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

[dot]

So no convictions. Got it.

34 guiltys. Try again, Red.

Hack did hack things and ignored his shattered narrative again.

[CHEEZY17]

Dodgin' Dot could put this all to bed by addressing the question he continues to dodge:
Why are the DOJ and FBI wrong in their evaluation but you are right?

[Animal]

Dodgin' Dot could put this all to bed by addressing the question he continues to dodge:
Why are the DOJ and FBI wrong in their evaluation but you are right?

i think his answer to that would be that the DOJ and FBI are wrong because hacks hack what hacks hack. and he is right because of 34 convictions.

[necronomous]

So no convictions. Got it.

34 guiltys. Try again, Red.

Hack did hack things and ignored his shattered narrative again.

Oh, way to make it about something we weren't talking about.

[dot]

Hack did hack things and still ignores his narrative shattering reality, opting instead for goalpost shifting.

i think his answer to that would be that the DOJ and FBI are wrong because hacks hack what hacks hack. and he is right because of 34 convictions.

Is that why you can't address the actual argument and have to shift the goalposts every time? Well, save once, but you failed then and gave up since. But that shows you know full well what the question is, you just refuse to answer it because the facts don't support your claim.

Oh, way to make it about something we weren't talking about.

Except we have been talking about it. I know you want to forget your past claims, but it doesn't matter cause you can't substantiate either assertion of fraud not being fraud or insurrection not being insurrection. So try again, Red.

[necronomous]

Hack did hack things and still ignores his narrative shattering reality, opting instead for goalpost shifting.

i think his answer to that would be that the DOJ and FBI are wrong because hacks hack what hacks hack. and he is right because of 34 convictions.

Is that why you can't address the actual argument and have to shift the goalposts every time? Well, save once, but you failed then and gave up since. But that shows you know full well what the question is, you just refuse to answer it because the facts don't support your claim.

Oh, way to make it about something we weren't talking about.

Except we have been talking about it. I know you want to forget your past claims, but it doesn't matter cause you can't substantiate either assertion of fraud not being fraud or insurrection not being insurrection. So try again, Red.

Nope. Wrong again.

[CHEEZY17]

Hack did hack things and still ignores his narrative shattering reality, opting instead for goalpost shifting.

Except the only one ignoring anything is you. It seems you dont realize everyone can see you deleting and ignoring the question that you should easily be able to answer:

Why are the DOJ and FBI wrong in their evaluation of the "facts of that day" but you are right?

[dot]

Nope. Wrong again.

Your past claims are still unsubstantiated, there is no getting around this. Try again, Red.

Except the only one ignoring anything is you.

Projection. Disingenuous delusional intellectually dishonest functionally retarded partisan hack dupe is at it again.

[CHEEZY17]

Projection. Disingenuous delusional intellectually dishonest functionally retarded partisan hack dupe is at it again.

As you ignore the very basic question again.
Why is this question so difficult for you? I mean, your conclusion, according to you, is undeniable. Why then did the legal experts at the Department of Justice after examining the same "facts of that day" as you, arrive at a totally different conclusion?
Why are the DOJ and FBI wrong in their evaluation of the "facts of that day" but you are right?

Here comes another ignore, delete and dodge!

[dot]

As you ignore the very basic question again.

As you've done from the beginning and continue to do every time your narrative is shattered. Like how your corruption case and claims disintegrated on live television, you've ignored that and still do. But as for this, until you can answer the question "what was incited on January 6," your bad faith excuses for your criminal idol will be discarded. Goalpost shifting will not change the argument no matter how much you need it to, hack.

[CHEEZY17]

As you ignore the very basic question again.

As you've done from the beginning and continue to do every time your narrative is shattered. Like how your corruption case and claims disintegrated on live television, you've ignored that and still do. But as for this, until you can answer the question "what was incited on January 6," your bad faith excuses for your criminal idol will be discarded. Goalpost shifting will not change the argument no matter how much you need it to, hack.

Nope. here is a copy and paste of me addressing all of those:

Riiiight. You delete and dodge because

So not only are you a retard but youre a lying retard as well because every single one of those things you mention has been addressed by me or someone else many times over. I will do it again, right here, to once again prove your retardation.

You can't answer any of the things you avoid every single time it's brought up. If all you're going to do is ignore that your case for corruption blew up from lack of evidence and exposed fabrication,

Except that is just not true. There is still ample evidence and it is all gathered for you right here: https://oversight.house.gov/landing/bid ... stigation/
Just because you dont believe the shell companies, the bank records, the emails, the evidence on the laptop, the phone calls, the texts etc. doesnt make them go away. Sorry, retard. Your claim is simply false.

or that you can't acknowledge your claims of corruption were discarded on live television by your own bought and paid for guy,

Again, simply not true and has been proven to you multiple times. No matter how many times you make your retarded claim, Turleys actual statement is easily retrievable. Turley addressed retards like you misrepresenting what he said right here: "...Rep. Raskin (D., Md.) just stated that I testified with other witnesses that "nothing would approach" an impeachable offense in this inquiry. That again is not true. I said the opposite. I stated that there was ample evidence for the inquiry and, if proven, the allegations would amount to impeachable offenses."

or that you can't prove your apologist's excuse for insurrection,

My proof is that the legal authorities and actual legal experts have looked at all of the exact same evidence as you and came to a different conclusion. Unlike you, I dont think I understand legalities better than the United States Justice Department. You can go ahead and be retarded and think you understand "insurrection" better than the Justice Department but until you can explain why their conclusion is wrong and yours is right your opinion is simply a fart in the wind and means nothing.

then why give your bad faith partisan hackery any time it doesn't deserve? Hack did hack things again.

Its no ones fault but yours that you delete and dodge anything that doesnt fit your narrative. You can delete and dodge my answers and then claim I never address anything but I can copy and paste my same answers over and over, retard.
More copy and paste because thats all youre worth:
Except the only one ignoring anything is you. It seems you dont realize everyone can see you deleting and ignoring the question that you should easily be able to answer:

Why are the DOJ and FBI wrong in their evaluation of the "facts of that day" but you are right?

[dot]

Nope. here is a copy and paste of me addressing all of those:

So not only

Are you never going to acknowledge the reality that your case for corruption fell apart in public, that your claims of proof of corruption was blown apart by your own bought and paid for pundit, that you'll never admit what January 6 and insurrection is, and then, and then, you get the picture. You will never admit you are proven wrong. You backed the wrong horse and you are too much of a hack to ever admit you chose wrong. Bad faith partisan hacks duped by criminals and foreign intelligence operatives are not worth the time spent to continuously refute their demonstrably false claims. Maybe when you actually address that you have no case for corruption against Joe Biden, or when you acknowledge that your prophetic claims of such for months were dispelled on live television, or finally admit anything on the list of things that destroy your cultist perspective, maybe then you are worth time spent to refute. But since you refuse to play on the plane of reality, there is no reason to humor your bad faith deflections with anything more than the derision you get. Or put simply, hack did hack things. Again.

Ignoring that you were proven wrong and refuted doesn't make it go away any more than shifting the goalposts makes the January 6 insurrection question go away. Hack did hack things again.

[Animal]

Dumb Dot's claim that January 6th was an insurrection can very easily be disproved by a technique called Reductio ad Absurdum. Reductio ad Absurdum is the strategy of disproving a claim by demonstrating logical contradictions. It is a readily accepted method to disproving claims that are simply made with no evidence.

Let's take this claim for example. Say Dumb Dot says that 10 = 20. And he wants you to accept that it is true because he says it is. (This is the same as his claim that Jan 6th was an insurrection). Now, to apply the principles of Reductio ad Absurdum to disprove this claim, you would have to prove something about this claim that contracts it and shows that it is not a true statement.

One mathematical truth is that you can divide both sides of an equation by the same number and keep the equation in balance. So, let's take 10 = 20 and divide both sides by 5. That would end up with a new equation 2 = 4. Now, we know that 2 does not equal 4, so therefore, the initial claim that 10 = 20 cannot be true.

Going back to the insurrection example, let's say that someone involved on Jan 6th was arrested for their involvement on January 6th. Now, as part of their arrest they would have to be charged with the crime they committed. One option would be to charge them with insurrection, if the prosecutors felt as if they were guilty of that. If this happened hundreds of times and in every single instance none of those people were charged with insurrection, then it would be a contradiction to the initial claim and that would prove that there was no insurrection on January 6th.

Boom goes the dynamite!

[dot]

Dumb Dot's claim that January 6th was an insurrection can very easily be disproved by a technique called Reductio ad Absurdum. Reductio ad Absurdum is the strategy of disproving a claim by demonstrating logical contradictions. It is a readily accepted method to disproving claims that are simply made with no evidence.

This is gonna be some impressive gymnastics to get away from ignoring:

insurrection
noun
in·​sur·​rec·​tion ˌin(t)-sə-ˈrek-shən
Synonyms of insurrection
: an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government

You're welcome to dig up the other definition you wanted to use, both of them work fine and against your claim / excuse.

Let's take this claim for example. Say Dumb Dot says that 10 = 20.

Thrown out immediately for lying and strawman. When I said do your homework, it was to argue for your case, not make up bs to avoid arguing it.

Going back to the insurrection example, let's say that someone involved on Jan 6th was arrested for their involvement on January 6th. Now, as part of their arrest they would have to be charged with the crime they committed.

Error. Charges filed is not the same thing as the crime committed, see parallel for subpoenas defied to show the fallacy in your lack of an argument even further. The argument was always what was done, not what was filed. Once again, you fell into the trap of shifting the goalposts rather than answer the question.

Boom goes the dynamite!

Indeed, you exploded quite prematurely. Did you even think or plan any of that out prior to hitting to submit?

[Animal]

Going back to the insurrection example, let's say that someone involved on Jan 6th was arrested for their involvement on January 6th. Now, as part of their arrest they would have to be charged with the crime they committed.

Error. Charges filed is not the same thing as the crime committed, see parallel for subpoenas defied to show the fallacy in your lack of an argument even further. The argument was always what was done, not what was filed. Once again, you fell into the trap of shifting the goalposts rather than answer the question.

See, this is where you run off the tracks each and every time. Charges filed is exactly the same thing as crime committed when it involved a person being charged for that same circumstance. You keep jumping to an example where someone wasn't charged for something they did and thinking you are comparing apples to apples.

In the insurrection example hundreds of people were arrested for crimes THAT DAY and NONE were charged with insurrection. In your stupid comparative argument no one was arrested and charged with anything, even though you think they should be charged with defying subpoenas. If they had been arrested and charged with something other than defying a subpoena, then you would have a comparative argument. But you don't. Obviously you are too fucking stupid to understand that since I have pointed it out a hundred times now.

[necronomous]

Nope. Wrong again.

Your past claims are still unsubstantiated, there is no getting around this. Try again, Red.

Except the only one ignoring anything is you.

Projection. Disingenuous delusional intellectually dishonest functionally retarded partisan hack dupe is at it again.

My past claims. No one was convicted for insurrection. That's true.
It's not illegal to say your property is worth higher than what others may think and the bank is the ultimate decision maker of value, and the government sets tax amounts, not the owner. This is also true. So you're wrong again.

[Animal]

I just heard on the news that Dot just qualified for the 100 m dash in Paris based on how fast he ran away from this argument.

[dot]

See, this is where you run off the tracks each and every time.

Projection.

Charges filed is exactly

Where the people carrying water for a convicted felon that incited insurrection pivot for being proof there was no insurrection. This is how you can tell you're dealing with cultists operating in bad faith. The question has never been about charges filed, it's about what was done. That's why you cannot and will not deal with the literal definition both of us supplied, thus agreeing to. It says something that you even disputed the dictionary entry I provided, posting your alternative, then abandoned it when pointed out how it still applies to January 6. So again, did you think any of this through when you tried to invoke Latin phrasing to sound smarter than you are? Wouldn't it just be easier to prove your assertion that January 6 was not an insurrection or that the word is incorrectly defined? Cause that's the only out, for you or any of the rest making apologies for a convicted felon's incitement of insurrection. Shifting goalposts is not the answer and never will be.

My past claims. No one was convicted for insurrection. That's true.

And my claim was never about charges or convictions, but rather what was committed. Try again.

It's not illegal to say your property is worth higher than what others may think and the bank is the ultimate decision maker of value, and the government sets tax amounts, not the owner. This is also true. So you're wrong again.

Guilty verdicts since then have said you're wrong. Try again again, Red.

Premature boom yet again, way to go.

[necronomous]

See, this is where you run off the tracks each and every time.

Projection.

Charges filed is exactly

Where the people carrying water for a convicted felon that incited insurrection pivot for being proof there was no insurrection. This is how you can tell you're dealing with cultists operating in bad faith. The question has never been about charges filed, it's about what was done. That's why you cannot and will not deal with the literal definition both of us supplied, thus agreeing to. It says something that you even disputed the dictionary entry I provided, posting your alternative, then abandoned it when pointed out how it still applies to January 6. So again, did you think any of this through when you tried to invoke Latin phrasing to sound smarter than you are? Wouldn't it just be easier to prove your assertion that January 6 was not an insurrection or that the word is incorrectly defined? Cause that's the only out, for you or any of the rest making apologies for a convicted felon's incitement of insurrection. Shifting goalposts is not the answer and never will be.

My past claims. No one was convicted for insurrection. That's true.

And my claim was never about charges or convictions, but rather what was committed. Try again.

It's not illegal to say your property is worth higher than what others may think and the bank is the ultimate decision maker of value, and the government sets tax amounts, not the owner. This is also true. So you're wrong again.

Guilty verdicts since then have said you're wrong. Try again again, Red.

Premature boom yet again, way to go.

And then my statement was, then we need to go after the people that are failing in their duty to convict people who committed treason. So either they need to be arrested, or they were lying.

And then we are all going to jail.

[dot]

And then my statement was, then we need to go after the people that are failing in their duty to convict people who committed treason. So either they need to be arrested, or they were lying.

And then we are all going to jail.

What the insurrectionists did is not in dispute despite all the protestation from the reds. And given you raise just as much stink as they do any time the convicted felon is justly charged and prosecuted for his crimes, it stands to reason you dispute what was committed on January 6 just as you dispute that fraud is fraud. You're welcome to just be honest and admit the insurrection was an insurrection, or you can stand with the insurrectionists. Ball's in your court, Both Sides™.

[necronomous]

And then my statement was, then we need to go after the people that are failing in their duty to convict people who committed treason. So either they need to be arrested, or they were lying.

And then we are all going to jail.

What the insurrectionists did is not in dispute despite all the protestation from the reds. And given you raise just as much stink as they do any time the convicted felon is justly charged and prosecuted for his crimes, it stands to reason you dispute what was committed on January 6 just as you dispute that fraud is fraud. You're welcome to just be honest and admit the insurrection was an insurrection, or you can stand with the insurrectionists. Ball's in your court, Both Sides™.

So you totally ignored what I said and answered your own thing. Got it.

[dot]

So you totally ignored what I said and answered your own thing. Got it.

It's real simple, it either is insurrection or it isn't. And since it is, you either agree with reality or you deny it. Given you dispute fraud being fraud as well, reaching common ground is the priority. You're welcome to change the playing field by admitting insurrection, then the what ifs can begin after. Question is, will you?

[necronomous]

So you totally ignored what I said and answered your own thing. Got it.

It's real simple, it either is insurrection or it isn't. And since it is, you either agree with reality or you deny it. Given you dispute fraud being fraud as well, reaching common ground is the priority. You're welcome to change the playing field by admitting insurrection, then the what ifs can begin after. Question is, will you?

So again, you ignore what I said and answered something else.

[CHEEZY17]

Nope. here is a copy and paste of me addressing all of those:

So not only

Are you never going to acknowledge the reality that your case for corruption fell apart in public, that your claims of proof of corruption was blown apart by your own bought and paid for pundit, that you'll never admit what January 6 and insurrection is, and then, and then, you get the picture. You will never admit you are proven wrong. You backed the wrong horse and you are too much of a hack to ever admit you chose wrong. Bad faith partisan hacks duped by criminals and foreign intelligence operatives are not worth the time spent to continuously refute their demonstrably false claims. Maybe when you actually address that you have no case for corruption against Joe Biden, or when you acknowledge that your prophetic claims of such for months were dispelled on live television, or finally admit anything on the list of things that destroy your cultist perspective, maybe then you are worth time spent to refute. But since you refuse to play on the plane of reality, there is no reason to humor your bad faith deflections with anything more than the derision you get. Or put simply, hack did hack things. Again.

Ignoring that you were proven wrong and refuted doesn't make it go away any more than shifting the goalposts makes the January 6 insurrection question go away. Hack did hack things again.

You didnt prove anybody wrong, retard. The actuality is that youve been proven wrong multiple times by several different people; youre just too dumb to see it.

[CHEEZY17]

So you totally ignored what I said and answered your own thing. Got it.

It's real simple, it either is insurrection or it isn't. And since it is, you either agree with reality or you deny it. Given you dispute fraud being fraud as well, reaching common ground is the priority. You're welcome to change the playing field by admitting insurrection, then the what ifs can begin after. Question is, will you?

And the Department of justice and FBI say it isnt. Once again: never forget that it is YOU that is on the opposite side of the legal authorities. Seethe harder, retard.