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

[Animal]

I am not attempting to shift the argument to charges filed

Sorry, dress it up however you want to, but if your end result is going to be arguing what charges were filed, then that's what you're changing the argument to. You briefly had the right track in arguing what the insurrection was, and bless your fraud addled brain, you even attempted to argue it wasn't an insurrection using a different more complex definition of the word. The problem is in the end, it still boils down to it was in fact an insurrection even by your agreed upon standard, which I showcased. Your transitive argument of whether charges were filed or not does not erase the crime's existence, see subpoenas defied. Therefore, if what you insist on going with is what charges were filed, then you're intentionally not arguing about what took place that day and only with what repercussions were sought. That's not the argument, never was, despite repeated attempts to distract and deflect. Either argue what happened that day was not an insurrection, or that the word itself is incorrectly defined. If you fail that, your premise is wrong. Try again.

The politically driven January 6th Committee made some recommendations on what they "thought" Trump should be charged with after their hearings. The Pelosi nominated committee came up with the following list of crimes they wanted Trump charged with (their criminal referral):

Just as an afterthought, bitch please, politically driven? In a world of Benghazi special committees and impeaching Joe Biden for Hunter Biden's crimes with zero connective evidence, the January 6 committee is impeccable by comparison. And mind you, the majority of testimony taken in by your "politically driven" committee came from Republican officials or supporters. It's not like this was a spate of liberal activists or conspiracy theorists twisting the events of the insurrection. It was people with eyes and ears on the ground and behind the scenes that day from Trump's team and those he was trying to coerce or incite, with a sprinkling of the collateral damage his attempted coup caused around his plans.

look, dupey, the defacto republican that Nancy Pelosi put on the committee was Liz Cheney. But none of that is the point either. The point is that this committee had a wish list of charges, and one of those charges was "insurrection". And the DOJ took their list and almost word for word charged Trump with everything on it, EXCEPT "insurrection". Why would they do that? You refuse to answer that simple question because you know it completely destroys this dumbfuck premise you have. Your only rebuttal is to keep chirping about "charges don't equal crimes". Just answer that simple question, Dupey.

[CHEEZY17]

And there ya go, flat out lie yet again. Not a single one of you except Animal has done so, and all of you change the argument every time to charges filed. If you can't do it, just say so and take a seat, hack.

Nope. You calling something a lie doesnt make it so.
Here are the facts. The facts which you continue to ignore Every. Single. Time.
The legal authorities evaluated your facts and then some. The same facts YOU used to come to your judgement led them to arrive at a different conclusion. The same facts YOU say we are ignoring. We are not ignoring them. The legal authorities arent ignoring them. Your facts simply dont add up to insurrection in the judgement of the only people that matter. People smarter than you evaluated your facts BEFORE the charges were levied. You simply cant accept the FACT that they arrived at different conclusion than you did. Thats not changing the argument that is stating facts. That is the bottom line, bud. You can whine and complain all you want but it will never change the FACT that you are the one at odds with the United States Department of Justice.

[dot]

look, dupey, the defacto republican that Nancy Pelosi put on the committee was Liz Cheney.

And Adam Kinzinger, but don't let facts get in the way of lying on your way to deflection.

But none of that is the point either. The point is that this committee had a wish list of charges

And there's the fallacy again.

Sorry, dress it up however you want to, but if your end result is going to be arguing what charges were filed, then that's what you're changing the argument to.

Either argue what happened that day was not an insurrection, or that the word itself is incorrectly defined. If you fail that, your premise is wrong. Try again.

Nope. You calling something a lie doesnt make it so.

It does if that's what it is. Because if none of you can address the facts of January 6 without shifting to argue what came after in the form of charges filed, then none of you have addressed the argument which means "The facts have been engaged by everyone here" is a flat out lie. Hacks gonna hack.

[Animal]

look, dupey, the defacto republican that Nancy Pelosi put on the committee was Liz Cheney.

And Adam Kinzinger, but don't let facts get in the way of lying on your way to deflection.

But none of that is the point either. The point is that this committee had a wish list of charges

And there's the fallacy again.

Sorry, dress it up however you want to, but if your end result is going to be arguing what charges were filed, then that's what you're changing the argument to.

Either argue what happened that day was not an insurrection, or that the word itself is incorrectly defined. If you fail that, your premise is wrong. Try again.

Nope. You calling something a lie doesnt make it so.

It does if that's what it is. Because if none of you can address the facts of January 6 without shifting to argue what came after in the form of charges filed, then none of you have addressed the argument which means "The facts have been engaged by everyone here" is a flat out lie. Hacks gonna hack.

stop shifting to your cover argument that does nothing to address the facts. Answer this simple question.

Why was no one, out of over 700 people, charged with insurrection on Jan 6th?

[Biker]

Why was no one, out of over 700 people, charged with insurrection on Jan 6th?

We're what, 6 weeks into Dodgin' Dot not answering this question? That says it all, no?

[CHEEZY17]

Why was no one, out of over 700 people, charged with insurrection on Jan 6th?

We're what, 6 weeks into Dodgin' Dot not answering this question? That says it all, no?

Dodgin' Dot is going to reply with some bullshit about "changing the argument" or "not addressing the facts" all while not accepting that the evaluation of said facts is what led to no insurrection charges being levied.

[Antknot]

[dot]

stop shifting to your cover argument that does nothing to address the facts.

That's what y'all have done from the beginning, save the one time you tried and then abandoned ship when it didn't work out for you. Dodge 1.

We're what, 6 weeks into Dodgin' Dot not answering this question? That says it all, no?

Dodge 2.

Dodgin' Dot is going to reply with some bullshit about "changing the argument" or "not addressing the facts"

Dodge 3, because none of you addressed the facts of the January 6 insurrection and instead change the subject to charges filed.

Either argue what happened that day was not an insurrection, or that the word itself is incorrectly defined. If you fail that, your premise is wrong. Try again.

[Biker]

Cluster B reversal; accuse others of what you're actually doing

[CHEEZY17]

Dodgin' Dot: do you think the authorities evaluated all of the facts?

[dot]

Cluster B reversal; accuse others of what you're actually doing

None of you have tried except for Animal. I didn't force y'all to avoid addressing the facts of the insurrection. Dodge 4, unless we reset the counter.

Dodgin' Dot: do you think the authorities evaluated all of the facts?

You didn't, and still won't. Dodge 5 or 2. Hack does hack things.

[CHEEZY17]

Cluster B reversal; accuse others of what you're actually doing

None of you have tried except for Animal. I didn't force y'all to avoid addressing the facts of the insurrection. Dodge 4, unless we reset the counter.

Dodgin' Dot: do you think the authorities evaluated all of the facts?

You didn't, and still won't. Dodge 5 or 2. Hack does hack things.

That doesnt answer the question, retard. Try again:
Dodgin' Dot: do you think the authorities evaluated all of the facts?

[peterosehaircut]

Cluster B reversal; accuse others of what you're actually doing

None of you have tried except for Animal. I didn't force y'all to avoid addressing the facts of the insurrection. Dodge 4, unless we reset the counter.

Dodgin' Dot: do you think the authorities evaluated all of the facts?

You didn't, and still won't. Dodge 5 or 2. Hack does hack things.

That doesnt answer the question, retard. Try again:
Dodgin' Dot: do you think the authorities evaluated all of the facts?

With her superior intellect, she knows more about what constitutes insurrection than all the prosecuting authorities in the US government.

[CHEEZY17]

Cluster B reversal; accuse others of what you're actually doing

None of you have tried except for Animal. I didn't force y'all to avoid addressing the facts of the insurrection. Dodge 4, unless we reset the counter.

Dodgin' Dot: do you think the authorities evaluated all of the facts?

You didn't, and still won't. Dodge 5 or 2. Hack does hack things.

That doesnt answer the question, retard. Try again:
Dodgin' Dot: do you think the authorities evaluated all of the facts?

With her superior intellect, she knows more about what constitutes insurrection than all the prosecuting authorities in the US government.

Thats all part of what Dodgin' Dot cant and wont acknowledge.
Dodgin' Dot continually harps on "the facts" while simultaneously forgetting that "the facts" have been evaluated by people who literally do this for a living and are the authority on what those facts are.

[Biker]

Cluster B reversal; accuse others of what you're actually doing

None of you have tried except for Animal. I didn't force y'all to avoid addressing the facts of the insurrection. Dodge 4, unless we reset the counter.

Dodgin' Dot: do you think the authorities evaluated all of the facts?

You didn't, and still won't. Dodge 5 or 2. Hack does hack things.

One would have to accept the premise that it was an insurrection. You lose

[dot]

That doesnt answer the question, retard.

Thats all part of what Dodgin' Dot cant and wont acknowledge.

Says the hack that can't argue the facts and must change the argument every time. Deflection, distraction. You lose.

With her superior intellect, she knows more about what constitutes insurrection than all the prosecuting authorities in the US government.

One would have to accept the premise that it was an insurrection. You lose

You're both welcome to argue that it wasn't, and you have definitions to work with, just prove January 6 doesn't qualify as such by definition. You won't do so. Therefore, you lose.

[Animal]

Dot is like the Captain of the Titanic standing on his tip toes taking in his last breath while arguing what the definition of a "hole in the hull" is.

[CHEEZY17]

That doesnt answer the question, retard.

Thats all part of what Dodgin' Dot cant and wont acknowledge.

Says the hack that can't argue the facts and must change the argument every time. Deflection, distraction. You lose.

With her superior intellect, she knows more about what constitutes insurrection than all the prosecuting authorities in the US government.

One would have to accept the premise that it was an insurrection. You lose

You're both welcome to argue that it wasn't, and you have definitions to work with, just prove January 6 doesn't qualify as such by definition. You won't do so. Therefore, you lose.

"The facts" and your facts have already been argued and evaluated by people smarter than you but you wont acknowledge it. This is evidenced by your continual and embarrassing dodge of this very simple question:

Dodgin' Dot: do you think the authorities evaluated all of the facts?

The FACT that the United States Justice Department evaluated your FACTS and didnt think insurrection was appropriate is all that matters because they are the legal authority and are smarter than you. Evaluating and arguing "the facts" is literally their job. They did it. They dont agree with you, bud.

[dot]

Dot is like the Captain of the Titanic standing on his tip toes taking in his last breath while arguing what the definition of a "hole in the hull" is.

Says the people denying there was an iceberg. You had your chance, you gave it up the moment it got the slightest bit difficult.

"The facts" and your facts have already been argued and evaluated by people smarter than you but you wont acknowledge it.

You're more than welcome to argue what happened, but if all you can do is argue what came after, then you're dodging and changing the argument. Hack does hack things.

[CHEEZY17]

Dot is like the Captain of the Titanic standing on his tip toes taking in his last breath while arguing what the definition of a "hole in the hull" is.

Says the people denying there was an iceberg. You had your chance, you gave it up the moment it got the slightest bit difficult.

"The facts" and your facts have already been argued and evaluated by people smarter than you but you wont acknowledge it.

You're more than welcome to argue what happened, but if all you can do is argue what came after, then you're dodging and changing the argument. Hack does hack things.

OK, here is me arguing what happened. This is the argument I am making regarding what happened that day. This is me addressing "the facts". You may not like HOW I address it but that is irrelevant. Phrase it however you want: The authorities argued the facts of that day. The authorities and legal professionals know all about your definition and the legal standard of what constitutes an insurrection. After evaluating and arguing what happened before, during and after those events, they decided insurrection didnt fit. Until you can reconcile the fact that the legal authority of the United States Government does not agree with your judgement, you lose. Sorry, bud. Youre more than welcome to address any of the simple questions you continually dodge like this one: Dodgin' Dot: do you think the authorities evaluated all of the facts?

[Antknot]

[dot]

OK, here is me arguing what happened. This is the argument I am making regarding what happened that day. This is me addressing "the facts". You may not like HOW I address it but that is irrelevant.

Except it's not. Because everytime you change the subject from what happened to what came after, you're refusing to address what actually happened. You want to make it irrelevant, because that allows you to disregard the unacceptable behavior that your ideological allies and idol committed and took part in. So until you address what happened that day, until you can prove that what took place was not an insurrection or that insurrection itself is incorrectly defined, then your premise is wrong. Hack does hack things. You lose.

[Animal]

OK, here is me arguing what happened. This is the argument I am making regarding what happened that day. This is me addressing "the facts". You may not like HOW I address it but that is irrelevant.

Except it's not. Because everytime you change the subject from what happened to what came after, you're refusing to address what actually happened. You want to make it irrelevant, because that allows you to disregard the unacceptable behavior that your ideological allies and idol committed and took part in. So until you address what happened that day, until you can prove that what took place was not an insurrection or that insurrection itself is incorrectly defined, then your premise is wrong. Hack does hack things. You lose.

the only person that is disregarding anything here is you. you are disregarding the hundreds and hundreds of lawyers that were hired by both sides in multiple situations during all of this. the lawyers that came to the final conclusion of what to charge Donald Trump and what to charge each and every person arrested for crimes on Jan 6th. And not one. NOT ONE of those people were charged with the crime of "insurrection". And every single one of those lawyers disagrees with your premise and I am certainly not going to do some google search or wiki page and think I know more about it than they do. You should do the same thing.

[CHEEZY17]

OK, here is me arguing what happened. This is the argument I am making regarding what happened that day. This is me addressing "the facts". You may not like HOW I address it but that is irrelevant.

Except it's not. Because everytime you change the subject from what happened to what came after, you're refusing to address what actually happened. You want to make it irrelevant, because that allows you to disregard the unacceptable behavior that your ideological allies and idol committed and took part in. So until you address what happened that day, until you can prove that what took place was not an insurrection or that insurrection itself is incorrectly defined, then your premise is wrong. Hack does hack things. You lose.

Your entire argument is based on "the definition". The definition is what you consider to be "the facts".
It has been shown to you for weeks now that people smarter than you know and understand "the definition". You have been shown for weeks now that those people that are smarter than you have evaluated all of the evidence prior, during and after the protest. You keep saying we're changing it to "after" but the reality is the people smarter than you evaluated "the facts" that occurred before, during and after and their conclusion does not match yours. Sorry bud, but until you can reconcile that the legal authority of the United States government has evaluated your facts of what happened that day and decided in every single case numbering in the hundreds that insurrection didnt fit, you lose. YOU do not understand insurrection better than the legal professionals of the United States Justice Department.

[dot]

the only person that is disregarding anything here is you. you are disregarding the hundreds and hundreds of lawyers that were hired by both sides in multiple situations during all of this.

Charges filed is not the argument. What happened is the argument. You can change the argument all you want but if you're not going to argue what January 6 was or was not, then you're not addressing the facts. Which means that you and your side is disregarding the argument and changing it to something else because you cannot acknowledge what your allies and idol did on January 6. And them's the facts.

Your entire argument is based on "the definition". The definition is what you consider to be "the facts".
It has been shown to you for weeks now that people smarter than you know and understand "the definition".

No, what's been shown to me for weeks now is that you want to rely on what prosecutors decided to charge after the fact as being the only thing you'll address. Just like with subpoenas, if they are defied and the punishment for defying not charged, does the defying of the subpoena just magically disappear? No, it doesn't. It still happened. Let me know when you are brave enough to talk about the events of January 6, hack.