, evidence is against you. Good luck. If you think what happened on January 6 wasn't an insurrection, then prove it. You have the investigation, evidence, ruling, English language against you. Good luck, red, you're going to need it.

[CHEEZY17]

And when faced with the simple facts yet again Dodgin' Dot cant answer or explain. Shocker!

The simple facts that you cannot address, argue, dispute because you have not done so to date? Yeah, shocked. Hack does hack things.

Its already been done, in hundreds of cases, by professionals smarter than you. Why do I need to rehash what theyve already evaluated? YOU are the one that needs to explain why you think you are right and they are wrong.

You base your whole argument on the "facts of that day". Cool.
"the charges" are and were determined by "the facts of that day". Thats the bottom line that you are afraid to tackle, bud. Its not our fault the legal experts took all of your facts, and then some, and decided insurrection didnt fit.
Stating "charges doesnt equal crime" does NOT explain or eliminate your foundational problem. You have to explain WHY the disparity in your conclusions. We have a binary choice here so one of you must be wrong. Go ahead and explain why the experts are wrong. I mean, it should be pretty simple since your claim is so rock solid, right?

[necronomous]

And when faced with the simple facts yet again Dodgin' Dot cant answer or explain. Shocker!

The simple facts that you cannot address, argue, dispute because you have not done so to date? Yeah, shocked. Hack does hack things.

My pics good, yours bad. Like I said.

Your pictures do not erase the violence happening that day, simple fact that you cannot refute. Denying reality doesn't erase it, but being a red, you're still going to try.

You can't explain why no one has been charged with insurrection, even though we supposedly have plenty of evidence. And you can't explain how what Trump did was illegal with his property that most every other American has done. You're 0 for 2. When you're able to answer either one of those things, we can have an honest discussion, until then you've basically admitted you're wrong by not being able to answer the questions. Have a good one.

Two rulings against the apologist's viewpoint you've taken, and you think that makes you 2 and 0? You're the one going against facts unrefuted. Still really simple, if you think fraud isn't fraud then go to New York and argue his case for him. Law, verdict, testimony, evidence is against you. Good luck. If you think what happened on January 6 wasn't an insurrection, then prove it. You have the investigation, evidence, ruling, English language against you. Good luck, red, you're going to need it.

Oh just say you can't answer. That's easier.

[dot]

Its already been done, in hundreds of cases, by professionals smarter than you.

Goalposts, shifted. Yet another shocking move by the hack.

Oh just say you can't answer. That's easier.

If you want to argue against facts, then you're going to have to try harder. But I don't blame you for losing your nerve.