ARMED protest are planned in all 50 state capitals and DC

[Mountain Man]

If that's incitement, most every politician would be in handcuffs. Remember Mr. Barack "If They Bring A Knife To The Fight, We Bring A Gun" Obama? LAWL

And don't forget his wingman Eric "If they go low, kick them" Holder.

[Roy]

After the 2016 election the democrats claimed Trump colluded with the Russians to steal the election, that the Russians hacked the voting machines, they rioted in the streets, burning half of Washington DC, and then we had faithless electors vote against Trump...

There were only two faithless electors who voted against Trump, both of whom were Republicans, so including this in a list of complaints against democrats is misleading at best.

There were also far more faithless electors who voted against Clinton, which you have either forgotten or deliberately omitted and which completely reverses whatever point you though you were making.

Your other complaints may have some merit, but this one is so bad it detracts from their impact.

[Ronson]

That would be an exaggeration. In most cases there wasn't enough legitimate evidence to keep them from being laughed out of the court room.

And you accuse me of exaggeration? Please.

Not having sufficient court evidence is not the same thing as something not existing. Perhaps you should try to convince a court that black holes exist. The burden of proof for Trump's attorneys was quite heavy.

As for some fraud. There is bound to be some anomalies in any event involving millions. Taking those all the way to fraud requires some work, and if the sum total of all the anomalies are stiil in the noise, the only people that care enough to do that work are people that are paranoid or obsessed.

There needs to be evidence of a problem big enough to have some reasonable expectation it could have affected the result. Anything else is just wasting everyone's time, or as in this case, fodder for creating unrest and doubt and fomenting chaos.

I believe that's what I said.

[Ronson]

When you say "the courts", you mean individual judges who never let any of the cases go to trial where the evidence could have a full and fair hearing.

Correct. I knew a DA that got flustered when he didn't have evidence to prosecute a molester - although he was certain the guy did it. But he had to ask himself "will this evidence be enough to weigh in court?" and if it isn't, he can't bring it in. Better to wait until a better day than to go in and lose.

Unfortunately in Trump's case, he had a deadline to battle against. They had to go with what they had and it wasn't enough. But some fraudsters may flip in the future, confess, and expose much more evidence. We'll see.

The main thing is reform. McConnell fought against reform previously (on the pretense it was a partisan bill). It makes me quite suspicious of him.

[Bill the Cat]

Destruction of what?

Property. The few dozen people who actually entered the Capitol were shown on video wandering the halls. A few of them actually destroyed stuff.

The violent mob involved in the insurrection was not in any way primarily motivated by destruction of property, but anarchists are.

Looters are too. The thousands and thousands of protesters at the Capitol were not there to destroy anything. A few nutters were.

And as to the term "insurrection"...

Inigo.gif

How can you know whether or not someone is a BLM protestor or an anarchist?

Watching interviews and social media posts from the looting in Richmond. The looters are opportunists, not anarchists.

[oxmixmudd]

And you accuse me of exaggeration? Please.

https://www.newsweek.com/rudy-giulia...-times-1551990

More often than not that was an accurate description of the response to the 'evidence. In some cases it was more angry, like 'how dare you waste the courts time on this ridiculousness. At least once giulliani admitted he didn't even have evidence of fraud to submit!

Not having sufficient court evidence is not the same thing as something not existing. Perhaps you should try to convince a court that black holes exist. The burden of proof for Trump's attorneys was quite heavy.

Says who? And why would anyone even consider overturning an election on hearsay without any actual evidence? Hearsay in some cases coming from people that clearly don't have it all together- as we see above.

I believe that's what I said.

And so you support Donald Trump's campaign over supposed election fraud that incited a mob to storm the capitol because ...?

If YOU understand Donald Trump's campaign that has completely undermined the peaceful transfer of power is itself fraudulent - i.e YOU know there is not evidence of sufficient fraud to change the result - how in the world do you justify supporting him as he has lied about that fact for nearly three months and as he has undermined the trust of the American people wrt one of the most critical elements of our democracy - to the point many are willing to threaten armed protests of the inauguration in 50 capitols and DC?

[Gondwanaland]

What was that commie, did you say something?

*Yawn* Come up with better comebacks if you can't address people's points, bud, that was just embarrassing.

[Gondwanaland]

The rule in this thread is be civil or go argue somewhere else.

You only get one warning.

I'm afraid you don't actually get to set such rules. Licona got spanked on that a while back.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

There was fraud. Most everyone acknowledges that.

Then why no demands/requests for Republican votes to be examined as well? It is odd that Trump only wanted votes recounted in swing states that he lost.

[oxmixmudd]

I'm afraid you don't actually get to set such rules. Licona got spanked on that a while back.

I can ask people to leave my thread for not staying on topic, and the mods are quite willing - at least in my case - to enforce such requests, even when one could justify that they were 'really' on topic after all. The topic of this thread is the threat of armed violence by Trump supporters, not who is a nasty person on this website.

[CivilDiscourse]

Then why no demands/requests for Republican votes to be examined as well? It is odd that Trump only wanted votes recounted in swing states that he lost.

Perhaps for the same reason democrats never demand recounts in close states that they win.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Perhaps for the same reason democrats never demand recounts in close states that they win.

Did Trump not declare the election fraudulent?

[Ronson]

More often than not that was an accurate description of the response to the 'evidence. In some cases it was more angry, like 'how dare you waste the courts time on this ridiculousness. At least once giulliani admitted he didn't even have evidence of fraud to submit!

According to MSM? Gee, it's not like they're biased or anything.

Says who?

Says me.

And why would anyone even consider overturning an election on hearsay without any actual evidence? Hearsay in some cases coming from people that clearly don't have it all together- as we see above.

All I was hoping for was a new election in contested states.

And so you support Donald Trump's campaign over supposed election fraud that incited a mob to storm the capitol because ...?

Can you rephrase that?

If YOU understand Donald Trump's campaign that has completely undermined the peaceful transfer of power is itself fraudulent - i.e YOU know there is not evidence of sufficient fraud to change the result - how in the world do you justify supporting him as he has lied about that fact for nearly three months and as he has undermined the trust of the American people wrt one of the most critical elements of our democracy - to the point many are willing to threaten armed protests of the inauguration in 50 capitols and DC?

Thoroughly loaded question. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

[Mountain Man]

I'm afraid you don't actually get to set such rules. Licona got spanked on that a while back.

Actually, he can. Thread starters can establish rules of decorum and have them enforced by moderators. What they can't do is tell people that they're not allowed to present valid and relevant arguments against their position. In other words, ox couldn't start a thread critical of President Trump and then make the rule that only people who agree with him are allowed to post, but he can establish a "no insults" rule.

[oxmixmudd]

According to MSM? Gee, it's not like they're biased or anything.

According to transcripts of the proceedings.

Says me.



All I was hoping for was a new election in contested states.

But there is no reason to do that. There is no evidence of fraud sufficient to warrant it. You already admitted that.

Can you rephrase that?

I suppose I could, but why would I need to do that?

Thoroughly loaded question. Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

You already admitted there was not sufficient evidence of fraud to change the result. So the question was based on that admission and is not therefore loaded.

Eg if someone says:

"I used to beat my wife"

Then:

"when did you stop beating your wife"

Is NOT a loaded question.