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

[Animal]

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.

look, stupid. fortunately for me thousands of scientists have told me that I can't breathe in space. I don't have to go to space and try to breathe to figure out if I can or not. If you want to argue the definition of breathing and prove them wrong, by all means head on up there and get after it.

[CHEEZY17]

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.

Again, youre claiming "after the fact" as if that matters because those actions that occurred "at the moment" are "the facts" that were evaluated by the people smarter than you. You want to discuss "the facts"? "The facts" you think havent been discussed have actually been discussed and evaluated by people smarter than you in hundreds of actual cases. What facts EXACTLY do you think havent been discussed or evaluated? "The facts" of that day, meaning the actions prior, during and after the protest have been scrutinized, evaluated and discussed in hundreds of legal prosecutions and not one of them was for "insurrection". Sorry bud, but until you can reconcile that the legal authority of the United States government has evaluated all of your "facts" of what happened that day in the form of definitions and legal standards, videos, testimony and interviews, text messages and phone calls and decided in every single case numbering in the hundreds that insurrection didnt fit, you lose.
Dodgin' Dot: do you think the authorities evaluated all of the facts? Tick tock, clocks ticking!

[Biker]

[dot]

look, stupid. fortunately for me thousands of scientists have told me that I can't breathe in space. I don't have to go to space and try to breathe to figure out if I can or not. If you want to argue the definition of breathing and prove them wrong, by all means head on up there and get after it.

Thing is, that's your task. You're the one saying an insurrection isn't an insurrection even though it meets all the criteria that even you yourself laid out. Don't forget, you're the one changing the argument so you don't have to argue whether you can breathe in space. Man up and do the work or admit your premise is wrong.

Whole lot of words that didn't address a single thing said

If you can't argue the facts of the insurrection, to the point that you have to change the argument to something else, that means you're a partisan hack coward with no faith in your grasp on reality or facts to argue what you say is the case. Let me know when you grow those balls to address January 6, hack.

[CHEEZY17]

look, stupid. fortunately for me thousands of scientists have told me that I can't breathe in space. I don't have to go to space and try to breathe to figure out if I can or not. If you want to argue the definition of breathing and prove them wrong, by all means head on up there and get after it.

Thing is, that's your task. You're the one saying an insurrection isn't an insurrection even though it meets all the criteria that even you yourself laid out. Don't forget, you're the one changing the argument so you don't have to argue whether you can breathe in space. Man up and do the work or admit your premise is wrong.

Whole lot of words that didn't address a single thing said

If you can't argue the facts of the insurrection, to the point that you have to change the argument to something else, that means you're a partisan hack coward with no faith in your grasp on reality or facts to argue what you say is the case. Let me know when you grow those balls to address January 6, hack.

No. Just no.
For the millionth time: What facts do you think havent been discussed? "The facts" of that day have been addressed. What EXACTLY are the facts you think havent been addressed or evaluated?
Be specific please. Tell us EXACTLY what "facts" of that day havent been addressed.
Again, if all youre going to say is "the definition" I will once again point you to the legal authorities that decided after evaluating "the facts of that day", including the definition and legal standard, hundreds of times over, that insurrection didnt fit. The "facts", which constitute the actions prior, during and after the protest have already been addressed hundreds of times by people smarter than you. If youre not talking about the actual actions that have been evaluated by people smarter than you during the time of the protest what facts EXACTLY are you talking about?
I'll happily list "the facts" that I'm referring to regarding the actions of that day:
Three years of investigation by the United States Justice Department
hundreds upon hundreds of hours of video
Interviews
Testimonies
Text messages and emails
Hundreds of actual prosecuted cases; none of which were for "insurrection"
All of these constitute "the facts" of that day.
What information EXACTLY do YOU have that you think the authorities missed?

[dot]

No. Just no.
For the millionth time: What facts do you think havent been discussed?

Any of it, because you won't do it. You will only talk about charges filed which does not change what happened that day. So either do the work or admit your premise is wrong because you're a disingenuous partisan hack before all other things are even considered. That is your starting off point. Either prove January 6 was not an insurrection as defined, or prove the definition of the word itself is wrong. Those are your options. Failing that, your hack apologist's premise is wrong.

[CHEEZY17]

No. Just no.
For the millionth time: What facts do you think havent been discussed?

Any of it, because you won't do it. You will only talk about charges filed which does not change what happened that day. So either do the work or admit your premise is wrong because you're a disingenuous partisan hack before all other things are even considered. That is your starting off point. Either prove January 6 was not an insurrection as defined, or prove the definition of the word itself is wrong. Those are your options. Failing that, your hack apologist's premise is wrong.

OK, heres me addressing the "facts of that day" yet again:
Three years of investigation by the United States Justice Department- zero prosecutions of insurrection
hundreds upon hundreds of hours of video- evaluated and scrutinized by legal professionals
Interviews- conducted by numerous law enforcement entities
Testimonies-given by hundreds, if not thousands of people
Text messages and emails- evaluated by numerous law enforcement entities
Hundreds of actual prosecuted cases; none of which were for "insurrection"- conducted by the prosecutorial legal authority of the United States Government
"the definition"- known and evaluated by the legal authorities who decided "insurrection" didnt fit
So stop your bullshit line of saying none of us address the facts or...
WHAT OTHER FACTS DO YOU WANT TO DISCUSS?

The only option that matters, the only FACT that matters is that the people who are smarter than you have already, take your pick:
addressed
examined
talked about
evaluated
the "facts of that day".
The people that matter examined what happened prior, during and after the protest. Those are "the facts of that day" you retard... and thats how they came to their conclusion. They came to their conclusion by examining all of the facts; something you refuse to admit. This is evidenced by your continual dodging of this very simple question: Dodgin' Dot: do you think the authorities evaluated all of the facts?
Basically, by your inability [cowardice] to address this very simple question you are admitting that you already know the answer and that the answer destroys your whole argument. Your argument falls apart when faced with the FACT that the legal authority of the United States Government has already addressed all of your facts and decided differently than you. 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?

Failing like usual to address any question posed to you, it can only mean that deep down you already know the answer and dont want to admit it because you desperately want it to be what people smarter than you have already decided it was not.
So, in essence, you either think the authorities DID evaluate all of the evidence and they are wrong and you think you understand the evidence better than they do
or
They DIDNT evaluate all of the evidence and you know something they dont.
Which is it?

[Animal]

dot's way of changing the argument to something else, is to accuse everyone that is making him look stupid of "changing the argument to something else".

[dot]

OK, heres me addressing the "facts of that day" yet again:
Three years of investigation by the United States Justice Department- zero prosecutions of insurrection

And there it is, immediately after saying you will address the facts of January 6, you do not address it and only talk what came after. Charges filed is not the same as committing the crime. We both know why you will never actually discuss the January 6 insurrection, not sure why you're shy about just proclaiming you hate democracy at this point. There's only one way to end this, and that's to prove January 6 was not an insurrection, or to prove the word is incorrectly defined. Disingenuous partisan hack refuses to do that. Since you fail to do so, your traitorous apologist's premise is wrong.

dot's way of changing the argument to something else, is to accuse everyone that is making him look stupid of "changing the argument to something else".

Except it's you guys that have refused to address the argument at all from the very beginning and thus change the argument every time, save for yourself one time. That exchange didn't go well for you, nothing new there, and you've chickened out since then. So you can keep accusing me of what you lot are doing yourselves, but the facts are not and will not be on your side. The only way to change that is to actually address the facts of the January 6 insurrection. But as you've been warned, definitions are not your strong suit.

[Animal]

OK, heres me addressing the "facts of that day" yet again:
Three years of investigation by the United States Justice Department- zero prosecutions of insurrection

And there it is, immediately after saying you will address the facts of January 6, you do not address it and only talk what came after. Charges filed is not the same as committing the crime. We both know why you will never actually discuss the January 6 insurrection, not sure why you're shy about just proclaiming you hate democracy at this point. There's only one way to end this, and that's to prove January 6 was not an insurrection, or to prove the word is incorrectly defined. Disingenuous partisan hack refuses to do that. Since you fail to do so, your traitorous apologist's premise is wrong.

dot's way of changing the argument to something else, is to accuse everyone that is making him look stupid of "changing the argument to something else".

Except it's you guys that have refused to address the argument at all from the very beginning and thus change the argument every time, save for yourself one time. That exchange didn't go well for you, nothing new there, and you've chickened out since then. So you can keep accusing me of what you lot are doing yourselves, but the facts are not and will not be on your side. The only way to change that is to actually address the facts of the January 6 insurrection. But as you've been warned, definitions are not your strong suit.

Not one single person out of hundreds was charged. None. And yet you still have a lock on knowing the definition.

[CHEEZY17]

Youve been asked several times now and not surprisingly you dodge Every. Single. Time.
What facts do you want to discuss that you think havent been addressed? If not these facts, then what? Be specific.
hundreds upon hundreds of hours of video of the protest- evaluated and scrutinized by legal professionals
Interviews about the protest- conducted by numerous law enforcement entities
Testimonies about the protest-given by hundreds, if not thousands of people
Text messages and emails about the protest- evaluated by numerous law enforcement entities
Hundreds of actual prosecuted cases; none of which were for "insurrection"- conducted by the prosecutorial legal authority of the United States Government
"the definition"- known and evaluated by the legal authorities who decided "insurrection" didnt fit
All of the above represent "the facts" of that day.
Answer the question you fucking pussy, what other facts?
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.

[dot]

Not one single person out of hundreds was charged.

Which isn't the argument. What was done? And why is it you will never again address what was done? Because we both know what was done was insurrection, and you can only argue what charges were filed which will never change the facts on the ground. See subpoenas defied. Try again, address the events of the insurrection or admit your apologist's premise is wrong.

Youve been asked several times now and not surprisingly you dodge Every. Single. Time.

You have done that from day one. Your projection is a confession, disingenuous partisan hack. Either address the events of the insurrection or admit your apologist's premise is wrong.

[CHEEZY17]

Not one single person out of hundreds was charged.

Which isn't the argument. What was done? And why is it you will never again address what was done? Because we both know what was done was insurrection, and you can only argue what charges were filed which will never change the facts on the ground. See subpoenas defied. Try again, address the events of the insurrection or admit your apologist's premise is wrong.

Youve been asked several times now and not surprisingly you dodge Every. Single. Time.

You have done that from day one. Your projection is a confession, disingenuous partisan hack. Either address the events of the insurrection or admit your apologist's premise is wrong.

Sorry bud, this is where your entire argument falls apart because of your inability [cowardice] to answer this and other related questions. What facts or events of that day EXACTLY do you think havent been addressed? Dont pull some bullshit and say "all of them". You need to list them. Try to put that little baby brain of yours to work and use your words. Tell us what specific facts or events do you think havent been addressed?

[dot]

Sorry bud, this is where your entire argument falls apart because of your inability [cowardice] to answer this and other related questions.

You have not once addressed, answered, even acknowledged the events and facts and questions regarding the January 6 insurrection. So you can sit there and continue your disingenuous partisan hackery that I have never answered your intellectually dishonest goalpost shifting, but it will never not come back to the fact that you haven't even begun a dialogue in the first place. At least Animal tried, but you didn't grow the balls to do even that. Either prove January 6 was not an insurrection, or that the word itself is incorrectly defined. If hack can't do that, then hack's traitorous apologist's premise is wrong.

[Animal]

Sorry bud, this is where your entire argument falls apart because of your inability [cowardice] to answer this and other related questions.

You have not once addressed, answered, even acknowledged the events and facts and questions regarding the January 6 insurrection. So you can sit there and continue your disingenuous partisan hackery that I have never answered your intellectually dishonest goalpost shifting, but it will never not come back to the fact that you haven't even begun a dialogue in the first place. At least Animal tried, but you didn't grow the balls to do even that. Either prove January 6 was not an insurrection, or that the word itself is incorrectly defined. If hack can't do that, then hack's traitorous apologist's premise is wrong.

I can prove that your interpretation of the definition is flawed. Otherwise at least ONE FUCKING PERSON out of the hundreds would have been charged with it. And it would have at least been mentioned, even if not in an actual charge, the fucking word would have been mentioned in the Justice Department's indictment of Trump. 45 pages and over 10,000 words and the word "Insurrection" is used one time and that was in a direct quote from someone that mentioned the Insurrection Act in a different context (Page 30).

https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Tr ... cr_257.pdf

Jack Smith never even uses the word "insurrection" in that entire 45 page indictment against Trump. He didn't use the word, because there was no insurrection that day and the word didn't fit anything he had to say about it.

[CHEEZY17]

Sorry bud, this is where your entire argument falls apart because of your inability [cowardice] to answer this and other related questions.

You have not once addressed, answered, even acknowledged the events and facts and questions regarding the January 6 insurrection. So you can sit there and continue your disingenuous partisan hackery that I have never answered your intellectually dishonest goalpost shifting, but it will never not come back to the fact that you haven't even begun a dialogue in the first place. At least Animal tried, but you didn't grow the balls to do even that. Either prove January 6 was not an insurrection, or that the word itself is incorrectly defined. If hack can't do that, then hack's traitorous apologist's premise is wrong.

So you dodge again. You are not helping your argument and simply further cement your reputation as Dodgin' Dot every time you dodge and delete the questions you cant answer. Thats OK, I'll be happy to keep exposing your cowardice:
What facts specifically do you think havent been addressed?

Here is me addressing "the facts of that day" yet again:
Everything that happened that day*, stuff that happened BEFORE that day and stuff that happened after that day have all been evaluated by the people whose literal job is to determine what happened.
The people smarter than you looked at all of the evidence from before, during and after the protest and 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.
Now, this is the part where you disingenuously say I havent addressed "the facts of that day" when the reality is that I am addressing "the facts of that day" by referring to the judgement resulting from the investigations of the legal authority of the United States Government. You may not like how the facts were addressed because it destroys your faulty argument but nevertheless they were addressed. YOU dont get to decide how the facts are addressed but one thing is certain: WE are on the same side as the legal professionals and YOU are not. Put your little baby brain to work and think about that.
So, in essence, you either think the authorities DID evaluate all of the evidence and they are wrong and you think you understand the evidence better than they do
or
They DIDNT evaluate all of the evidence and you know something they dont.
Which is it?

Try not to be a coward and actually address a question posed to you.


* "Everything that happened that day" means the text messages, the emails, the phone calls, the gathering, entering the building, the hundreds of hours of video, the interviews and testimonies, the protest itself and any other facts that have been uncovered by the 3 year long investigation and resulting hundreds of prosecutions- none of which were for insurrection.

[Biker]

[Biker]

[CHEEZY17]

[dot]

I can prove that your interpretation of the definition is flawed. Otherwise at least ONE FUCKING PERSON out of the hundreds would have been charged with it.

You say you can prove it and then fail to address the definition at all, shifting the goalposts to charges filed yet again. Try again, gullible idiot. Once again, for reference, does the lack of charge for subpoenas defied mean the subpoenas were never defied? No, it doesn't. Argue the facts or admit your apologist's premise is wrong.

So you dodge again.

You haven't started. So when you can argue the facts, and not rely on shifting the goalposts, then you can have some ground to stand on. Until then, it's you that are dodging because the argument is whether January 6 was or was not an insurrection or if the word itself is incorrectly defined. Either you do that, or your traitorous apologist's premise is wrong.

Added wrinkle, now you have to deal with your own chosen idol calling January 6 an insurrection.


Good luck, hack.

[Animal]

I can prove that your interpretation of the definition is flawed. Otherwise at least ONE FUCKING PERSON out of the hundreds would have been charged with it.

You say you can prove it and then fail to address the definition at all, shifting the goalposts to charges filed yet again. Try again, gullible idiot. Once again, for reference, does the lack of charge for subpoenas defied mean the subpoenas were never defied? No, it doesn't. Argue the facts or admit your apologist's premise is wrong.

you always carve out the only part of a reply that you can link to your stupid "charges filed" argument.

Jack Smith wrote 50 pages about Trump and January 6th. He talked about everything involved with that day and never one time used the word "insurrection". He didn't use the word because it didn't fit the meaning for anything that happened that day. I gave you the link to all 50 pages.

[dot]

you always carve out the only part of a reply that you can link to your stupid "charges filed" argument.

Because the basis for your and all the apologists' excuses is always charges filed. There has been only one time anyone was willing to discuss the actual events of January 6, and that was you. You have refused to revisit that mindset since then, likely because that one time didn't work out well for you being this is definition based. If you're not going to argue the insurrection and only talk about charges being filed, then I'm not wasting time with deflections and distractions. Either discuss the insurrection, the act itself and the reasoning behind it, or admit your premise is wrong.

[Animal]

you always carve out the only part of a reply that you can link to your stupid "charges filed" argument.

Because the basis for your and all the apologists' excuses is always charges filed. There has been only one time anyone was willing to discuss the actual events of January 6, and that was you. You have refused to revisit that mindset since then, likely because that one time didn't work out well for you being this is definition based. If you're not going to argue the insurrection and only talk about charges being filed, then I'm not wasting time with deflections and distractions. Either discuss the insurrection, the act itself and the reasoning behind it, or admit your premise is wrong.

in Jack Smith's 50 pages report on Trump and Jan 6th, I'm not talking about charges filed. I am simply talking about Jan 6th and all of the things that Jack Smith had to say about the events of that day. Not a single mention of "insurrection". He never even typed the word.

[CHEEZY17]

I can prove that your interpretation of the definition is flawed. Otherwise at least ONE FUCKING PERSON out of the hundreds would have been charged with it.

You say you can prove it and then fail to address the definition at all, shifting the goalposts to charges filed yet again. Try again, gullible idiot. Once again, for reference, does the lack of charge for subpoenas defied mean the subpoenas were never defied? No, it doesn't. Argue the facts or admit your apologist's premise is wrong.

So you dodge again.

You haven't started. So when you can argue the facts, and not rely on shifting the goalposts, then you can have some ground to stand on. Until then, it's you that are dodging because the argument is whether January 6 was or was not an insurrection or if the word itself is incorrectly defined. Either you do that, or your traitorous apologist's premise is wrong.

Added wrinkle, now you have to deal with your own chosen idol calling January 6 an insurrection.


Good luck, hack.

You continually fall back on "the definition!!!!!!!" bullshit as if you are the only one that knows and understands the definition of insurrection.
Dodgin Dot: Do you think the legal authority of the United States government understands the definition of insurrection?

[Animal]

Dot is trying to start a Qanon-like Cult around the Definition.