3 minutes ago, Kenneth White said:

I truly feel sorry for you. When running through a forest of trees with your eyes closed you will eventually run into one.

I think that is the lamest excuse for rejecting evidence I've ever seen.

17 hours ago, heybruce said:

I see.  "Lamestream" media covers both reports of election irregularities and how the reports are resolved, while "outrage" media endlessly repeats the reports without ever describing how the reports were dealt with.

 

I take it you prefer outrage media.  It probably is more entertaining.

 

Have you ever considered getting your news by reading instead of watching television?

To answer your question, I do, but most lean heavily to the left. Both lamestream and cable media are WPOS in my opinion as is the written media. You have to listen to and read them to come up with your own opinion.

8 minutes ago, Kenneth White said:

To answer your question, I do, but most lean heavily to the left. Both lamestream and cable media are WPOS in my opinion as is the written media. You have to listen to and read them to come up with your own opinion.

Please do tell us what you consider to be an accurate, unbiased source of news.  ????

 

I  suspect that like everyone else who rejects mainstream media you won't reveal the source of your interesting take on things.

35 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Please do tell us what you consider to be an accurate, unbiased source of news.  ????

 

I  suspect that like everyone else who rejects mainstream media you won't reveal the source of your interesting take on things.

I don't trust lamestream, cable, or written media. There is extremism with all these news outlets, left and right. I long for the day to hear, "And that's the way it is" or "Good night David, Good night Chet". now these are journalists.

9 minutes ago, Kenneth White said:

I don't trust lamestream, cable, or written media. There is extremism with all these news outlets, left and right. I long for the day to hear, "And that's the way it is" or "Good night David, Good night Chet". now these are journalists.

So you don't trust any news source?  And you think that leaves you better informed?  How?

I know that at least one Trump apologist here has tried to claim that the protesters at the Capitol building on Jan 6 were peaceful and unarmed and even challenged the evidence that some of the protesters had guns. While most of those who did carry weapons would have left undetected with those weapons, at least one didn't.

 

Indiana MAGA rioter pleads guilty to losing gun in crowd while storming the Capitol

 

https://www.rawstory.com/mark-mazza-2657528094/

On 6/18/2022 at 5:23 AM, Kenneth White said:

I truly feel sorry for you. When running through a forest of trees with your eyes closed you will eventually run into one.

Sure. And Jesus is coming back any day now... If all you've got as evidence is predictons about the future, then you've got nothing.

Trump is so dumb that he incriminates himself nearly every time he opens his mouth....

 

[Former President Donald Trump continues to very publicly admit he was involved in an “illegal” scheme to overturn the election, conservative attorney George Conway said Saturday.]

[“He basically is still admitting that he put pressure on [former Vice President] Mike Pence to do something that was completely illegal.”]

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-incriminated-himself-in-illegal-election-plot-yet-again-george-conway/ar-AAYCtsQ?ocid=EMMX&cvid=c0fbadff1e534ea38817ead861651523

 

On 6/17/2022 at 11:23 PM, Kenneth White said:

I truly feel sorry for you. When running through a forest of trees with your eyes closed you will eventually run into one.

Naturally so.

 

Trees are real things, they exist.

 

’The Big Steal’ is a lie.

23 hours ago, ozimoron said:

I know that at least one Trump apologist here has tried to claim that the protesters at the Capitol building on Jan 6 were peaceful and unarmed and even challenged the evidence that some of the protesters had guns. While most of those who did carry weapons would have left undetected with those weapons, at least one didn't.

 

Indiana MAGA rioter pleads guilty to losing gun in crowd while storming the Capitol

 

https://www.rawstory.com/mark-mazza-2657528094/

Armed or not armed is an irrelevance.

 

They we’re a violent mob actin on the intent to stop the ratification of the election result and the peaceful transfer of power.

 

Armed or not armed, it was sedition:

 

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Armed or not armed is an irrelevance.

 

They we’re a violent mob actin on the intent to stop the ratification of the election result and the peaceful transfer of power.

 

Armed or not armed, it was sedition:

 

18 U.S. Code § 2384 - Seditious conspiracy

"Seditious Conspiracy" is a type of Conspiracy, not an act of Sedition. 

 

And twice "Sedition" laws have been thrown out because of the way "Sedition" conflicts with our First Amendment Right to Free Speech: One was repealed by Congress itself, and one was tossed by the Supreme Court. 

 

Sedition laws overstep the limitations imposed on the government by the Constitution. They allow the government to be abusive, under the guise of being "responsible." Soviet gulags primarily existed as a place to dump "seditionists." They were filled with people who committed "crimes" that never should have been crimes! 

 

As the saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

 

Sedition laws make good paving stones for such a road! 

 

Cheers. 

29 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

"Seditious Conspiracy" is a type of Conspiracy, not an act of Sedition. 

 

And twice "Sedition" laws have been thrown out because of the way "Sedition" conflicts with our First Amendment Right to Free Speech: One was repealed by Congress itself, and one was tossed by the Supreme Court. 

 

Sedition laws overstep the limitations imposed on the government by the Constitution. They allow the government to be abusive, under the guise of being "responsible." Soviet gulags primarily existed as a place to dump "seditionists." They were filled with people who committed "crimes" that never should have been crimes! 

 

As the saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

 

Sedition laws make good paving stones for such a road! 

 

Cheers. 

Go back to the top of the thread and read what is the topic of discussion.

 

Then pay attention to the indictments being handed out by the DoJ.
 

Your false equivalence with Soviet Russia is noted.

 

The violent attack, a crime in and of itself, was broadcast live on TV.

 

Cheers.

 

 

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So not insurrection? 

Are you feeling lucky?

 

Take your pick:

 

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection.

 

 

35 minutes ago, KanchanaburiGuy said:

"Seditious Conspiracy" is a type of Conspiracy, not an act of Sedition. 

 

And twice "Sedition" laws have been thrown out because of the way "Sedition" conflicts with our First Amendment Right to Free Speech: One was repealed by Congress itself, and one was tossed by the Supreme Court. 

 

Sedition laws overstep the limitations imposed on the government by the Constitution. They allow the government to be abusive, under the guise of being "responsible." Soviet gulags primarily existed as a place to dump "seditionists." They were filled with people who committed "crimes" that never should have been crimes! 

 

As the saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

 

Sedition laws make good paving stones for such a road! 

 

Cheers. 

There are at least two hurdles.

 

Observable reality being one.

25 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Go back to the top of the thread and read what is the topic of discussion.

 

Then pay attention to the indictments being handed out by the DoJ.
 

Your false equivalence with Soviet Russia is noted.

 

The violent attack, a crime in and of itself, was broadcast live on TV.

 

Cheers.

 

 

I don't think anyone here has argued it was not a violent attack have they? 

 

Some have arguedthat it was not an armed insurrection, but that was disproven when it was shown a few people had pepper-spray, baseball-bats and sticks. 

1 minute ago, Yellowtail said:

I don't think anyone here has argued it was not a violent attack have they?

One poster in particular refused to believe it was anything other than a small demonstration, rather than a violent attack, and posted as such, much earlier on in the thread if you care to look.

4 minutes ago, xylophone said:

One poster in particular refused to believe it was anything other than a small demonstration, rather than a violent attack, and posted as such, much earlier on in the thread if you care to look.

So one guy a few hundred posts back? Yeah, I missed that, thanks. 

 

In any event, I've already conceded it was an armed insurrection when it was shown a few people had pepper-spray, baseball-bats and sticks. 

 

 

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I don't think anyone here has argued it was not a violent attack have they? 

 

Some have arguedthat it was not an armed insurrection, but that was disproven when it was shown a few people had pepper-spray, baseball-bats and sticks. 

and guns

4 minutes ago, ozimoron said:

and guns

Who inside the Capital had guns? 

5 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Who inside the Capital had guns? 

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/january-6-man-brought-loaded-225534340.html

One felony conviction is all it takes. The problem for Garland is not the lack of potential felony indictments against Mr. Trump but rather whether he has the cajones to set an awesomely consequential new precedent -- to pursue charges against an ex president.

1 minute ago, ozimoron said:

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/january-6-man-brought-loaded-225534340.html

So no one, thanks!

Just now, Jingthing said:

One felony conviction is all it takes. The problem for Garland is not the lack of potential felony indictments against Mr. Trump but rather whether he has the cajones to set an awesomely consequential new precedent -- to pursue charges against an ex president.

I do not understand what the big risk would be in bringing charges against Trump. Can you explain it? 

 

Win or lose he would be a hero to the left, and no one cars what people on the right think. 

 

Just now, Yellowtail said:

I do not understand what the big risk would be in bringing charges against Trump. Can you explain it? 

 

Win or lose he would be a hero to the left, and no one cars what people on the right think. 

 

Think harder.

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So no one, thanks!

????????? "An Indiana man who brought a loaded gun to the January 6, 2021 US Capitol riot — and then subsequently lost the revolver amid the chaos of the insurrection — pleaded guilty this week to carrying a weapon without a license and using a police baton to assault officers during the attack".

 

Seems pretty simple to understand for those other than trumpism afflicted folk.

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So no one, thanks!

He is inside a built structure comprising part of the Capitol building. He also demonstrates violent intent.

2 minutes ago, xylophone said:

????????? "An Indiana man who brought a loaded gun to the January 6, 2021 US Capitol riot — and then subsequently lost the revolver amid the chaos of the insurrection — pleaded guilty this week to carrying a weapon without a license and using a police baton to assault officers during the attack".

 

Seems pretty simple to understand for those other than trumpism afflicted folk.

???????

 

Okay, so when I asked who in the Capital had guns, you assume I meant who inside the Capital owned guns but did not bring them.

 

That is not what I meant, what I meant was, who bought a gun inside the Capital. The answer is no one. 

 

Is that more clear? 

 

In any event, I've already conceded it was an armed insurrection when it was shown a few people had pepper-spray, baseball-bats and sticks. The fact that no one thought to bring their guns with them just speaks to the incompetency of Trump and how poorly he planned the government takeover. 

 

 

On 6/11/2022 at 1:32 PM, Jingthing said:

I will say yes to that.

People are complex.

The late Ben Carson was a brilliant brain surgeon and rabid Trump fan.

Carson was a medical doctor that denied evolution. Not that smart.

 

5 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Carson was a medical doctor that denied evolution. Not that smart.

 

Do you have any evidence of this? Not being convinced man descended from apes is not the same as denying evolution. 

Smoking Gun: Why Trump Lawyer Seeking Pardon May Sink Trump For Illegal Coup