Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9170 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,353 Year: 4,610/9,624 Month: 385/1,096 Week: 90/119 Day: 0/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   2024 US Presidential Election
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 841 of 942 (917366)
04-03-2024 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 833 by Percy
04-03-2024 4:29 PM


Re: bloodbath
You could only contrive an argument for that by making stuff up. Trump, on the other hand, has been very explicit about what he would do if reelected:

Donald Trump:
I will appoint a real special prosecutor
I made up the name of Jack Smith? Biden wasn't explicit, he just DID it.
I can only repeat what I have already said many times. I think people should be held accountable for wrongdoing. That includes both Biden and Trump. So far only Trump has been indicted or found to have committed wrongdoing.
"So far only Trump", that's right, and after Trump appoints his special prosecutor, Biden will also be indicted and found to have committed wrongdoing, unless the Comer investigation comes up with something first. If it's not covered up by the news media.
More "whataboutism." These aren't remotely equivalent. The Biden quote is from nearly eight years ago and is typical political hyperbole, like when Reagan budget director Stockman said he'd been taken to the woodshed after screwing up. Trump's comments, on the other hand, are recent and had international and defense implications, causing concerned reactions from senior European and NATO officials.
When Biden falls down, turns to shake hand with air, or can't find his way off a stage without help, that causes concern from senior European officials and NATO officials too.
Overheating the economy and causing more inflation, building cities in the middle of nowhere, rolling back emission standards, and more tax cuts for the rich, these all sound like good ideas to you?
Combined with better border security, cheaper oil prices, yes it would all be a refreshing change from what we have now.
marc9000 writes:
That's because the Democrat party and mainstream media block most all references to anyone who attempted to challenge him...etc...

You're making things up again.
https://www.nbcnews.com/...orts-put-state-ballots-rcna138074
quote:
Kennedy pointed to his removal from social media platforms, which he attributes to pressure from the Biden administration, as evidence of the president’s efforts to censor political speech.
RFK Jr. argues that Biden is a bigger threat to democracy than Trump | CNN Politics
RFK Jr. blasts DNC for turning primary rules and schedule against him to thwart his candidacy - Washington Examiner
quote:
Democratic presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is blasting the Democratic National Committee for not wanting a “real primary” and turning the rules and schedule against him in favor of President Joe Biden.
Kennedy said in a Wednesday op-ed for the Wall Street Journal that the DNC is willing to “disenfranchise Democratic voters from choosing their nominee” by refusing to host debates and stacking the primary schedule in Biden’s favor.
The DNC has been much more hostile to RFK jr.'s bid for the Democrat primary than the RNC was to Trump's many opponents in the Republican primary. I'm not making anything up.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 833 by Percy, posted 04-03-2024 4:29 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 846 by Percy, posted 04-04-2024 1:00 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 10139
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.5


(1)
Message 842 of 942 (917375)
04-04-2024 11:08 AM
Reply to: Message 836 by marc9000
04-03-2024 7:45 PM


Re: bloodbath
marc9000 writes:
That's the term that was used, yes. It's been a popular term for years now, among Democrats.
The Insurrection Act was passed by congress in 1807.
You'd think Trump would have told them to take guns. No, he just said "peacefully and patriotically.
He told them to fight, and if they didn't they would lose their country.
So you think Scarborough and Maddow are "journalists"?
Maddow most certainly is. Scarborough is a host.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 836 by marc9000, posted 04-03-2024 7:45 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22565
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 843 of 942 (917376)
04-04-2024 11:19 AM
Reply to: Message 838 by marc9000
04-03-2024 9:15 PM


Re: bloodbath
marc9000 in Message 838 writes:
I think they intended that our constitution and laws apply equally to everyone without regard to any individual's status as a candidate for office.
Equally, yes. But when election interference is a real possibility,...
What makes you think election interference is a real possibility?
...while one political party attempting it shows no interest in how laws are applied to their own favorite president, (bribery, treason)...
If evidence is uncovered that Biden committed bribery or treason then I think he should be impeached while in office and indicted once out of office. But regarding that evidence, so far...nothing.
I think they'd have intended that there'd be no forceful blockage of inquiries into it. What forceful blockage of it you ask? Gag orders against Trump maybe?
You're arguing that gag orders against Trump are preventing investigations of Biden misdeeds? How?
News media coverups?
You are delusional. All your complaints are about issues you learned from the news media, so the news media could not possibly be covering them up.
Are you arguing that gag orders in general are unconstitutional?
Probably not now, with all the revisions and add-ons and weakening of the original intent of the Constitution.
The "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater is not protected speech" interpretation of the first amendment has been around since the beginning. Trump is using speech as a means of intimidation against witnesses, court officials and their families because he knows it causes his supporters to target them for threats of violence and death, so his speech in these areas has been gagged. Some people have been forced to acquire security details as a result of Trump speech.
A gag order on the news media would have saved billions of dollars in damages and several lives lost in the BLM Democrat riots of 2020.
First you claim the news media is engaged in cover ups, then you argue that it should be gagged. Make up your mind.
If that would have been proposed, do you think journalists like Scarborough and Maddow would have brought up past uses of gag orders, or do you think they would have brought up the First Amendment?
While I've heard the names, I never heard or read anything said or written by Scarborough or Maddow. If you'd like to discuss something they said then please bring it into the thread by quoting it. If it's long then quote excerpts and provide a link for reference.
Aren't you ignoring equal protection under the law again?
I guess so, since Biden gets a LOT of protection from inquiries about his bribery.
And you know about this protection how?
Tell us about it. My position has always been that presidents should be held accountable for wrongdoing just as anyone else. If the Comer committee uncovers impeachable offenses then they should carry it forward. But Bobulinski has been pushing his claims of a Biden influence peddling scheme for four years and so far no one has corroborated his claims and even Republicans on the Comer committee are skeptical.
Bobulinski does not make a good witness. When asked what crime he was claiming Biden had committed he focused on the RICO statute. When asked to clarify what crime under the RICO statute had been committed he was only able to repeat that the RICO statute had been violated.
It's as if a policeman arrested you and when you ask why he responds, "You broke the law." You ask, "In what way did I break the law," and he responds by just repeating, "You broke the law." When he gets back to the station he's going to have to fill out an arrest report and later go before a judge and explain what law you broke and how.
It's the same for the Comer committee. If the Comer committee recommends impeachment and the full House votes to go forward with impeachment, then there will be impeaching hearings where Bobulinski will be called to testify. He'll have to describe the actions Biden took that violated the RICO statute, or any other law Bobulinski believes Biden violated.
This is the dilemma Rebublicans face. There would be enormous political benefit for Republicans in an election year to impeaching a sitting president running for reelection, but only if they have the goods, because it would be a politically costly embarrassment if they didn't. Many Republicans on the Comer committee don't believe they have the goods, especially after their FBI informant was indicted for lying about Hunter and Joe Biden.
Viewers of ABC World News Tonight know nothing about it.
You have an unhealthy obsession with ABC World News Tonight. If it were to disappear tomorrow it would have almost no impact on the overall dissemination of news.
Safe to say that neither do viewers of the other mainstream media television news.
It has been explained to you many times that only a limited amount of news can make it into TV's half-hour format.
You can say that you know all about it since it was buried on page E-27 of the NY Times. You'd have me there.
With electronic news it's all right there.
So excessive fines are getting more and more common now,...
I only presented two examples, so why would you conclude that? Bank of America was fined a total of $30.6 billion for its part in the subprime mortgage collapse, many, many times more than the $811 million assessed against Nexus Services and the $355 million against Trump.
You've used that argument against me before, when you said it's common that the Tenth Amendment is violated, so that must make it okay.
I don't recall ever saying that, and it seems to lack relevancy anyway.
What word would you use to describe the violent invasion of the halls of Congress and the interruption of the counting of the votes of the Electoral College that forced the evacuation of the Capitol by the members of Congress
The same word I used in a past message, a RIOT.
And as part of that riot some people committed crimes as minor as trespassing while others committed crimes as serious as insurrection (seditious conspiracy).
It was beyond stupid for them to think their little ragtag group, unarmed especially, could change the outcome of a presidential election.
They believed they were doing what Trump wanted them to do.
They misunderestimated the actual unequal protection under the law, when the Democrat party and a corrupt news media are involved.
I think what actually happened is that the protection they thought they had by carrying out Trump's wishes, the wishes of the country's president, was illusory. Many have been left hanging, and not just the January 6th protestors, but also Michael Cohen who served time in prison, and Rudy Giuliani who must pay $148 million in damages for defaming two Georgia election workers during his efforts to keep Trump illegally and fraudulently in office.
marc9000 writes:
It's a subjective term, coined shortly after January 6th by a partisan Democrat.

I don't think you meant to use the word "coined."
Why not?
quote:
Coined 1)(of a word, expression, etc.) invented or made up:
COINED Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
"invented or made up", looks like a good fit to me.
You've made a good case for how you misused the term. I can't imagine how you can't see that. It would be as if I called you a "fabulist" and someone said I "coined" the term, which would be as serious a misapplication of the word "coined" as your own.
The definition of insurrection is not "comparable to the United States Civil War."
Then why does it appear in the text of the 14th Amendment?
Why do you think you're making any sense? How could use of the word "insurrection" in an amendment that was a reaction to the Civil War turn the word into a synonym for the Civil War? The definition of "insurrection" definitely is not "secede from the Union, fire on Fort Sumpter, then raise an army of a million men and do battle with the army of the United States."
The charge against the January 6th defendants is not that they engaged in an action comparable to the Civil War. The charge is that they engaged in insurrection, or seditious conspiracy if you prefer. They were trying to overturn the outcome of a free and fair election.
Who told the insurrectionists that the election had been stolen and caused them to think these things had happened?
The news media! They could do a lot better if they'd be more careful about what they choose to cover up and what they choose to constantly trumpet from the rooftops. It's a good thing they didn't harp over and over and over again all of Al Gore's crying about the 2000 election being stolen, or Hillary's about the 2016 election being stolen. It's hard telling what all the BLM inner city mobs would have done.
You are seriously delusional.
Actually, 70% of Republicans still believe the 2020 presidential election was stolen.
Yet they've accepted that there's nothing they can do to change it.
Except that's not what you said. You said that most Republicans have accepted that it was a fair election, and that's not true. Most Republicans still believe that it was a stolen election.
That many, or more, of Democrats believe that Gore, and later, Hillary, won their elections.
People can believe whatever they like. It's when they act on that belief and invade the Capitol with the intent of overturning official election results that they can get in trouble.
I hear it mentioned all the time, usually something like this: "He did use the word 'peacefully' in reference to marching to the Capitol early in his speech, but much of his speech included calls to fight, some of them unambiguously violent."
The term "fight" is a commonly used political term, used quite often by Democrats, Fox News has played a montage of Democrats publicly using it dozens of times.
You can't have it both ways, Marc. You interpret different words in different contexts when they were all in the same speech. "Peacefully" can't be the word Trump really meant while "fight" was just political rhetoric to be ignored.
You have to face the fact that Trump gave a very incendiary speech. The people listening at the Ellipse began marching down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the Capitol, and those already at the Capitol who had been listening to the speech on their phones began attacking the Capitol. To these people the clear meaning of Trump's speech was that they should get to the Capitol and halt Congressional counting of the votes of the Electoral College.
Subsequent testimony has revealed that some came already prepared in tactical gear, batons, stun guns, restraints and had established nearby armories that included guns, machetes and the materials for Molotov cocktails, indicating that Trump's prior speeches and tweets provided what they felt were clear instructions of the kind of "protest" they should be prepared for.
Pretty incendiary stuff.
Worse than what Schumer said? Ever hear Maxine Waters shrieks at her public speeches? But since the news media doesn't make a huge deal out of them, there weren't any insurrections by Democrat groups.
You are still delusional about the news media.
Four January 6th defendants pleaded guilty to seditious conspiracy (insurrection), and eight (Enrique Tarrio, Proud Boys national chairman, Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, Joseph Hackett, Roberto Minuta, David Moerschel and Edward Vallejo) were convicted of it. They were all given long sentences, 22 years in the case of Tarrio.
They sure were, they got a surprise. They learned the hard way that punishments are much more harsh for those who anger Democrats than those who simply attack the population, law enforcement, or Republicans.
The judges hearing January 6th cases were appointed from both sides of the political aisle. One of the most senior judges, Judge Royce Lamberth, appointed by Reagan, had this to say at a sentencing hearing:
Judge Royce Lamberth:
The Court is accustomed to defendants who refuse to accept that they did anything wrong. But in my 37 years on the bench, I cannot recall a time when such meritless justifications of criminal activity have gone mainstream.
I have been dismayed to see outright distortions and outright falsehoods creep into the public consciousness. I have been shocked to watch some public figures try to rewrite history, claiming rioters behaved in an orderly fashion like ordinary tourists, or martyrizing convicted Jan. 6 defendants as political prisoners or even, incredibly, hostages. That is all preposterous.
Judges from all political persuasions see the defenses of the January 6th protests of the kind you're raising the same way, as meritless and preposterous.
No one in the 2020 BLM riots was charged with seditious conspiracy, let alone convicted and sentenced for it. It's been explained to you before that your judging the two comparable makes no sense, and it continues to make no sense.
I concede that point. The BLM riots were committed by mostly black people, a superior race. The capitol riots were white people. Of course the blacks weren't charged very harshly. The general public, in public areas, were in much more danger in the 2020 riots than the public was at the capitol on January 6th. It makes no sense to compare them.
I'm not surprised that you're not giving even a nod toward hiding your racism.
The news media sensationalizes everything.
Except suspicions, with plenty of evidence, that Biden committed bribery and treason while vice president.
Actually, evidence is lacking. Were there actual evidence the Comer investigation would have already moved out of committee.
But some news events do deserve a lot of attention, and the George Floyd murder seems like one of those events.
But not Biden's lie that he knew NOTHING about his son's Ukraine business dealings.
You're playing "whataboutism" again. The George Floyd murder was clearly an event deserving of media attention, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with Biden.
If incriminating evidence should emerge from the Comer investigation then a report will be issued, Comer will hold a press conference, there will be speeches and motions in the House, and it will all be duly reported in the news media. But at the moment Comer is still trying to get his ducks in a row to make the strongest case he can for impeaching the president, and the vast majority of that work is going on behind closed doors.
Again, untrue. 70% of Republicans still believe the election was stolen.
Belief, and acceptance, two different things.
Again, not what you said. You said the conclusion that widespread voter fraud was supported by evidence "seems to be accepted by most Republicans." That is untrue. 70% of Republicans still believe the election was stolen.
Are you seriously making the argument that the more incompetent an opponent the more justified are false claims of election fraud?
No Theodoric, I don't know where you got that from.
I got that from your very words, which I quoted. Here they are again:
marc9000 in Message 826 writes:
I honestly thought, in late 2020 and early 2021, that Trump was going too ballistic about it [claims of election fraud], but I'm not so sure now. Trump probably had a much better foresight in how much Biden was going to screw up. I had no clue that the Afghanistan debacle was going to go like that, or that the southern border would be this open. I was pretty close with my guess on how inflation, food prices, interest rates etc were going to skyrocket.
You're pretty clearly saying that Trump "probably" (your word) anticipated the incompetence of his successor and justified his efforts to stay in office on those grounds.
The Biden Vengeance Tour has been quite damaging, just because Biden didn't proclaim it as loudly as Trump has doesn't mean it hasn't been happening.
You are delusional. There is no evidence for much of what you believe.
I know you're asking Rahvin, but I want to answer, too. Of course I'll accept it. I accepted his victory in 2016, and should he win in November I'll accept that, too.
But I suspect that when a lot of Democrat voters don't accept it, and resort to some type of violence, you won't mind too much.
Why would you say that? I have consistently said on multiple occasions that I believe that wrongdoers should be held accountable for their actions.
You keep slipping into this misapprehension that I'm a liberal or a Democrat. I'm not. I'm an independent who tries to make balanced judgments about who is best qualified for any office. In the case of Trump I find him wholly lacking in managerial temperament and ignorant in many matters with a gift for rhetoric and a bullying style.
You are once again complaining about the media not reporting about something that they report on all the time. I see headlines mentioning RFK on a regular basis. He's in the news again today. You are hopelessly delusional about the news media.
I disrespectfully disagree.
Of course you disagree. You're in the middle of your delusion. Phat thinks he's a clearheaded thinker and no one can convince him otherwise. You're a pair.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 838 by marc9000, posted 04-03-2024 9:15 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 848 by marc9000, posted 04-05-2024 8:56 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22565
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 845 of 942 (917378)
04-04-2024 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 840 by marc9000
04-03-2024 9:43 PM


Re: bloodbath
marc9000 in Message 840 writes:
quote:
18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.
"If two or more persons" BLM riots consisted of many more than two persons,
Of course. Two or more persons applies to all groups of two or more persons, including many, many more than two persons. It's merely making clear that one person does not constitute a conspiracy, that it takes more than one.
"in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, "
BLM rioters took over by force a police station, they opposed the authority thereof,
You're having problems with plain English lately. In your previous message you didn't seem to understand the meaning of the word "coin", even after quoting a definition. In this case you don't seem able to properly parse a sentence that has multiple clauses. A police station is not part of the "Government of the United States."
"or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof,"
Any property? A police station?
Police stations are not normally the property of the United States.
Honestly, Marc, what is going on with you. This is simple English. I quoted the statute in an attempt to find out what your problem was with the word "insurrection," because you didn't seem to understand that it has a definition very consistent with "seditious conspiracy."
So is it okay if we use the word "insurrection" in reference to January 6th? Or would you prefer the term "seditious conspiracy"?
quote:
Polls in the summer of 2020 estimated that between 15 million and 26 million people had participated at some point in the demonstrations in the United States, making the protests the largest in U.S. history
George Floyd protests - Wikipedia
But I'm not comparing that to a couple of hours on January 6th! These riots involved dozens of times more "property of the United States".
It was also hundreds of times more protest events.
They seem pretty close, but if you don't think the two words are similar enough then we can start saying "seditious conspiracy" instead.
Not near as seditious as the BLM riots. Not comparable!
You're not making sense again. This is just more "whataboutism." Are we having a serious conversation here, or have you reached the point where you just want to throw monkey wrenches into the discussion and prevent anything constructive from happening.
It's a simple question. Is it okay if we use the word "insurrection," or would you prefer the term "seditious conspiracy"?
Trump used the word "peacefully" once and the word "fight" twenty times. Text of speech can be found at Trump's Jan. 6 Speech.
Here it is. You won't watch it, but here it is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG5BcU1ZGiA
Marc, what's your problem? I sent you a link to a transcript of the speech. I quoted extensively from the speech. Obviously I'm familiar with the speech. Do you have a point?
The reaction of Trump supporters to the speech was to invade the Capitol. They clearly thought that that's what the speech instructed them to do.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 840 by marc9000, posted 04-03-2024 9:43 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 849 by marc9000, posted 04-05-2024 9:23 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22565
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 846 of 942 (917380)
04-04-2024 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 841 by marc9000
04-03-2024 10:05 PM


Re: bloodbath
marc9000 in Message 841 writes:
You could only contrive an argument for that by making stuff up. Trump, on the other hand, has been very explicit about what he would do if reelected:

Donald Trump:
I will appoint a real special prosecutor
I made up the name of Jack Smith? Biden wasn't explicit, he just DID it.
Biden didn't do anything. Merrick Garland appointed Jack Smith after a referral from Congress. He also appointed David Weiss as Special Counsel for the investigation into Hunter Biden. And also Robert Hur as Special Counsel for the investigation into Joe Biden's possession of classified documents.
But Trump said, "I will appoint a real special prosecutor," and he's been clear that he wants his next attorney general to just follow orders in a way that Jeff Sessions never did. Bill Barr was closer to what Trump wanted in an attorney general, but only because Barr was a fellow traveler with regard to an expansive interpretation of presidential power, not because he was a lap dog. When Trump denied he lost the 2020 election and insisted it had been stolen Bill Barr had had enough and stepped down.
I can only repeat what I have already said many times. I think people should be held accountable for wrongdoing. That includes both Biden and Trump. So far only Trump has been indicted or found to have committed wrongdoing.
"So far only Trump", that's right, and after Trump appoints his special prosecutor, Biden will also be indicted and found to have committed wrongdoing, unless the Comer investigation comes up with something first. If it's not covered up by the news media.
I'm on board with indicting Biden if it's based on evidence, but at the moment your cart is way out in front of your horse.
When Biden falls down, turns to shake hand with air, or can't find his way off a stage without help, that causes concern from senior European officials and NATO officials too.
This is just yet more "whataboutism." This still isn't remotely equivalent to Trump's NATO comments, which are in the news again today: On NATO’s 75th birthday, fear of Trump overshadows celebrations
Overheating the economy and causing more inflation, building cities in the middle of nowhere, rolling back emission standards, and more tax cuts for the rich, these all sound like good ideas to you?
Combined with better border security, cheaper oil prices, yes it would all be a refreshing change from what we have now.
But you wouldn't have better border security. You'd just have greater inhumanity at the hands of US officials. And producing more oil might reduce the price of oil, but it wouldn't necessarily reduce the price at the pump which is driven by a number of factors unrelated to the price of oil. Gas is over a dollar a gallon more in San Diego than here in New Hampshire, and there's nary a single oil well in our entire state. No gasoline refineries, either. California has both. Other factors control the price of gasoline. Plus inflation that has already happened cannot unhappen.
And you really want more tax cuts for the rich?
Concerning RFK's claims, it would seem your criteria for accepting what someone says is whether you agree with it and not whether there is any evidence. RFK blames the Democrats and Biden for his social media accounts being removed, for censoring his political speech, and for rigging the primary rules and schedule against him. He's also charged Democratic vote rigging. Sound familiar? Until he presents evidence I think he's just doing what all politicians do, doing whatever he thinks will work politically. He's hoping that accusations of dirty politics will win him more support.
The DNC has been much more hostile to RFK jr.'s bid for the Democrat primary than the RNC was to Trump's many opponents in the Republican primary. I'm not making anything up.
Much of what you say is made up. Most of it is just you riffing off your standard list of complaints, led by ABC World News Tonight. Your error rate and fictional content are both high.
​--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 841 by marc9000, posted 04-03-2024 10:05 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Tanypteryx
Member
Posts: 4483
From: Oregon, USA
Joined: 08-27-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(1)
Message 847 of 942 (917402)
04-05-2024 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 838 by marc9000
04-03-2024 9:15 PM


Re: bloodbath
So you're the fucking asshole who sat in the back of every history class in high school and was disruptive and and never learned a fucking thing! I always wondered what happened to you assholes.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that it has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --Percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
Why should anyone debate someone who doesn't know the subject? -- AZPaul3

This message is a reply to:
 Message 838 by marc9000, posted 04-03-2024 9:15 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 848 of 942 (917407)
04-05-2024 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 843 by Percy
04-04-2024 11:19 AM


Re: bloodbath
What makes you think election interference is a real possibility?
Hahaha, oh I don't know, maybe 88 criminal charges, indictments, (most of them recently brought up to hinder his campaign in an election year) attempts to remove him from state ballots, just a few things like that.
You're arguing that gag orders against Trump are preventing investigations of Biden misdeeds? How?
Gag orders keeping Trump from speaking, news media cover-ups, these things keep the public ignorant and uninformed, keeping them from asking questions of their Congressmen, keeping curiosity about Biden off the minds of the public.
You are delusional. All your complaints are about issues you learned from the news media, so the news media could not possibly be covering them up.
In the coming days I'll start a new thread on news media bias. It would be a coffee house topic, but I'll put it in the "proposed new topics" forum, so you can decide if it should be promoted or not. But not tonight, I'm about out of time for all this tonight.
First you claim the news media is engaged in cover ups, then you argue that it should be gagged. Make up your mind.
I never said it should be gagged, and what I'm saying doesn't contradict. It covers up things damaging to Democrats, and sensationalizes things damaging to Republicans.
They believed they were doing what Trump wanted them to do.
Just like BLM rioters believed they were doing what Democrats wanted them to do. It's really unusual for the news media to show lengthy video of the police making an arrest. (George Floyd)
Most Republicans still believe that it was a stolen election.
People can believe whatever they like.
Then why are you obsessed with Republicans believing whatever they like?
You're pretty clearly saying that Trump "probably" (your word) anticipated the incompetence of his successor and justified his efforts to stay in office on those grounds.
Not "stay in office" with no more analyzation of voter fraud, but more analyzation of vote counts, lack of voter ID, etc.
marcTrump writes:
But I suspect that when a lot of Democrat voters don't accept it, and resort to some type of violence, you won't mind too much.

Why would you say that? I have consistently said on multiple occasions that I believe that wrongdoers should be held accountable for their actions.
Because the leader of Democrats, Joe Biden, sometimes doesn't show much respect for Supreme Court decisions. Just a day or two ago Fox News showed him saying that in his next term, he and Kamala, along with a Democrat Congress, will restore Roe v Wade. If he fails to do that, his followers could take that as an incitement to violence. It's very important to a lot of young Democrats to screw everything that walks, and they like to have the inconvenient consequence of that easily taken away, usually at taxpayer expense.
In the case of Trump I find him wholly lacking in managerial temperament and ignorant in many matters with a gift for rhetoric and a bullying style.
But you're really silent about how what you perceive as Trump's problems compare with Biden's problems.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 843 by Percy, posted 04-04-2024 11:19 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 851 by Percy, posted 04-06-2024 8:30 AM marc9000 has replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 849 of 942 (917408)
04-05-2024 9:23 PM
Reply to: Message 845 by Percy
04-04-2024 11:42 AM


Re: bloodbath
So is it okay if we use the word "insurrection" in reference to January 6th? Or would you prefer the term "seditious conspiracy"?
Yes it's okay. Democrats coined the term, the news media has repeated it over and over and over again so many times that it's become an accepted term for that riot.
marc9000 writes:
But I'm not comparing that to a couple of hours on January 6th! These riots involved dozens of times more "property of the United States".
It was also hundreds of times more protest events.
Because Democrats public anger and use of the word "fight" happens hundreds of times more than Trump and other Republicans use of the word "fight".
You're not making sense again. This is just more "whataboutism." Are we having a serious conversation here, or have you reached the point where you just want to throw monkey wrenches into the discussion and prevent anything constructive from happening.
Your "whataboutism" word is very weak, when compared to the word HYPOCRISY.
Percy writes:
Trump used the word "peacefully" once and the word "fight" twenty times. Text of speech can be found at Trump's Jan. 6 Speech.
marc9000 writes:
Here it is. You won't watch it, but here it is.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG5BcU1ZGiA
Marc, what's your problem? I sent you a link to a transcript of the speech. I quoted extensively from the speech. Obviously I'm familiar with the speech. Do you have a point?
Why yes, I have a point! In that vid, dozens of Democrats used the word "fight". My hand got tired of making a mark every time it was said, but I counted roughly 300 times. Some of them in Congressional sessions, some of them on CNN and MSNBC, and other mainstream media commentary shows, but more than half of them in PUBLIC speeches. ALL of them since 2016. Many of them before the 2020 riots. Let's see, at the beginning we heard "who says protests have to be peaceful?" The phrase "fight like hell", was used about four times, by four different people. "Blowing up the White House" was there, "putting a bullet" in Trump was there. The encouragement of "unrest, uprising, punching, assassinate" they were all there. And Trump used the word "fight" 20 times? You call it "whataboutism", I call it hypocrisy.
From your earlier message;
You have to face the fact that Trump gave a very incendiary speech. The people listening at the Ellipse began marching down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the Capitol, and those already at the Capitol who had been listening to the speech on their phones began attacking the Capitol. To these people the clear meaning of Trump's speech was that they should get to the Capitol and halt Congressional counting of the votes of the Electoral College.

Subsequent testimony has revealed that some came already prepared in tactical gear, batons, stun guns, restraints and had established nearby armories that included guns, machetes and the materials for Molotov cocktails, indicating that Trump's prior speeches and tweets provided what they felt were clear instructions of the kind of "protest" they should be prepared for.
Did some come to the 2020 riots already prepared with all those things? Please watch the vid - anything incendiary there? Hypocrisy is the proper word.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 845 by Percy, posted 04-04-2024 11:42 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 850 by xongsmith, posted 04-06-2024 12:29 AM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 852 by Percy, posted 04-06-2024 8:52 AM marc9000 has replied

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2597
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.8


(2)
Message 850 of 942 (917411)
04-06-2024 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 849 by marc9000
04-05-2024 9:23 PM


Re: bloodbath
Marc, you racist slime-pig, the justifiable BLM marches are not pertinent to this Jan.6 Insurrection discussion. You also use the adjective "Democrat" when "kind human being" is what you should say. You hate Democrats with an inhuman racist passion that doesn't belong anywhere on the internet, let alone this fine discussion board. You should go back to kindergarten, listen to your teacher and grow up. Leave EvC to the grownups.

"I'm the Grim Reaper now, Mitch. Step aside."
Death to #TzarVladimirtheCondemned!
Enjoy every sandwich!

- xongsmith, 5.7dawkins scale


This message is a reply to:
 Message 849 by marc9000, posted 04-05-2024 9:23 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22565
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.6


(2)
Message 851 of 942 (917414)
04-06-2024 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 848 by marc9000
04-05-2024 8:56 PM


Re: bloodbath
marc9000 in Message 848 writes:
What makes you think election interference is a real possibility?
Hahaha, oh I don't know, maybe 88 criminal charges, indictments, (most of them recently brought up to hinder his campaign in an election year)...
Just to be clear, including the real estate case in New York brought by Latitia James, there are five Trump cases:
  1. Civil fraud involving over 200 instances of fraud and misrepresentation involving real estate, $355 million assessed, on appeal
  2. New York criminal fraud charges involving financial manipulations to hide hush money payments to a porn star, 34 counts, ongoing
  3. Federal criminal charges for keeping classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, 40 counts, ongoing
  4. Federal criminal charges for election interference in the 2020 election, 4 counts, ongoing
  5. Georgia criminal charges for election interference in the 2020 election, 10 counts, ongoing
Trump admits to most of it but claims they aren't really fraud or crimes. Paraphrasing, "Everyone lies about real estate values." "The phone call was perfect." "Everything I did was legal because I actually won." "Those documents are mine."
...attempts to remove him from state ballots...
All brought legally, so not election interference. There was a question about whether states have the right to keep a presidential candidate they believe engaged in insurrection off the ballot. The Supreme Court has ruled that they can't, so it's now settled law.
The legal cases Trump brought in late 2020 and early 2021 were also not election interference. He lost them all, except the one about the distance observers must maintain, but those cases did not constitute election interference. Trump election interference involved false elector slates and improperly lobbying state attorneys general and legislatures to throw out or at least question valid elector slates.
You're arguing that gag orders against Trump are preventing investigations of Biden misdeeds? How?
Gag orders keeping Trump from speaking, news media cover-ups, these things keep the public ignorant and uninformed, keeping them from asking questions of their Congressmen, keeping curiosity about Biden off the minds of the public.
You're just issuing more false claims. Trump can speak about anything he likes except about the employees and families of those working on the case because he has a habit of fomenting intimidation by riling up his base to issue threats of harm and death. There are some who now have security details because of things Trump has said.
And Trump can say, and has already said, anything he likes about Biden. No gag order involves Biden. How are the gag orders against Trump in his legal trials preventing investigations of Biden?
You are delusional. All your complaints are about issues you learned from the news media, so the news media could not possibly be covering them up.
In the coming days I'll start a new thread on news media bias. It would be a coffee house topic, but I'll put it in the "proposed new topics" forum, so you can decide if it should be promoted or not. But not tonight, I'm about out of time for all this tonight.
Just post it in the Coffee House forum.
First you claim the news media is engaged in cover ups, then you argue that it should be gagged. Make up your mind.
I never said it should be gagged, and what I'm saying doesn't contradict. It covers up things damaging to Democrats, and sensationalizes things damaging to Republicans.
You're quibbling over wording. I only described what you said, not quoted you. Your words again: "A gag order on the news media would have saved billions of dollars in damages and several lives lost in the BLM Democrat riots of 2020."
They believed they were doing what Trump wanted them to do.
Just like BLM rioters believed they were doing what Democrats wanted them to do. It's really unusual for the news media to show lengthy video of the police making an arrest. (George Floyd)
You're playing "whataboutism" again. The BLM protests are completely unrelated to January 6th. The point is that the Capitol insurrectionists believed they were carrying out Trump's wishes. And isn't it obvious that those were Trump's actual wishes, that they would go down to the Capitol and prevent the counting of the electoral college votes by Congress?
Most Republicans still believe that it was a stolen election.
People can believe whatever they like.
Then why are you obsessed with Republicans believing whatever they like?
I just respond to your delusions. You claimed most Republicans accept Biden as having legitimately won the election, and I pointed out that 70% of Republicans still believe the election was stolen.
You're pretty clearly saying that Trump "probably" (your word) anticipated the incompetence of his successor and justified his efforts to stay in office on those grounds.
Not "stay in office" with no more analyzation of voter fraud, but more analyzation of vote counts, lack of voter ID, etc.
No, that's not Trump's position. Even though he lost 60 court cases, he still claims he won the election. The number of cases, the number of recounts, the reliability of voting machines and mail-in ballots, none of that matters to Trump. He still lies about the election in order to justify his attempts to illegally retain office.
marcTrump writes:
But I suspect that when a lot of Democrat voters don't accept it, and resort to some type of violence, you won't mind too much.

Why would you say that? I have consistently said on multiple occasions that I believe that wrongdoers should be held accountable for their actions.
Because the leader of Democrats, Joe Biden, sometimes doesn't show much respect for Supreme Court decisions.
Whether true or not, this has nothing to do with holding wrongdoers accountable.
Supreme Court rulings are the law of the land. There's no evidence of Joe Biden ignoring Supreme Court decisions.
Just a day or two ago Fox News showed him saying that in his next term, he and Kamala, along with a Democrat Congress, will restore Roe v Wade.
Yes, now that the Supreme Court has overturned Roe, passing a federal law is the proper way to restore the right to abortion nationwide. You might have a personal objection to such a law, but there is no argument to be made that this ignores or shows disrespect to the Supreme Court.
If he fails to do that, his followers could take that as an incitement to violence. It's very important to a lot of young Democrats to screw everything that walks, and they like to have the inconvenient consequence of that easily taken away, usually at taxpayer expense.
You have a vivid imagination and a proclivity for tossing hateful accusations at those who disagree with you.
In the case of Trump I find him wholly lacking in managerial temperament and ignorant in many matters with a gift for rhetoric and a bullying style.
But you're really silent about how what you perceive as Trump's problems compare with Biden's problems.
I see Trump as a threat to democracy. All other considerations pale by comparison.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 848 by marc9000, posted 04-05-2024 8:56 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 854 by marc9000, posted 04-07-2024 3:49 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22565
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 852 of 942 (917415)
04-06-2024 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 849 by marc9000
04-05-2024 9:23 PM


Re: bloodbath
marc9000 in Message 849 writes:
So is it okay if we use the word "insurrection" in reference to January 6th? Or would you prefer the term "seditious conspiracy"?
Yes it's okay. Democrats coined the term,...
You're still having a problem with simple English. One cannot coin a term that already exists. Coining a term means inventing a new term. You're involved in fantabulism, to coin a term.
...the news media has repeated it over and over and over again so many times that it's become an accepted term for that riot.
To quote from 18 U.S. Code § 2384 again, just the most relevant portions this time:
18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy:
If two or more persons...by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof...
That's a pretty concise description of what happened on January 6th. So which is it? Do you prefer "insurrection" or "seditious conspiracy"?
Because Democrats public anger and use of the word "fight" happens hundreds of times more than Trump and other Republicans use of the word "fight".
Shouldn't anyone with an ounce of humanity be outraged by what happened to George Floyd?
You're not making sense again. This is just more "whataboutism." Are we having a serious conversation here, or have you reached the point where you just want to throw monkey wrenches into the discussion and prevent anything constructive from happening.
Your "whataboutism" word is very weak, when compared to the word HYPOCRISY.
If you'd like to throw around words like hypocrisy, I think that applies pretty well to arguing that the January 6th insurrection and the BLM protests are comparable.
Why yes, I have a point! In that vid, dozens of Democrats used the word "fight".
This is just more "whataboutism." How does that change the incendiary nature of Trump's speech that caused thousands of Trump supporters to march to the Capitol and interfere with the peaceful transfer of power, an act of insurrection.
From your earlier message;
You have to face the fact that Trump gave a very incendiary speech. The people listening at the Ellipse began marching down Pennsylvania Avenue toward the Capitol, and those already at the Capitol who had been listening to the speech on their phones began attacking the Capitol. To these people the clear meaning of Trump's speech was that they should get to the Capitol and halt Congressional counting of the votes of the Electoral College.

Subsequent testimony has revealed that some came already prepared in tactical gear, batons, stun guns, restraints and had established nearby armories that included guns, machetes and the materials for Molotov cocktails, indicating that Trump's prior speeches and tweets provided what they felt were clear instructions of the kind of "protest" they should be prepared for.
More "whataboutism". Even if the BLM protests involved the most heinous crimes in the history of humanity, it couldn't change by one whit the insurrection committed by Trump and his supporters on January 6th. They have nothing to do with one another. If you'd like to discuss the BLM protests, open another thread.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 849 by marc9000, posted 04-05-2024 9:23 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 855 by marc9000, posted 04-07-2024 4:09 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22565
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 853 of 942 (917419)
04-06-2024 3:51 PM


Lowest Income States in the Union
This table is from Lowest Earning States in America where the numbers are from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. I've added the bachelor's degree or higher rank from List of U.S. states and territories by educational attainment, and which candidate they voted for in the 2020 presidential election:
StateMedian IncomeLevel of Education Rank2020 Presidential Vote
Mississippi$37,50049Trump
Arkansas$39,06048Trump
W. Virginia$39,77050Trump
Louisiana$41,32047Trump
Alabama$41,35045Trump
Oklahoma$41,48043Trump
S. Carolina$42,22035Trump
New Mexico$43,62040Biden
S. Dakota$43,68034Trump
Kentucky$43,73046Trump
Number 1 in both earnings and education was Massachusetts.
--Percy

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 854 of 942 (917437)
04-07-2024 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 851 by Percy
04-06-2024 8:30 AM


Re: bloodbath
All brought legally, so not election interference.
It's possible to interfere with a presidential election and keep it within legal bounds. I'm afraid we're going to see a lot more of it this summer.
You're just issuing more false claims. Trump can speak about anything he likes except about the employees and families of those working on the case because he has a habit of fomenting intimidation by riling up his base to issue threats of harm and death. There are some who now have security details because of things Trump has said.
Fomenting intimidation? I guess you STILL haven't watched that vid I linked, showing Democrat rage and intimidation. Did Steve Scalise and Rand Paul need security details?
And Trump can say, and has already said, anything he likes about Biden. No gag order involves Biden. How are the gag orders against Trump in his legal trials preventing investigations of Biden?
His legal trials always lead back to Biden instigating them.
Just post it in the Coffee House forum.
Not at this time, maybe later this summer. I'll explain why if one of the trolls responds to this.
You're playing "whataboutism" again. The BLM protests are completely unrelated to January 6th.
Not completely. There were several similarities;
*They were both protests. Even if you label only one an insurrection, that doesn't mean it wasn't also a protest.
*Laws were broken in both
*Someone was killed in both.
*Property was damaged in both.
The point is that the Capitol insurrectionists believed they were carrying out Trump's wishes.
And the BLM rioters believed they were carrying out Democrat's wishes. "Who says protests have to be peaceful"? (please watch the vid)
And isn't it obvious that those were Trump's actual wishes, that they would go down to the Capitol and prevent the counting of the electoral college votes by Congress?
Isn't it obvious that action against ALL police was the wishes of the BLM rioters?
You have a vivid imagination and a proclivity for tossing hateful accusations at those who disagree with you.
Pretty ironic, considering these little troll-flies accusations against me. Why don't you remove forum rule #10? One or two trolls are usually pretty equally controllable in a forum of decent people, but there are about 5 of them here who seem to make a sport of seeing who can most flagrantly violate forum rule#10.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 851 by Percy, posted 04-06-2024 8:30 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 856 by Percy, posted 04-07-2024 5:40 PM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 857 by Tanypteryx, posted 04-07-2024 11:04 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1522
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 855 of 942 (917438)
04-07-2024 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 852 by Percy
04-06-2024 8:52 AM


Re: bloodbath
That's a pretty concise description of what happened on January 6th
Also a pretty concise description of what happened in the summer of 2020.
Shouldn't anyone with an ounce of humanity be outraged by what happened to George Floyd?
NOT IF OTHERS AREN'T OUTRAGED BY WHAT HAPPENED TO ASHLI BABBITT.
If you'd like to throw around words like hypocrisy, I think that applies pretty well to arguing that the January 6th insurrection and the BLM protests are comparable.
What's hypocritical about that comparison?
This is just more "whataboutism." How does that change the incendiary nature of Trump's speech that caused thousands of Trump supporters to march to the Capitol and interfere with the peaceful transfer of power, an act of insurrection.
It shows a great multiple of the incendiary nature of Democrat public speeches. It probably wouldn't be hard for whoever put that video together to put dates on each thing that was said there. It would be interesting to see which ones occurred shortly before the BLM riots. And if Trump would have been charged and convicted of causing the January 6th riot, think of the field day Republicans would have had in charging dozens of Democrats for the 2020 riots. Probably figured in to why Trump wasn't officially charged. Doesn't stop the news media from constantly blaming Trump for it however.
More "whataboutism". Even if the BLM protests involved the most heinous crimes in the history of humanity, it couldn't change by one whit the insurrection committed by Trump and his supporters on January 6th. They have nothing to do with one another. If you'd like to discuss the BLM protests, open another thread.
You just responded to a quote by quoting one of your own, in your haste to stay away from that vid, and the incendiary nature of Democrats and their supporters that it clearly shows. That's all I have to say about the BLM riots, oh, except for one more comparison. George Floyd was a scumbag dope-head, Ashli Babbitt was a U.S. service veteran. George Floyd was violently resisting arrest by uniformed policemen, Babbitt was not. She was just unlawfully inside a building, one that was ridiculously lacking in security. Floyd's killer rots in jail, Babbitt's killer walks free.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 852 by Percy, posted 04-06-2024 8:52 AM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22565
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 856 of 942 (917439)
04-07-2024 5:40 PM
Reply to: Message 854 by marc9000
04-07-2024 3:49 PM


Re: bloodbath
marc9000 writes:
All brought legally, so not election interference.
It's possible to interfere with a presidential election and keep it within legal bounds.
Please explain.
I'm afraid we're going to see a lot more of it this summer.
For example.
You're just issuing more false claims. Trump can speak about anything he likes except about the employees and families of those working on the case because he has a habit of fomenting intimidation by riling up his base to issue threats of harm and death. There are some who now have security details because of things Trump has said.
Fomenting intimidation? I guess you STILL haven't watched that vid I linked, showing Democrat rage and intimidation. Did Steve Scalise and Rand Paul need security details?
What does this have to do with Trump followers threatening harm and death to the people Trump targets?
And Trump can say, and has already said, anything he likes about Biden. No gag order involves Biden. How are the gag orders against Trump in his legal trials preventing investigations of Biden?
His legal trials always lead back to Biden instigating them.
Even if this were true, what has it to do with your claim that Trump gag orders are preventing investigations of Biden?
You're playing "whataboutism" again. The BLM protests are completely unrelated to January 6th.
Now you're having trouble with the word "unrelated," which does not mean "has no similarities."
The point is that the Capitol insurrectionists believed they were carrying out Trump's wishes.
And the BLM rioters believed they were carrying out Democrat's wishes. "Who says protests have to be peaceful"? (please watch the vid)
Even if this were true, what has it to do with the Capitol insurrection?
And isn't it obvious that those were Trump's actual wishes, that they would go down to the Capitol and prevent the counting of the electoral college votes by Congress?
Isn't it obvious that action against ALL police was the wishes of the BLM rioters?
Again, you're not on topic. It's just one "whataboutism" after another.
You have a vivid imagination and a proclivity for tossing hateful accusations at those who disagree with you.
Pretty ironic, considering these little troll-flies accusations against me. Why don't you remove forum rule #10? One or two trolls are usually pretty equally controllable in a forum of decent people, but there are about 5 of them here who seem to make a sport of seeing who can most flagrantly violate forum rule#10.
More "whataboutism." I suggest you focus on your own behavior.
Moving on to Message 855:
marc9000 in Message 855 writes:
That's a pretty concise description of what happened on January 6th
Also a pretty concise description of what happened in the summer of 2020.
No, Marc, it isn't. Is this your goal in this thread, to ignore the 2024 election, to focus instead on the BLM protests, to just thwart any constructive on-topic discussion?
Shouldn't anyone with an ounce of humanity be outraged by what happened to George Floyd?
NOT IF OTHERS AREN'T OUTRAGED BY WHAT HAPPENED TO ASHLI BABBITT.
And you're outraged why? I think we can all understand being saddened that Trump led her to commit crimes that resulted in her death, but not outrage. The reaction to someone being killed during the commission of a violent crime is not usually outrage.
If you'd like to throw around words like hypocrisy, I think that applies pretty well to arguing that the January 6th insurrection and the BLM protests are comparable.
What's hypocritical about that comparison?
Sorry, I should have been more clear. You compared being called on your continual "whataboutism" with hypocrisy, and your hypocrisy involves falsely accusing others of the very thing you're doing yourself, namely hypocrisy.
This is just more "whataboutism." How does that change the incendiary nature of Trump's speech that caused thousands of Trump supporters to march to the Capitol and interfere with the peaceful transfer of power, an act of insurrection.
It shows a great multiple of the incendiary nature of Democrat public speeches.
Even if true, what has that to do with the incendiary nature of Trump's speech that instigated the January 6th insurrection?
You're constant objection is, "Well somebody else did something, too," while never actually raising a valid point.
And if Trump would have been charged and convicted of causing the January 6th riot, think of the field day Republicans would have had in charging dozens of Democrats for the 2020 riots.
I have said over and over that I believe people should be held accountable for their actions. There is every indication that Trump wanted the January 6th invasion of Congress to happen and that he engaged in speech and actions that caused it happen. There is no evidence of Democratic incitement of the BLM riots, but even if there were, it could not even remotely justify Trump's incitement of insurrection.
Probably figured in to why Trump wasn't officially charged.
Do you really believe that the Republicans didn't charge the Democrats with incitement because Trump wasn't charged with insurrection? Do you want to think about this a little more?
Jack Smith has not revealed why Trump wasn't charged with seditious conspiracy, but many pundits seem to think it's because it would have complicated the case and been harder to prove.
Doesn't stop the news media from constantly blaming Trump for it however.
Those people didn't spontaneously incite themselves. They rioted over Trump claims of an election theft that never happened.
More "whataboutism". Even if the BLM protests involved the most heinous crimes in the history of humanity, it couldn't change by one whit the insurrection committed by Trump and his supporters on January 6th. They have nothing to do with one another. If you'd like to discuss the BLM protests, open another thread.
You just responded to a quote by quoting one of your own, in your haste to stay away from that vid, and the incendiary nature of Democrats and their supporters that it clearly shows.
I don't usually watch videos because they're such a slow method of receiving information. Also, you provided only a bare link. Points should be made in your own words with links, whether to webpages or images or videos, provided as supporting reference. Also, if it was a YouTube video then it can be included in the message.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 854 by marc9000, posted 04-07-2024 3:49 PM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024