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

[necronomous]

Ah, so you think the DOJ and FBI are wrong. Cool.

I'm not the one arguing against all the prosecutors who have yet to convict one person for it.

If only the argument was what charges were filed, not what crime was committed. Hack(s) did hack things, again.

If only we charge people with the crimes they commit huh. Dumbass.

[Animal]

dot thinks he's making a point.

[dot]

If only we charge people with the crimes they commit huh. Dumbass.

Like disobeying subpeonas? Cause the absence of charges didn't make that somehow not happen either. I can't help it if you chose the wrong side to defend, I didn't force you to choose to argue against reality.

[necronomous]

If only we charge people with the crimes they commit huh. Dumbass.

Like disobeying subpeonas? Cause the absence of charges didn't make that somehow not happen either. I can't help it if you chose the wrong side to defend, I didn't force you to choose to argue against reality.

You think this is the same? They have the people. In jail. Try them for insurrection if that's what it was. You're the only one in denial here.

[CHEEZY17]

If only we charge people with the crimes they commit huh. Dumbass.

Like disobeying subpeonas? Cause the absence of charges didn't make that somehow not happen either. I can't help it if you chose the wrong side to defend, I didn't force you to choose to argue against reality.

You think this is the same? They have the people. In jail. Try them for insurrection if that's what it was. You're the only one in denial here.

Dodgin' Dot thinking he understands "insurrection" better than the DOJ and FBI.

[dot]

Two more posts and still no attempts to prove the claim of insurrection isn't insurrection. Whether it's facts or courage, y'all continue to prove you lack both. Poor hacks.

[necronomous]

Two more posts and still no attempts to prove the claim of insurrection isn't insurrection. Whether it's facts or courage, y'all continue to prove you lack both. Poor hacks.

In the simplest terms, you don't prove a person innocent, you must prove them guilty. And no one has. And no one will. Because it wasn't an insurrection. You haven't even proved it was an insurrection, it's just you going, but it was. Poor idiot.

[dot]

*Cowardly blathering*

In the simplest terms, an insurrection is defined as a violent uprising against an authority or government. You cannot and will not prove your assertion that January 6 was not an insurrection. Because you cannot do this task that should be simple on its face were you to have the facts on your side, you pivot to any and everything else to avoid the fact that you cannot prove your claim. You've demonstrated this time after time. In the simplest terms, you're a red m&m defending the traitorous red m&ms. I didn't make you choose to defend traitors. You made your bed, so lay in it.

[CHEEZY17]

*Cowardly blathering*

In the simplest terms, an insurrection is defined as a violent uprising against an authority or government. You cannot and will not prove your assertion that January 6 was not an insurrection. Because you cannot do this task that should be simple on its face were you to have the facts on your side, you pivot to any and everything else to avoid the fact that you cannot prove your claim. You've demonstrated this time after time. In the simplest terms, you're a red m&m defending the traitorous red m&ms. I didn't make you choose to defend traitors. You made your bed, so lay in it.

LOLZ. Again, sounds like your beef is with the DOJ and FBI. If its that simple why havent they prosecuted anyone for insurrection?
Either you're right and they're wrong or they're right and you're wrong; it cannot be both. Which is it?

[dot]

*Cowardly blathering*

Still won't prove your claim, yet another dodge from the partisan hack.

[necronomous]

*being correct*

*retarded idiocy*.

I don't have to. The DOJ proved me right. Have a great day you fucking moron.

[CHEEZY17]

*Cowardly blathering*

Still won't prove your claim, yet another dodge from the partisan hack.

Prove my claim that I agree with the DOJ and FBI?
Sure, I guess I could do that.
I, CHEEZY17, do hereby agree with the determination of the United States Department of Justice and the FBI regarding their evaluation of the events of that day.
I'm not sure how else you want me to prove my agreement with the legal experts.
Curiously, why do you never answer why you think you are right and they are wrong?

[dot]

I don't have to.

Except you do, because simply put, the definition is clear and your claim is counter to that definition. That you refuse to do so is proof you know you're wrong.

Curiously, why do you never answer why you think you are right and they are wrong?

I don't answer deflections from the subject which is not surprisingly all you will offer up. Simple fact is January 6 was an insurrection as previously defined, you just refuse to acknowledge reality because you and your ilk are disingenuous partisan hacks.

If neither of you like that, there's a real simple solution. Prove your claim. But you won't.

[CHEEZY17]

I don't have to.

Except you do, because simply put, the definition is clear and your claim is counter to that definition. That you refuse to do so is proof you know you're wrong.

Curiously, why do you never answer why you think you are right and they are wrong?

I don't answer deflections from the subject which is not surprisingly all you will offer up. Simple fact is January 6 was an insurrection as previously defined, you just refuse to acknowledge reality because you and your ilk are disingenuous partisan hacks.

If neither of you like that, there's a real simple solution. Prove your claim. But you won't.

The fact that you think it was an "insurrection" and the DOJ and FBI do not is not a "deflection". Asking you to explain how you feel you know better than the legal experts is not "deflection".
You say you came to your conclusion based on evidence. Out counter is that unless you have some evidence the legal experts do not, they have reached a different conclusion than you based on that exact same evidence. So once again: Why are you right regarding that evidence and they are wrong?
That's not "deflection" bud, it's you simply being unwilling to admit that the people that matter don't agree with you.

[dot]

The fact that you think it was an "insurrection"

Is based on the literal definition of the word. Something you to date still cannot come to grips with since you just flailed about and refused to address that basic simple fact.

If neither of you like that, there's a real simple solution. Prove your claim. But you won't.

Keep proving me right, hack.

[CHEEZY17]

The fact that you think it was an "insurrection"

Is based on the literal definition of the word. Something you to date still cannot come to grips with since you just flailed about and refused to address that basic simple fact.

If neither of you like that, there's a real simple solution. Prove your claim. But you won't.

Keep proving me right, hack.

Yet the people who matter, who know the definition better than you do, and are smarter than you, don't seem to agree with your conclusion. Weird.
For you to be right they must be wrong. It's that simple, bud. In essence you think you understand the events of that day better than the DOJ and FBI.

If my dentist tells me I don't have any cavities I'm going to take his word for it because that's his area of expertise. Unlike you, we are comfortably over here on the side of the legal professionals. Never forget that YOU are not.

[dot]

Yet

Is based on the literal definition of the word. Something you to date still cannot come to grips with since you just flailed about and refused to address that basic simple fact.

If neither of you like that, there's a real simple solution. Prove your claim. But you won't.

Keep proving me right, hack.

[CHEEZY17]

Yet

Is based on the literal definition of the word. Something you to date still cannot come to grips with since you just flailed about and refused to address that basic simple fact.

If neither of you like that, there's a real simple solution. Prove your claim. But you won't.

Keep proving me right, hack.

Do you think the DOJ and FBI don't understand the definition?
Why is your interpretation of the definition correct and theirs is wrong? For one of you to be correct the other MUST be wrong. That's it. Until you can answer that very basic question bud, you're just pissing in the wind. Unlike you, we are comfortably over here on the side of the legal professionals. Never forget that YOU are not.

[necronomous]

I don't have to.

Except you do, because simply put, the definition is clear and your claim is counter to that definition. That you refuse to do so is proof you know you're wrong.

Curiously, why do you never answer why you think you are right and they are wrong?

I don't answer deflections from the subject which is not surprisingly all you will offer up. Simple fact is January 6 was an insurrection as previously defined, you just refuse to acknowledge reality because you and your ilk are disingenuous partisan hacks.

If neither of you like that, there's a real simple solution. Prove your claim. But you won't.

It's convenient how you keep cutting out the parts that prove you wrong.

[dot]

Do you think

That you once again won't address the subject? Yes, because it's what you do. Every time, without fail. This time was no different. Hack does hack things.

It's convenient how you keep cutting out the parts that prove you wrong.

It would be if any of you could actually do the work and prove your own claim. But since you won't and can't, here we are.

If neither of you like that, there's a real simple solution. Prove your claim. But you won't.

[CHEEZY17]

Do you think

That you once again won't address the subject? Yes, because it's what you do. Every time, without fail. This time was no different. Hack does hack things.

It's convenient how you keep cutting out the parts that prove you wrong.

It would be if any of you could actually do the work and prove your own claim. But since you won't and can't, here we are.

If neither of you like that, there's a real simple solution. Prove your claim. But you won't.

And we're back to cut and paste.

Why is your interpretation of the definition correct and theirs is wrong? For one of you to be correct the other MUST be wrong. That's it. Until you can answer that very basic question bud, you're just pissing in the wind. Unlike you, we are comfortably over here on the side of the legal professionals. Never forget that YOU are not.

[Animal]

dumb dot's logic reminds me of listening to one of those flat earth nutters. no amount of proof will change their minds. and they really think that they look smart defending their ridiculous conclusion.

[dot]

And we're back to cut and paste.

Says the guy that says the same thing to avoid proving his claim every time. After all, if you had any leg to stand on, you'd have done the work months ago. But since you can't prove anything you ever claim, be it Biden corruption or insurrection not being insurrection or really any of the cult claims you've been offering up these last few years, in this case we are still stuck at the fact you can't dispute the literal definition of insurrection. Hack prefers to shift the discussion to anything else because the facts were never on hack's side. Just like...

dumb dot's logic reminds me of listening to one of those flat earth nutters. no amount of proof will change their minds. and they really think that they look smart defending their ridiculous conclusion.

You're welcome to try proving insurrection isn't insurrection again, you're the only one that ever even tried after all. But since you have the same lack of facts on your side, plus your lack of a good track record with definitions, something tells me you're not gonna do the work. Just like the rest of the usual suspects.

If neither of you like that, there's a real simple solution. Prove your claim. But you won't.

[necronomous]

Do you think

That you once again won't address the subject? Yes, because it's what you do. Every time, without fail. This time was no different. Hack does hack things.

It's convenient how you keep cutting out the parts that prove you wrong.

It would be if any of you could actually do the work and prove your own claim. But since you won't and can't, here we are.

If neither of you like that, there's a real simple solution. Prove your claim. But you won't.

Already have.

[CHEEZY17]

And we're back to cut and paste.

Says the guy that says the same thing to avoid proving his claim every time. After all, if you had any leg to stand on, you'd have done the work months ago. But since you can't prove anything you ever claim, be it Biden corruption or insurrection not being insurrection or really any of the cult claims you've been offering up these last few years, in this case we are still stuck at the fact you can't dispute the literal definition of insurrection. Hack prefers to shift the discussion to anything else because the facts were never on hack's side. Just like...

dumb dot's logic reminds me of listening to one of those flat earth nutters. no amount of proof will change their minds. and they really think that they look smart defending their ridiculous conclusion.

You're welcome to try proving insurrection isn't insurrection again, you're the only one that ever even tried after all. But since you have the same lack of facts on your side, plus your lack of a good track record with definitions, something tells me you're not gonna do the work. Just like the rest of the usual suspects.

If neither of you like that, there's a real simple solution. Prove your claim. But you won't.

"The work" has already been done by the DOJ and the FBI. You know, those legal professionals that do these things for a living.
"The work" that they did was 3 and a half years of investigations, countless video review hours, hundreds of thousands of text messages and emails and countless interviews. Do you know what their determination was after doing "the work"?
Not insurrection.
Face it, bud. The people that are smarter than you disagree with your conclusion. That's really the bottom line here.
For you to be right they have to be wrong.
Cut and paste time!

Why is your interpretation of the definition correct and theirs is wrong? For one of you to be correct the other MUST be wrong. That's it. Until you can answer that very basic question bud, you're just pissing in the wind. Unlike you, we are comfortably over here on the side of the legal professionals. Never forget that YOU are not.