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

[CHEEZY17]

Unlike you I've answered every question you've ever asked, bud.

If that was the case, this would've been settled months ago. Instead, you once again refuse to simply answer the base original question which you believe to be the case, that insurrection is not insurrection. Distract, deflect, dodge, duck, anything to avoid this simple exercise. Prove your claim, or admit you got nothing. I get why that would trigger you, because you heard it so much over the Joe Biden corruption that turned out to not exist. I didn't make you choose to back traitors, you did that. So either prove your claim(s) or concede, hack.

You mean do "the work"?
"The work" thats already been done by legal professionals that disagree with you? I'm not going to do anymore "work" or add anything to the investigations that they've already done, retard. It's already been settled by people smarter than you and they happen to agree with the position of "not insurrection". Sorry, bud. Thems just the facts. Never forget that it is YOU that is on the opposite side of the legal professionals.
Notice how you dodged the question yet again?

[dot]

Thanks for avoiding it and proving me right again. Hack does hack things.

[CHEEZY17]

Thanks for avoiding it and proving me right again. Hack does hack things.

Uh huh. You make it too easy, retard.
Why are you right and the United States Justice Department is wrong?

Dodge away, homeschool.

[dot]

Uh huh. You make it too easy, retard.

Given you haven't yet proved your claim or even tried, it must not be that easy for a hack.

[CHEEZY17]

Uh huh. You make it too easy, retard.

Given you haven't yet proved your claim or even tried, it must not be that easy for a hack.

Good Lord. You're too fucking stupid to understand that the United States Justice Department already investigated and couldnt prove "insurrection". Because of that I dont need to prove "not insurrection" you fucking retard.

[dot]

Good Lord. You're too fucking stupid to understand

That you refuse to engage making it blatantly obvious when you keep changing the subject everytime you come back here? No, you've made it painfully obvious you're not equipped to prove what you claimed, again, which is why you've once again demanded to argue something else. Anything else. But kudos for earning a change in gifs back to your usual accurate representation. Hack doing hack things while angry.

[CHEEZY17]

Good Lord. You're too fucking stupid to understand

That you refuse to engage making it blatantly obvious when you keep changing the subject everytime you come back here? No, you've made it painfully obvious you're not equipped to prove what you claimed, again, which is why you've once again demanded to argue something else. Anything else. But kudos for earning a change in gifs back to your usual accurate representation. Hack doing hack things while angry.

Poor dumb Dot.

My claim is that the events of that day were not an insurrection. Two government legal entities, the United States Department of Justice and the FBI, agree after exhaustive investigations. That is the proof. There is no other proof needed. Thats not changing the subject; that IS the subject you absolute retard.
Never forget that it is YOU that is on the opposite side of the legal professionals.

[dot]

Color me shocked, you state your claim and then refuse to prove it, instead turning to argue something else. Hack did hack things again.

[CHEEZY17]

God, I love that JD Vance GIF.
Dudes gonna make a great VP and give my boy DeSantis a run for his money in 4 years.

[dot]

God, I love that JD Vance GIF.
Dudes gonna make a great VP and give my boy DeSantis a run for his money in 4 years.

Sure, hack. Sure.

[CHEEZY17]

God, I love that JD Vance GIF.
Dudes gonna make a great VP and give my boy DeSantis a run for his money in 4 years.

Sure, hack. Sure.

Hey, it's not my fault your installed candidate choose such a doofus for VP.

[dot]

Hey, it's not my fault your installed candidate choose such a doofus for VP.

Sorry, but Walz is leaps and bounds above and beyond Vance. I chuckle at you picking your newest fangirling object when you've picked loser causes for years now, but then again, it's not like being Trump's VP pick has a good track record either. Go figure, hack.

[CHEEZY17]

Hey, it's not my fault your installed candidate choose such a doofus for VP.

Sorry, but Walz is leaps and bounds above and beyond Vance. I chuckle at you picking your newest fangirling object when you've picked loser causes for years now, but then again, it's not like being Trump's VP pick has a good track record either. Go figure, hack.

Holy shit. You probably actually believe that.

Remember when Walz got called out for lying and then actually made it worse?

[media] [/media]

Or that he said he's friends with school shooters?



Or when he admitted that he's a knucklehead?



Vance fucking crushes this question about Liz Cheney.

[dot]

Holy shit. You probably actually believe that.

What I believe is that you're a disingenuous partisan hack that will give any con a pass because that's the partisan hack way. Vance has refused to acknowledge reality of the 2020 election previously cited, struggles to function like a human being:



fails to process contradictory data in his proximity to his false rhetoric:



admits on air that he lies to push fake debunked racist propaganda:



and I have no love for Liz Cheney, but I'll take her and the Constitution over an insurrection sympathizer and apologist.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... n-remarks/

Cheney blasted Vance’s remarks in a post on the social platform X, calling such a move “illegal” and likening it to “tyranny.”

“Let’s be clear: This is illegal and unconstitutional,” Cheney wrote, responding to a clip of Vance’s comments. “The American people had voted. The courts had ruled. The Electoral College had met and voted. The Governor in every state had certified the results and sent a legal slate of electors to the Congress to be counted.”

“The Vice President has no constitutional authority to tell states to submit alternative slates of electors because his candidate lost. That is tyranny,” she said.

But go ahead, tell us more about your choice, hack. You can always dig the hole deeper since choosing to revere a convicted criminal.

[Animal]

I voted. I thought long and hard about it. It really came down to which of the two I felt would most be a dictator.

[necronomous]

I voted. I thought long and hard about it. It really came down to which of the two I felt would most be a dictator.

So Trump

[CHEEZY17]

The subject is "Was January 6th an insurrection?" This is the subject we are discussing.
Desperate Dodgin' Dot thinks the subject we are discussing was an insurrection. The DOJ and FBI do not.

The question Dot avoids like the plague is thus:
Why don't the FBI and DOJ agree with your assertion that the crime of insurrection occurred?

This is not "changing the subject" or "moving the goalposts". This very basic question hits at the very heart of the discussion of whether or not an insurrection occurred. The reason you (Dodgin' Dot) don't like this question is because it makes you look like the fool that you are. The people that matter disagree with your conclusion that the events of that day were an "insurrection" and that makes your little retard brain sad.

Nothing else needs to be "proven".
There is nothing that anyone can add to the DOJ's and FBI's conclusion of "not insurrection". If you do have something to add Dodgin' Dot, again, I suggest you call them up and tell them your reasoning for why you are right and they are wrong.

[Ricrude]

I voted. I thought long and hard about it. It really came down to which of the two I felt would most be a dictator.

So Trump

Kool-Aid is discontinuing the blue flavor...

[dot]

The subject is "Was January 6th an insurrection?" This is the subject we are discussing.

Except we aren't discussing it because you refuse to engage on it. Yet another example of dodging and shifting the goalposts to change the argument. If you can't talk about January 6 without deflecting to argue anything other than what is an insurrection (definition's been provided) and how does the event in question qualify (already established criteria has been met), then you're intentionally avoiding the discussion. Keep proving me right, hack.

[CHEEZY17]

The subject is "Was January 6th an insurrection?" This is the subject we are discussing.

Except we aren't discussing it because you refuse to engage on it. Yet another example of dodging and shifting the goalposts to change the argument. If you can't talk about January 6 without deflecting to argue anything other than what is an insurrection (definition's been provided) and how does the event in question qualify (already established criteria has been met), then you're intentionally avoiding the discussion. Keep proving me right, hack.

You've been "engaged on it" for months by me and others. You just don't like the answers you've been given because they destroy your errant conclusion. Your little retard brain is sad that the legal professionals of the United States government don't agree with your assessment of that day.
Keep crying, retard.

[dot]

You've been "engaged on it" for months by me and others.

I've been dodged for months by everyone except Animal. And the one time he tried, his own definition proved insurrection applies and he's since refused to engage again. You, on the other hand, refuse to even try. It says something when you can't even acknowledge what an insurrection is.

You don't have to keep proving you're a cowardly partisan hack. We already know it.

[CHEEZY17]

Never forget, retard, that it is YOU that is on the opposite side of the legal professionals.

[dot]

You're the hack that is arguing against what words literally mean.

[Who]

Never forget, retard, that it is YOU that is on the opposite side of the legal professionals.

I love how you like to parse words .

January 6th was a failed insurrection .

What the participants in the insurrection were charged with doesn’t change the fact that January 6 was an attempted coup.

[Animal]

Never forget, retard, that it is YOU that is on the opposite side of the legal professionals.

I love how you like to parse words .

January 6th was a failed insurrection .

What the participants in the insurrection were charged with doesn’t change the fact that January 6 was an attempted coup.

since there is a specific crime relating to attempting an insurrection, why wasn't even one, of the hundreds of people arrested, charged with the crime of insurrection? Why did they charge them with lesser crimes instead?