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

[dot]

it wouldn't have anything to do with January 6th.

No, it wouldn't and therein lies your problem.

[CHEEZY17]

You are the one who refuses to answer basic questions.
You are the one that doesnt agree with the DOJ
You are the one that thinks you understand what "insurrection" is better than the DOJ
You are the one that thinks the legal authority of the United States Government doesnt know about or understand your definition.
You are that one that wants to insist on your definition in one breath but then conveniently ignore it the next
The only one whining is you, chief.
Keep crying, maybe one day someone will care.

[Biker]

[dot]

You are the one who refuses to answer basic questions.

You have yet to answer the opening basic question. How is January 6 not an insurrection as defined and accepted, or is the word insurrection incorrectly defined then? You have run from that in every single post about this. Because failing those hurdles, your premise fails. So once again, every accusation from the hack is a confession. Either take a swing at it, or run away again.

[Animal]

You are the one who refuses to answer basic questions.

You have yet to answer the opening basic question. How is January 6 not an insurrection as defined and accepted, or is the word insurrection incorrectly defined then? You have run from that in every single post about this. Because failing those hurdles, your premise fails. So once again, every accusation from the hack is a confession. Either take a swing at it, or run away again.

i appreciate you finally admitting that the definition is flawed. Since that definition would also define the Portland riots as insurrections. That was a real breakthrough.

[dot]

i appreciate you finally admitting that the definition is flawed.

I didn't. That's your part of the challenge. If you cannot prove January 6 was not an insurrection, then maybe your out can be that the word itself is defined incorrectly. I've been saying that from the start, but oddly no one seems to want to take it up. You gonna give that a shot?

Thanks for showing that reading comprehension is right up there with the rest of your weaknesses.

[Animal]

i appreciate you finally admitting that the definition is flawed.

I didn't. That's your part of the challenge. If you cannot prove January 6 was not an insurrection, then maybe your out can be that the word itself is defined incorrectly. I've been saying that from the start, but oddly no one seems to want to take it up. You gonna give that a shot?

Thanks for showing that reading comprehension is right up there with the rest of your weaknesses.

i want to hear your proof that the Portland riots were not an insurrection, as defined, by you in one of these posts. Which I know you won't do that because you never do jack shit other than whine and cry.

[dot]

i want to hear your proof that the Portland riots were not an insurrection

it wouldn't have anything to do with January 6th.

No, it wouldn't and therein lies your problem.

Around and around we go, where we stop, only you know.

[CHEEZY17]

You are the one who refuses to answer basic questions.

You have yet to answer the opening basic question. How is January 6 not an insurrection as defined and accepted, or is the word insurrection incorrectly defined then? You have run from that in every single post about this. Because failing those hurdles, your premise fails. So once again, every accusation from the hack is a confession. Either take a swing at it, or run away again.

Your basic question has already been researched, investigated and answered by the authorities. Their decision to not charge anyone with "insurrection" as defined and accepted means they dont think it was one. Sorry, but it doesnt really matter what YOU think on the matter. Again, YOU are the one that disagrees with the legal authorities and their interpretation of the definition and legal standard; not us.

[CHEEZY17]

i want to hear your proof that the Portland riots were not an insurrection

it wouldn't have anything to do with January 6th.

No, it wouldn't and therein lies your problem.

Around and around we go, where we stop, only you know.

Add another one to the list of questions Dodgin' Dot cant answer!

[dot]

Charges filed is not the same as committing the crime. You already admitted you have no lines in this play, and that is by your own choices. Why do you keep coming back if you aren't going to participate?

Add another one to the list of questions Dodgin' Dot cant answer!

And yet, the hack still hasn't answered question one. Either prove January 6 wasn't an insurrection, or the definition of insurrection is wrong. Failing that, your premise is wrong and no amount of deflection or moving the goalposts will change the facts on the ground.

[CHEEZY17]

Charges filed is not the same as committing the crime. You already admitted you have no lines in this play, and that is by your own choices. Why do you keep coming back if you aren't going to participate?

Add another one to the list of questions Dodgin' Dot cant answer!

And yet, the hack still hasn't answered question one. Either prove January 6 wasn't an insurrection, or the definition of insurrection is wrong. Failing that, your premise is wrong and no amount of deflection or moving the goalposts will change the facts on the ground.

Your question has been answered multiple times by all of us here. You just dont like the answer.
Do you think the DOJ knows and understands the definition and legal standard?

Its comical that you think I'm crying when YOU are the one vehemently disagreeing with the legal authorities. Unlike you, I'm completely comfortable with their evaluation of that days events and whether or not it was an "insurrection".

[Animal]

i fully expect dot's mother to show up and ask us to leave him alone.

[dot]

Your question has been answered multiple times by all of us here. You just dont like the answer.

Except it hasn't. Because none of you outside Animal even tried to address it, and even he couldn't keep it up before changing the argument. Not that you'd admit that, honesty isn't your strong suit after all.

[Biker]

Your question has been answered multiple times by all of us here. You just dont like the answer.

Except it hasn't. Because none of you outside Animal even tried to address it, and even he couldn't keep it up before changing the argument. Not that you'd admit that, honesty isn't your strong suit after all.

Because your premise is faulty. Do you understand that?

[Animal]

Your question has been answered multiple times by all of us here. You just dont like the answer.

Except it hasn't. Because none of you outside Animal even tried to address it, and even he couldn't keep it up before changing the argument. Not that you'd admit that, honesty isn't your strong suit after all.

listen up Dupey I am going to try to dumb this down for you. Jan. 6, 2021, was a political protest that devolved into a riot. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course, the protest/riot was a dark day in American history; however, it was not an insurrection.

According to case law, an insurrection is “a violent uprising by a group or movement acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers. An insurrection occurs where a movement acts to overthrow the constituted government and to take possession of its inherent powers.”

Although the actions that occurred that day were far from peaceful, it strains credulity to describe what happened as an actual insurrection under the age-old definition of the term. In fact, the FBI determined “there was no grand scheme” to overthrow the government by the hundreds of people who wreaked havoc at Capitol Hill.

Moreover, no single person who participated in the riot/protest has been charged with insurrection. These people were unarmed. They posed no imminent threat. They did not have the wherewithal to overthrow the government and seize its powers. MYTH BUSTED!!

[dot]

Because your premise is faulty. Do you understand that?

listen up Dupey I am going to try to dumb this down for you. Jan. 6, 2021, was a political protest that devolved into a riot. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course, the protest/riot was a dark day in American history; however, it was not an insurrection.

Oh, you must be pissed if you're replying twice within minutes. Your task remains the same as it has from moment one. If you say it's not an insurrection as defined, prove it. How does the definition not apply? Failing that, is the definition itself wrong? If you can do neither, then it is your premise that is wrong. Shifting the argument to whether charges were filed or prosecuted or adjudicated is not the same thing as committing the crime. And like trying to compare to Portland or any other event, it does not change the facts on the ground of that day. And in your zeal to try and defend the indefensible, you do not realize that you're in fact now admitting to what I have been saying in trying to prove the insurrection was not an insurrection. Now I get it, you don't want to go by the given definition, you absolutely refuse to because you want to hinge on whether charges were filed thus changing the argument. You're also not brave enough or smart enough to try and prove the definition itself is wrong. But read for yourself what you're now willing to go by in citing. "A violent uprising by a group or movement acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers." What did the conman who incited the insurrection tell them to do and for what purpose? Furthermore, what were his machinations behind the scenes in multiple states intended to do? Let's tick the boxes so your brain can follow along:

Violence? Self-evident, check.
Uprising? Self-evident, check.
Group or movement? MAGA, check.
Purpose of overthrowing the constituted government? To install the conman who sent them to the capitol who lost his election, check.
Seizing its powers to certify the winner of the election and next president of the country? Again, install the conman who sent them to the capitol who lost his election, check.

If you had put half as much brainpower into critically thinking about what you're quoting as you had in trying to disavow human excrement on the walls that day, then you might have realized you're admitting what you've been denying the whole time. And that's before we factor in the fake electors and fraud attempts he was doing outside of the day of the insurrection. Tell me, tax your brain just the slightest bit and work out what would have been next if they had been successful. "An insurrection (January 6) occurs where a movement (MAGA) acts to overthrow the constituted government (Joe Biden elected president) and to take possession of its inherent powers (Certify the losing candidate Donald Trump as president instead)." What, are they gonna shake hands and go home, just trashing the capitol was the only goal? Are you gunning for Cheez's disingenuous label that hard?

So, are you sure you want to go with this? Maybe you'd rather stick to just relying on charges being filed. I wish I could feel bad for you, but I warned you that this stuff is not your strong suit.

[CHEEZY17]

Damn, the DOJ needs to know about your research! Clearly they messed up!

1-202-514-2000
https://www.usa.gov/agencies/u-s-department-of-justice

[dot]

Yeah I wouldn't want to argue the facts from your side either. Must be why you've refused to do so.

[CHEEZY17]

Yeah I wouldn't want to argue the facts from your side either. Must be why you've refused to do so.

The facts have already been evaluated and argued by both the FBI and the DOJ and they both reached the same conclusion.

[dot]

The facts have already been evaluated and argued by both the FBI and the DOJ and they both reached the same conclusion.

And yet, charges filed is not the same as committing the crime. Which is why you can't argue what the insurrection is, only what charges came about as a result. Your dishonesty is showing, hack.

[CHEEZY17]

The facts have already been evaluated and argued by both the FBI and the DOJ and they both reached the same conclusion.

And yet, charges filed is not the same as committing the crime. Which is why you can't argue what the insurrection is, only what charges came about as a result. Your dishonesty is showing, hack.

The legal authorities only charge people with crimes that they think were committed after reviewing the evidence. Glad we agree on that!
Lets give it another go Dodgin' dot!
Why do you think the DOJ has not charged anyone with the crime that you think is so easily provable? If you cant answer this most basic fundamental question then its really about time you should reevaluate your whole premise.
We already know your dodge is going to be that youre not arguing the charges because tHe deFIniShUn!!!!! but that doesnt reconcile the fact that the DOJ levies the charges based on the definition and legal standard that they think applies. Face it bud, the legal authority doesnt agree with YOU.

[Animal]

Because your premise is faulty. Do you understand that?

listen up Dupey I am going to try to dumb this down for you. Jan. 6, 2021, was a political protest that devolved into a riot. Nothing more, nothing less. Of course, the protest/riot was a dark day in American history; however, it was not an insurrection.

Oh, you must be pissed if you're replying twice within minutes. Your task remains the same as it has from moment one. If you say it's not an insurrection as defined, prove it. How does the definition not apply? Failing that, is the definition itself wrong? If you can do neither, then it is your premise that is wrong. Shifting the argument to whether charges were filed or prosecuted or adjudicated is not the same thing as committing the crime. And like trying to compare to Portland or any other event, it does not change the facts on the ground of that day. And in your zeal to try and defend the indefensible, you do not realize that you're in fact now admitting to what I have been saying in trying to prove the insurrection was not an insurrection. Now I get it, you don't want to go by the given definition, you absolutely refuse to because you want to hinge on whether charges were filed thus changing the argument. You're also not brave enough or smart enough to try and prove the definition itself is wrong. But read for yourself what you're now willing to go by in citing. "A violent uprising by a group or movement acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers." What did the conman who incited the insurrection tell them to do and for what purpose? Furthermore, what were his machinations behind the scenes in multiple states intended to do? Let's tick the boxes so your brain can follow along:

Violence? Self-evident, check.
Uprising? Self-evident, check.
Group or movement? MAGA, check.
Purpose of overthrowing the constituted government? To install the conman who sent them to the capitol who lost his election, check.
Seizing its powers to certify the winner of the election and next president of the country? Again, install the conman who sent them to the capitol who lost his election, check.

If you had put half as much brainpower into critically thinking about what you're quoting as you had in trying to disavow human excrement on the walls that day, then you might have realized you're admitting what you've been denying the whole time. And that's before we factor in the fake electors and fraud attempts he was doing outside of the day of the insurrection. Tell me, tax your brain just the slightest bit and work out what would have been next if they had been successful. "An insurrection (January 6) occurs where a movement (MAGA) acts to overthrow the constituted government (Joe Biden elected president) and to take possession of its inherent powers (Certify the losing candidate Donald Trump as president instead)." What, are they gonna shake hands and go home, just trashing the capitol was the only goal? Are you gunning for Cheez's disingenuous label that hard?

So, are you sure you want to go with this? Maybe you'd rather stick to just relying on charges being filed. I wish I could feel bad for you, but I warned you that this stuff is not your strong suit.

I notice that you cleverly deleted the part of my reply that once again makes you out to be the fool that you are. foolish big foot believer that can't grasp the actual meaning of an insurrection.

I will repost it:
According to case law, an insurrection is “a violent uprising by a group or movement acting for the specific purpose of overthrowing the constituted government and seizing its powers. An insurrection occurs where a movement acts to overthrow the constituted government and to take possession of its inherent powers.”

Although the actions that occurred that day were far from peaceful, it strains credulity to describe what happened as an actual insurrection under the age-old definition of the term. In fact, the FBI determined “there was no grand scheme” to overthrow the government by the hundreds of people who wreaked havoc at Capitol Hill.

[dot]

The legal authorities only charge people with crimes that they think were committed after reviewing the evidence.

You'd love for that to be the argument, but it's not. After all, did your traitorous reps not blow off their subpoenas from the January 6 committee? That's a crime to refuse to comply to a lawful subpoena, you've admitted as such that they should be charged because they did it. But they haven't been, does that mean they didn't do it? Or that they haven't been charged? And once again, therein lies your problem with your premise. So either argue the facts of the insurrection, or argue the definition is wrong. If you can't do that, then your premise is wrong.

I notice that you cleverly deleted the part of my reply that once again makes you out to be the fool that you are. foolish big foot believer that can't grasp the actual meaning of an insurrection.

You realize I still quoted it, right? And then showcased how even your own citation is evidence of me being right. Yeah, I'd ignore that too if I were you. Better luck next go 'round.

[Animal]

The legal authorities only charge people with crimes that they think were committed after reviewing the evidence.

You'd love for that to be the argument, but it's not. After all, did your traitorous reps not blow off their subpoenas from the January 6 committee? That's a crime to refuse to comply to a lawful subpoena, you've admitted as such that they should be charged because they did it. But they haven't been, does that mean they didn't do it? Or that they haven't been charged? And once again, therein lies your problem with your premise. So either argue the facts of the insurrection, or argue the definition is wrong. If you can't do that, then your premise is wrong.

I notice that you cleverly deleted the part of my reply that once again makes you out to be the fool that you are. foolish big foot believer that can't grasp the actual meaning of an insurrection.

You realize I still quoted it, right? And then showcased how even your own citation is evidence of me being right. Yeah, I'd ignore that too if I were you. Better luck next go 'round.

so let's see. on the issue of the hoaxy insurrection..... case law proves you are wrong. An FBI finding proves you are wrong. The DOJ charges against people that day prove you are wrong. What in the fuck proves you are right? Your interpretation of a definition? My god, dupey. you sound retarded.

on the smeared feces hoax, there is absolutely no proof that exists on the face of the earth, despite the fact that the scene was inspected by hundreds of news agencies and thousands of individuals immediately in the aftermath and they took millions of videos and pictures. At least the bigfoot nutters say that he's an elusive creature that lives in hiding. You, on the other hand, seem to think that a shit smeared wall could evade even the most discerning investigators while they documented the carnage. Sure, we have the reported sightings by "people", the same as we do for bigfoot. But that's all you have to go on. Dupey Dupe.