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

[Animal]

Yet, I've made multiple attempts you retard. Ive tried.

No, you haven't, because you want to discuss parameters to start. Rather than just begin, you're still prancing around the subject like you're setting ground rules. Begin already.

You deflect and say I dont want to talk about it when that is exactly what I've tried to do.

No one else needed to establish subjects or aspects to talk about the insurrection, only you. For almost 3 months it's been like this with you. Just do it already, pull the trigger. Prove insurrection doesn't fit, that it wasn't an insurrection, or prove the word itself is incorrectly defined. If you fail that, your apologist's excuse is wrong.

An insurrection is a major crime. and an actual insurrection would have to involve a full on rebellion with significant violence. A full blown attempt to overthrow the government in a violent way.

Now as much as you want to exaggerate the events of that day, the demonstration or riot that occurred was simply not up to the levels required to categorize it as an insurrection. That's why no one was charged with the crime of insurrection. If that mob had been more organized and they had actually taken prisoners or wielded guns, then you probably would be crossing the line into an insurrection. But it just wasn't that violent or that organized. Was it stupid and criminal and unthinkable and wrong...... Absolutely. It just wasn't an insurrection. And if it had been, then you can bet that at least one person out of the several hundred people charged, would have been charged with insurrection.

[CHEEZY17]

Yet, I've made multiple attempts you retard. Ive tried.

No, you haven't, because you want to discuss parameters to start. Rather than just begin, you're still prancing around the subject like you're setting ground rules. Begin already.

You deflect and say I dont want to talk about it when that is exactly what I've tried to do.

No one else needed to establish subjects or aspects to talk about the insurrection, only you. For almost 3 months it's been like this with you. Just do it already, pull the trigger. Prove insurrection doesn't fit, that it wasn't an insurrection, or prove the word itself is incorrectly defined. If you fail that, your apologist's excuse is wrong.

Jeezus H. Christ.
You accuse me of trying to set "parameters"? Holy shit. What are these "parameters" you keep blathering about? You literally just said that you dont want me trying to suggest subjects for us to discuss. Thats YOU setting "parameters". Honestly bud, at this point you need to just admit you dont actually want to discuss "the facts of that day" you simply want to pronounce your opinion as rock solid and end it there.
How else in the world are we going to discuss the "facts of that day" except by discussing the facts of that day? You dont want to discuss the "facts of that day" because youve been given multiple opportunities to discuss the "facts of that day" yet you accuse me of not wanting to discuss the "facts of that day" even after multiple attempts of me trying.
OK, no "parameters": What would you like to discuss? I dont know how I can get anymore basic than that in conversation, bud.

[necronomous]

First youre back at your disingenuousness again, I see. I never said anything about a fascist

You didn't have to, you are already on record as being for Trump. Trump is fascism, but you already know that. Disingenuous indeed.

because I believe in a free society with less government control unlike the Democrats. YOU inserted the "fascist" opinion bit, not me, hack, because yes, as bad as Trump is he is still better than the alternative.

Except you don't. Because you will vote for the option that will not do any of your less government control. Your free society with less government control is a farce. Your party will enact more government control over private lives, look no further than abortion or adult material restrictions for proof of concept put into action. Disingenuous partisan hack.

Then he should be in jail, but he's not, and you can't answer why. You also can't answer why, no one else is in jail for insurrection. Great talk.

I'm not the one in charge, but if you have an objection to the factual finding of what he incited on January 6, by all means, refute it with facts.

Dodgin' Dot will say one of these two things:
Some bullshit about the charges
or
Hes not the prosecutor

Because disingenuous partisan hacks will only argue whether charges were filed, not about the actions which is the discussion. And when you are challenged on your claims that no such crime took place, you will go full circular logic and claim because no one is in jail for said crime that means it wasn't committed. As usual, because you don't have the balls to prove your apologist's excuse, you use your cowardice as evidence to absolve your criminal conman idol. Here's a crazy idea, if you think it's not an insurrection, then prove it. You have the definition, two of them, to work with, you know what was done both in public and behind closed doors. Instead of months long dodging, man up and prove what you allege. But if you couldn't do it over the course of a year for Joe Biden's alleged crimes, it's clear you won't do it to absolve Trump either.

Both of those conveniently ignore that if his conclusion/opinion is so air tight and undeniable the professional legal authorities would have reached the exact same conclusion.

What's actually being conveniently ignored is the assertion by cons that if a crime is not charged, that does not mean it never happened. And that is what you as a con have been terrified to address. For months now.

As most people that arent diehard Dims understand, if the DOJ thought it was an insurrection and could prove an insurrection then all of those hundreds of cases would have been for insurrection.

And yet, someone can't even begin to discuss how it is not an insurrection. You'll dance around it for going on 3 months, but you still haven't pulled the trigger and engaged.

And somehow magically, they weren't. I mean it's not magic, just common sense, but you know, magic.

Subpoenas were defied. Defying said subpoenas was not charged. Did the defying of subpoenas never happen? Common sense is clearly not going to be listed as one of either of y'all's strengths.

Lol you're fucking retarded.

[Animal]

i have tried to explain to the fucking moron. If they had charged the "subpoena non-abiders" with other crimes, like "loitering" instead of a crime that was specifically tailored to "failure to abide by a subpoena", then he would have a point. But simply not charging the "subpoena non-abiders" at all, doesn't prove anything other than they felt kind of meh about it.

His argument goes completely off the tracks though once they charge the "subpoena non abiders" with other crimes instead of the obvious one that applies to their actual crime. That's when you know that whatever they did doesn't fit the definition of the crime that the dummy wanted them charged with.

[Antknot]

J6 Committee’s Suppressed Evidence Scandal Exonerates Trump From ‘Insurrection’ Narrative


https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/12/j6 ... narrative/

[dot]

An insurrection is a major crime. and an actual insurrection would have to involve a full on rebellion with significant violence. A full blown attempt to overthrow the government in a violent way.

Uh oh, careful, you're dangerously close to going back to where you ran away before. But by all means, continue to try and prove it was not an insurrection on this track. I already dissected your first attempt at this and established how everything you tried to argue didn't happen actually did happen. Go ahead and push forward on this. At the very least, you'll showcase what it looks like when people don't beat around the bush afraid to engage.

Now as much as you want to exaggerate the events of that day, the demonstration or riot that occurred was simply not up to the levels required to categorize it as an insurrection.

Except it does, quite literally. It's you that wants to argue semantics and levels of degrees whereas I just want it demonstrated that the act itself was an insurrection. So far, given the levels of hesitation from the would be apologists, I can see why. Deep down, you all know what it was and what you're aligned with and what that means for your supposed love of our freedom and democracy.

That's why no one was charged with the crime of insurrection.

Charges filed is not the same as committing the crime. You and your ilk have pivoted to this time and again out of desperation. Despite that, it will never be the case that absent charges the crime was not committed.

If that mob had been more organized and they had actually taken prisoners or wielded guns, then you probably would be crossing the line into an insurrection. But it just wasn't that violent or that organized.

Except it was that violent. It was that organized, especially by its ringleaders, one of which you and your brethren have to defend at all costs despite knowing he did what he did. So don't forget, by your own definition: violence and uprising, organization, goal of overthrowing government function, seizing powers, all these elements exist in the actions and execution of that day. It's your chosen definition. Please, keep going and tell me how it doesn't apply.

Was it stupid and criminal and unthinkable and wrong...... Absolutely. It just wasn't an insurrection.

It was by your own definition. Don't blame me, you chose what to go with.

And if it had been, then you can bet that at least one person out of the several hundred people charged, would have been charged with insurrection.

Charges filed is not the same as committing the crime. You and your ilk have pivoted to this time and again out of desperation. Despite that, it will never be the case that absent charges the crime was not committed. Now on to the other hacks.

Jeezus H. Christ.
You accuse me of trying to set "parameters"?

Yup, cause you still haven't done a single bit of the work. See how Animal didn't need to pitter patter around it? He tried, now twice, which is greater than your zero attempts, hack.

Lol you're fucking retarded.

With such quality arguments like that, why didn't you go to New York and argue fraud isn't fraud?

i have tried to explain to the fucking moron. If they had charged the "subpoena non-abiders" with other crimes, like "loitering" instead of a crime that was specifically tailored to "failure to abide by a subpoena", then he would have a point. But simply not charging the "subpoena non-abiders" at all, doesn't prove anything other than they felt kind of meh about it.

Except your argument (excuse) by parallel is because insurrection wasn't charged, that it didn't happen. Whereas if you take that track down other demonstrated avenues such as subpoenas defied, you cannot come to your apologist's reasoning of the crime didn't happen on the same basis. Just because you and the apologists suffer from the stupidity required to make this excuse of a leap in logic doesn't mean everyone is as dumb as y'all are.

His argument goes completely off the tracks though once they charge the "subpoena non abiders" with other crimes instead of the obvious one that applies to their actual crime. That's when you know that whatever they did doesn't fit the definition of the crime that the dummy wanted them charged with.

My argument was never about charges filed, that's what you guys want to make it about. I want the act itself discussed or else we get bad faith actors like everyone here defending the insurrection for what it was. That's when you know that what they did fits the definition of the crime you have provided, let alone what I began with. Don't like it? Then prove the insurrection was not an insurrection or that your definition of the word is incorrect. Failing that, y'all's apologist excuse is wrong.

[Animal]

My argument was never about charges filed, that's what you guys want to make it about. I want the act itself discussed or else we get bad faith actors like everyone here defending the insurrection for what it was. That's when you know that what they did fits the definition of the crime you have provided, let alone what I began with. Don't like it? Then prove the insurrection was not an insurrection or that your definition of the word is incorrect. Failing that, y'all's apologist excuse is wrong.

Your argument, several times has tried to draw a comparison to the fact that charges filed doesn't have anything to do with whether a crime was committed.

I have tried to hammer into your dumb thick skull a very basic point that even a dolt like yourself should be able to grasp.

If a person does something criminal(or appears to have done something criminal) and everyone is aware of it and there are no doubts about it, and that person is not charged with a crime, then that doesn't speak one way or another about whether or not they actually committed a crime or what crime they may have committed. It simply means they either haven't been charged yet or no one cares enough about what they did to charge them with anything. This example would apply to the subpoena non-followers.

Now, if a person does something criminal (or appears to have done something criminal) and everyone is aware of it and there are no doubts about it, and that person IS charged with a crime, then this speaks absolute volumes about what crime the prosecutors think they may have committed. The prosecutors will charge them with whatever crime they think they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. A prosecutor would have no reason to charge them with a lesser crime unless they think there is a good chance they could not prove the more harsh crime "beyond a reasonable doubt". This example would apply to every one of the hundreds of people that you think committed an insurrection.

If the just one of the prosecutors had thought any one of the criminals had committed an insurrection and they thought they could prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, then they would have charged them with insurrection. But they didn't. And, as much as you hate Trump and you hate the results, that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Jan 6th was not an insurrection. And that point has been proven hundreds and hundreds of times. You poor stupid dummy.

[dot]

Your argument, several times has tried to draw a comparison to the fact that charges filed doesn't have anything to do with whether a crime was committed.

I have tried to hammer into your dumb thick skull a very basic point that even a dolt like yourself should be able to grasp.

If a person does something criminal(or appears to have done something criminal) and everyone is aware of it and there are no doubts about it, and that person is not charged with a crime, then that doesn't speak one way or another about whether or not they actually committed a crime or what crime they may have committed. It simply means they either haven't been charged yet or no one cares enough about what they did to charge them with anything. This example would apply to the subpoena non-followers.

Flaw in logic again. The apologists over and over again have claimed insurrection did not happen, and then to varying degrees, absolve the head ringleader (Trump) of it or admit he played his part in what they say didn't happen to give him cover here. Fact remains, the parallel is: crime committed, not charged, crime was still committed. Therefore, arguing that charges were not filed for the crime has no bearing on the crime itself, which is why the changing of the goalposts is dismissed outright everytime y'all try it. Now you can make all the excuses you need as to why subpoenas defied were not charged, I really don't care on this aspect of those crimes outside proving the failing in logic that y'all employ in order to avoid defending insurrection.

Now, if a person does something criminal (or appears to have done something criminal) and everyone is aware of it and there are no doubts about it, and that person IS charged with a crime, then this speaks absolute volumes about what crime the prosecutors think they may have committed. The prosecutors will charge them with whatever crime they think they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt. A prosecutor would have no reason to charge them with a lesser crime unless they think there is a good chance they could not prove the more harsh crime "beyond a reasonable doubt". This example would apply to every one of the hundreds of people that you think committed an insurrection.

Which, once again, was never the argument. It's what y'all want the argument to be, because it excuses you apologists from having to defend the insurrection and what it was. Or for the specific purposes of this argument, it gives the apologists the out y'all desperately want so you can avoid proving the insurrection was not an insurrection or that the word itself is incorrectly defined. You want to argue whether charges were filed, because it is yet another dodge of what happened that day. This forum is never going to incarcerate any of the insurrectionists including Trump himself for his crimes. You don't have to worry about that, just like you don't have to worry about anyone coming for your business practices. So that means the users here can be honest about what happened that day without repercussions because no one cares about a formerly titty site on the internet. But clearly case in point, just because y'all can be honest, it doesn't mean you will be.

If the just one of the prosecutors had thought any one of the criminals had committed an insurrection and they thought they could prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, then they would have charged them with insurrection. But they didn't. And, as much as you hate Trump and you hate the results, that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that Jan 6th was not an insurrection. And that point has been proven hundreds and hundreds of times. You poor stupid dummy.

Then you should have no problems refuting the factual finding that he incited insurrection on January 6, or that the insurrection was not an insurrection, or that what an insurrection is defined as is incorrect. Because as pointed out over and over again, your charges filed distraction excuse does not hold water because the crime still happened. Just because you disagree with it doesn't erase it, therefore you're going to have to prove why January 6 was not an insurrection, or that insurrection doesn't mean what it is defined as. And it's pretty clear you know that, which is why you completely ignored your previous attempt at an argument getting refuted. Again.

[Animal]

when a point has been proven hundreds and hundreds of times, its not the ones that agree with the point that look desperate, Susan.


dot is the most dumb.

[necronomous]

An insurrection is a major crime. and an actual insurrection would have to involve a full on rebellion with significant violence. A full blown attempt to overthrow the government in a violent way.

Uh oh, careful, you're dangerously close to going back to where you ran away before. But by all means, continue to try and prove it was not an insurrection on this track. I already dissected your first attempt at this and established how everything you tried to argue didn't happen actually did happen. Go ahead and push forward on this. At the very least, you'll showcase what it looks like when people don't beat around the bush afraid to engage.

Now as much as you want to exaggerate the events of that day, the demonstration or riot that occurred was simply not up to the levels required to categorize it as an insurrection.

Except it does, quite literally. It's you that wants to argue semantics and levels of degrees whereas I just want it demonstrated that the act itself was an insurrection. So far, given the levels of hesitation from the would be apologists, I can see why. Deep down, you all know what it was and what you're aligned with and what that means for your supposed love of our freedom and democracy.

That's why no one was charged with the crime of insurrection.

Charges filed is not the same as committing the crime. You and your ilk have pivoted to this time and again out of desperation. Despite that, it will never be the case that absent charges the crime was not committed.

If that mob had been more organized and they had actually taken prisoners or wielded guns, then you probably would be crossing the line into an insurrection. But it just wasn't that violent or that organized.

Except it was that violent. It was that organized, especially by its ringleaders, one of which you and your brethren have to defend at all costs despite knowing he did what he did. So don't forget, by your own definition: violence and uprising, organization, goal of overthrowing government function, seizing powers, all these elements exist in the actions and execution of that day. It's your chosen definition. Please, keep going and tell me how it doesn't apply.

Was it stupid and criminal and unthinkable and wrong...... Absolutely. It just wasn't an insurrection.

It was by your own definition. Don't blame me, you chose what to go with.

And if it had been, then you can bet that at least one person out of the several hundred people charged, would have been charged with insurrection.

Charges filed is not the same as committing the crime. You and your ilk have pivoted to this time and again out of desperation. Despite that, it will never be the case that absent charges the crime was not committed. Now on to the other hacks.

Jeezus H. Christ.
You accuse me of trying to set "parameters"?

Yup, cause you still haven't done a single bit of the work. See how Animal didn't need to pitter patter around it? He tried, now twice, which is greater than your zero attempts, hack.

Lol you're fucking retarded.

With such quality arguments like that, why didn't you go to New York and argue fraud isn't fraud?

i have tried to explain to the fucking moron. If they had charged the "subpoena non-abiders" with other crimes, like "loitering" instead of a crime that was specifically tailored to "failure to abide by a subpoena", then he would have a point. But simply not charging the "subpoena non-abiders" at all, doesn't prove anything other than they felt kind of meh about it.

Except your argument (excuse) by parallel is because insurrection wasn't charged, that it didn't happen. Whereas if you take that track down other demonstrated avenues such as subpoenas defied, you cannot come to your apologist's reasoning of the crime didn't happen on the same basis. Just because you and the apologists suffer from the stupidity required to make this excuse of a leap in logic doesn't mean everyone is as dumb as y'all are.

His argument goes completely off the tracks though once they charge the "subpoena non abiders" with other crimes instead of the obvious one that applies to their actual crime. That's when you know that whatever they did doesn't fit the definition of the crime that the dummy wanted them charged with.

My argument was never about charges filed, that's what you guys want to make it about. I want the act itself discussed or else we get bad faith actors like everyone here defending the insurrection for what it was. That's when you know that what they did fits the definition of the crime you have provided, let alone what I began with. Don't like it? Then prove the insurrection was not an insurrection or that your definition of the word is incorrect. Failing that, y'all's apologist excuse is wrong.

You presented something stupid. This is the appropriate response.

[CHEEZY17]

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. You are not arguing against us; you are arguing against the conclusion of the legal authority of 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?

[dot]

when a point has been proven hundreds and hundreds of times, its not the ones that agree with the point that look desperate, Susan.

Sounds like the kind of thing that a person who can't prove what he alleges would say. If that's how you need to take solace in the fact that you can't prove it wasn't an insurrection, have at it.

You presented something stupid. This is the appropriate response.

If it's stupid, you could and would refute it with facts. You haven't, much like your fraud excuses and corruption allegations. What's more, none of your fellow reds have either.

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

And there it is again, the shifting of the argument to keep from talking about what took place. Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge, hack pivots to anything else in order to not do the very simple task if we are to believe your apologist's excuse. Prove it was not an insurrection, or that the definition of the word is incorrect. But for nearly 3 months, you have yet to do that, in fact you've refused. So much like your Joe Biden corruption claims, looks like this is yet another of your claims that just doesn't pan out once you have to come up with evidence. Quite the pattern you've established, hack.

[Animal]

when a point has been proven hundreds and hundreds of times, its not the ones that agree with the point that look desperate, Susan.

Sounds like the kind of thing that a person who can't prove what he alleges would say. If that's how you need to take solace in the fact that you can't prove it wasn't an insurrection, have at it.

You presented something stupid. This is the appropriate response.

If it's stupid, you could and would refute it with facts. You haven't, much like your fraud excuses and corruption allegations. What's more, none of your fellow reds have either.

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

And there it is again, the shifting of the argument to keep from talking about what took place. Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge, hack pivots to anything else in order to not do the very simple task if we are to believe your apologist's excuse. Prove it was not an insurrection, or that the definition of the word is incorrect. But for nearly 3 months, you have yet to do that, in fact you've refused. So much like your Joe Biden corruption claims, looks like this is yet another of your claims that just doesn't pan out once you have to come up with evidence. Quite the pattern you've established, hack.

and there you are. wrong again. if you weren't wrong, as you have been consistently through all of this, then you would point out the mistake that the prosecutors made when they did not prosecute a single fucking person for the crime you think they all committed.

[dot]

and there you are. wrong again. if you weren't wrong, as you have been consistently through all of this, then you would point out the mistake that the prosecutors made when they did not prosecute a single fucking person for the crime you think they all committed.

My argument isn't charges filed, it's about what happened on January 6. Once again, thank you for proving me right yet again, the lot of you are desperately wanting the argument to be charges filed so you don't have to defend what was an insurrection. Come on, you were so close just a couple of days ago. Go back to it, prove it wasn't an insurrection. If you can, mental midget.

[Animal]

and there you are. wrong again. if you weren't wrong, as you have been consistently through all of this, then you would point out the mistake that the prosecutors made when they did not prosecute a single fucking person for the crime you think they all committed.

My argument isn't charges filed, it's about what happened on January 6. Once again, thank you for proving me right yet again, the lot of you are desperately wanting the argument to be charges filed so you don't have to defend what was an insurrection. Come on, you were so close just a couple of days ago. Go back to it, prove it wasn't an insurrection. If you can, mental midget.

every single case filed, prosecuted, tried, and deliberated by a judge and jury had to do with what happened on January 6th. Not one of them decided it was an insurrection. Thank you for allowing me to make you look dumb again. Poor dumb Desperate Susan.

[necronomous]

and there you are. wrong again. if you weren't wrong, as you have been consistently through all of this, then you would point out the mistake that the prosecutors made when they did not prosecute a single fucking person for the crime you think they all committed.

My argument isn't charges filed, it's about what happened on January 6. Once again, thank you for proving me right yet again, the lot of you are desperately wanting the argument to be charges filed so you don't have to defend what was an insurrection. Come on, you were so close just a couple of days ago. Go back to it, prove it wasn't an insurrection. If you can, mental midget.

So what you're saying is, they are guilty of insurrection, there is proof, but none are charged for that. So what's the fucking pointing people commit treason, you'd think that we would do what everyone else does, charge them and put them in jail for it.

But we didn't. Sounds like there is not really proof and it's just bullshit. Great talk.

[CHEEZY17]

and there you are. wrong again. if you weren't wrong, as you have been consistently through all of this, then you would point out the mistake that the prosecutors made when they did not prosecute a single fucking person for the crime you think they all committed.

My argument isn't charges filed, it's about what happened on January 6. Once again, thank you for proving me right yet again, the lot of you are desperately wanting the argument to be charges filed so you don't have to defend what was an insurrection. Come on, you were so close just a couple of days ago. Go back to it, prove it wasn't an insurrection. If you can, mental midget.

Dodgin' Dot, how do you think the legal authorities came to their conclusion about "what happened that day"?
I'll answer for you because I know you wont answer this question honestly:
THEY EVALUATED THE "FACTS OF THAT DAY"

[dot]

every single case filed, prosecuted, tried, and deliberated by a judge and jury had to do with what happened on January 6th. Not one of them decided it was an insurrection. Thank you for allowing me to make you look dumb again. Poor dumb Desperate Susan.

Charges filed is still not the same as crime committed. I know you want that to be the argument, but it still isn't no matter how desperately you want it to be. Either prove it's not an insurrection, or that the word is incorrectly defined. Strange how you just won't come back to that train of thought.

So what you're saying is, they are guilty of insurrection, there is proof, but none are charged for that. So what's the fucking pointing people commit treason, you'd think that we would do what everyone else does, charge them and put them in jail for it.

But we didn't. Sounds like there is not really proof and it's just bullshit. Great talk.

I'm saying what happened on January 6 was insurrection. It meets the definition, both of them, provided by both sides of the aisle here. Charges filed was never my argument, because it does not impact what was done that day. That's why it's a favored distraction tactic by everyone afraid to defend what was an insurrection. Which leads us to...

Dodgin' Dot, how do you think the legal authorities came to their conclusion about "what happened that day"?

The chief hack among the crowd, the guy who will refuse to participate and then accuse any who disagree with his shifting of the goalposts to be dodging. Note how he (and everyone else) still cannot or will not prove the apologist's excuse of January 6 not being an insurrection, which is why distraction and dodging tactics are employed to keep from defending behavior of the insurrectionists including the chief insurrectionist of them all. Hack does hack things.

[CHEEZY17]

Dodgin' Dot, how do you think the legal authorities came to their conclusion about "what happened that day"?

The chief hack among the crowd, the guy who will refuse to participate and then accuse any who disagree with his shifting of the goalposts to be dodging. Note how he (and everyone else) still cannot or will not prove the apologist's excuse of January 6 not being an insurrection, which is why distraction and dodging tactics are employed to keep from defending behavior of the insurrectionists including the chief insurrectionist of them all. Hack does hack things.

Ive directly engaged you multiple times you lying hack. Its not my fault you run away each time.
Here I will do it again:
Lets discuss ANYTHING you want to about January 6th. Lets discuss it right now.
Want to talk about the emails?
The texts?
The videos?
The building?
The protest itself?
Something else?
What would you like to talk about? The door is open for you, bud.
Thats not me setting "parameters" you retard; its me suggesting topics for discussion to engage with you. Thats how a discussion works.
You dont have to choose any of those, though. I literally just left it open ended for us to discuss anything YOU like.
Tick tock you disingenuous hack.

[dot]

Ive directly engaged you multiple times you lying hack. Its not my fault you run away each time.

No. You haven't. You've asked to set parameters, where no one else needs such bumper guards to get into it.

Thats not me setting "parameters" you retard; its me suggesting topics for discussion to engage with you. Thats how a discussion works.

Except that's exactly what it is, because you refuse to just begin. Remember, you chose to sit in the peanut gallery and do your best Statler and Waldorf impression without actually participating out of cowardice for nearly 3 months.

You dont have to choose any of those, though. I literally just left it open ended for us to discuss anything YOU like.
Tick tock you disingenuous hack.

Says the disingenuous partisan hack that won't begin, so I'll say it again. You have nearly 3 months of exchanges to catch up with. Prove it wasn't an insurrection, or that the definition of insurrection is incorrect. It's that simple, unless you can't do it, which would mean your apologist's excuse is wrong. Every accusation from hack is a confession.

[necronomous]

every single case filed, prosecuted, tried, and deliberated by a judge and jury had to do with what happened on January 6th. Not one of them decided it was an insurrection. Thank you for allowing me to make you look dumb again. Poor dumb Desperate Susan.

Charges filed is still not the same as crime committed. I know you want that to be the argument, but it still isn't no matter how desperately you want it to be. Either prove it's not an insurrection, or that the word is incorrectly defined. Strange how you just won't come back to that train of thought.

So what you're saying is, they are guilty of insurrection, there is proof, but none are charged for that. So what's the fucking pointing people commit treason, you'd think that we would do what everyone else does, charge them and put them in jail for it.

But we didn't. Sounds like there is not really proof and it's just bullshit. Great talk.

I'm saying what happened on January 6 was insurrection. It meets the definition, both of them, provided by both sides of the aisle here. Charges filed was never my argument, because it does not impact what was done that day. That's why it's a favored distraction tactic by everyone afraid to defend what was an insurrection. Which leads us to...

Dodgin' Dot, how do you think the legal authorities came to their conclusion about "what happened that day"?

The chief hack among the crowd, the guy who will refuse to participate and then accuse any who disagree with his shifting of the goalposts to be dodging. Note how he (and everyone else) still cannot or will not prove the apologist's excuse of January 6 not being an insurrection, which is why distraction and dodging tactics are employed to keep from defending behavior of the insurrectionists including the chief insurrectionist of them all. Hack does hack things.

No it doesn't. Which is why they won't charge them. Noone factual determined anything. Some dumbasses getting together and saying, yeah he did it, is not a factual finding. Fucking dumb.

[CHEEZY17]

Ive directly engaged you multiple times you lying hack. Its not my fault you run away each time.

No. You haven't. You've asked to set parameters, where no one else needs such bumper guards to get into it.

Thats not me setting "parameters" you retard; its me suggesting topics for discussion to engage with you. Thats how a discussion works.

Except that's exactly what it is, because you refuse to just begin. Remember, you chose to sit in the peanut gallery and do your best Statler and Waldorf impression without actually participating out of cowardice for nearly 3 months.

You dont have to choose any of those, though. I literally just left it open ended for us to discuss anything YOU like.
Tick tock you disingenuous hack.

Says the disingenuous partisan hack that won't begin, so I'll say it again. You have nearly 3 months of exchanges to catch up with. Prove it wasn't an insurrection, or that the definition of insurrection is incorrect. It's that simple, unless you can't do it, which would mean your apologist's excuse is wrong. Every accusation from hack is a confession.

Damn, I do believe you are functionally retarded.
When I start the conversation with comments on some of "facts of that day" you say I am trying to set "parameters". Like when I attempted to start a conversation way back here:

Lets talk about the videos. Hundreds of hours of video were taken that day. I believe most of it has been made available to the public. Many of the videos show some levels of violence while many others are comically peaceful showing police walking with and acting as tour guides through the building. What would you like to discuss about these videos? Do you have anything to add to the known information?

In any other world except yours that is a person attempting to have a discussion.
Then, when I leave it open ended you then claim I'm not starting.
Look bud, you either want to have the conversation on the "facts of that day" or you dont. You continually claiming I'm "not starting" despite demonstrable multiple attempts of me starting just makes you look silly.

[Antknot]

[dot]

No it doesn't. Which is why they won't charge them. Noone factual determined anything. Some dumbasses getting together and saying, yeah he did it, is not a factual finding. Fucking dumb.

You shouldn't have any problem refuting it with facts then, just bear in mind that SCOTUS wouldn't despite being asked. But then again, you also refused to prove your defense of fraud and corruption allegations.

Damn, I do believe you are functionally retarded.
When I start the conversation with comments on some of "facts of that day" you say I am trying to set "parameters". Like when I attempted to start a conversation way back here:

A whole weekend and you still couldn't find it in yourself to catch up, do the work. As such, you still won't begin, thus proving you're a 3 month long coward. Disingenuous delusional intellectually dishonest functionally retarded hypocritical partisan hack mark.

[CHEEZY17]

No it doesn't. Which is why they won't charge them. Noone factual determined anything. Some dumbasses getting together and saying, yeah he did it, is not a factual finding. Fucking dumb.

You shouldn't have any problem refuting it with facts then, just bear in mind that SCOTUS wouldn't despite being asked. But then again, you also refused to prove your defense of fraud and corruption allegations.

Damn, I do believe you are functionally retarded.
When I start the conversation with comments on some of "facts of that day" you say I am trying to set "parameters". Like when I attempted to start a conversation way back here:

A whole weekend and you still couldn't find it in yourself to catch up, do the work. As such, you still won't begin, thus proving you're a 3 month long coward. Disingenuous delusional intellectually dishonest functionally retarded hypocritical partisan hack mark.

LOLZ. OK, retard.
As has been stated numerous times: in any other world except yours it has been demonstrated multiple times that I have tried to "begin" with you. You simply prefer to run away.
To prove your continued cowardice I'll try again to engage the "facts of the day" with you yet again:
There are lots of things that happened that day. Many videos were taken with some showing despicable violence while most others are incredibly peaceful, hundreds if not thousands of texts and emails were sent and received, thousands of people showed up to protest, some people were violent but most people were not, years of investigations about what happened that day were conducted and in some cases are still ongoing. It was an incredibly significant day in American history. Those are just some of the "facts of that day". I would like to discuss those or any other "facts of that day" with you right here and now. Do you have anything new to add to the already known information regarding the "facts of that day"?

That is what "beginning" a discussion looks like and I've done it multiple times now. Its not my fault you either dont understand the words in front of you or you simply prefer to run away claiming I wont begin or that I'm trying to set "parameters". Seems to me its YOU trying to dictate the "parameters" bud.