Storming the Capitol

[oldngray]

 

[1989]

I like when you pull out the race card.
Let's everyone know you're completely full of crap.

Trump loves those racists. He said so when he finally said it’s time to stop. He needs the racist vote.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

Trump loves those racists. He said so when he finally said it’s time to stop. He needs the racist vote.

Move on snowflake.

 

[1989]

Move on snowflake.

Your go to answer. So I am no longer a “”. You can’t even get your insults straight.

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

So I am no longer a “”.

If you say so.

 

[vantexan]

Trump loves those racists. He said so when he finally said it’s time to stop. He needs the racist vote.

So you're voting for Trump if he runs again? Amazing.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

8That's not unfortunate for me, it's unfortunate for you. You're free to "believe" there was fraud, just like you're free to believe in Santa Claus, Bigfoot, etc. But the world will continue to go on regardless. Secondly, who knows more about election law jurisprudence? You? Or the entire United States judiciary branch? Good thing law proceeds from the courts, not partisan message board warriors, I guess.


Don't you lambast the leftwing media at every opportunity? Yet when that very same media produces something sympathetic to your cause, you lap up every word and share it every chance you can get. If it was something negative to Trump, you wouldn't have got past the first sentence. So now Molly Ball's word is gospel, huh? This opinion piece from Time now proves there was a grand conspiracy and the entirety of the United States judiciary was in on it? Judges appointed from Trump to Reagan in five different states all "had it in" against Trump?

If I took Molly Ball at her word, everything that was done was a-ok, not at all illegal, not fraud but "fortification". As with all media, you have to dig through the propaganda to determine what facts are being presented.

You are the one who put forth the premise that the entire judiciary was "in on it". I never made that claim, so I don't have to defend it. The judiciary didn't have to be "in on" anything for my views to still be accurate.

 

[1989]

So you're voting for Trump if he runs again? Amazing.

Sorry I don’t keep that kind of company.

 

[Fred's Myth]

Your go to answer. So I am no longer a “”. You can’t even get your insults straight.

How many accurate insults do you require at a time?

 

[newfie]

This opinion piece from Time now proves there was a grand conspiracy and the entirety of the United States judiciary was in on it?

agreed .

 

[newfie]

Nope. Please elaborate on all the abuses you suffer from the government? Current right wing grievances are mostly white nationalism.

you're a white nationalist. Your liberal policies have done more to destroy people of color than any Grand dragon ever did

 

[newfie]

Sorry I don’t keep that kind of company.

you mean the company would never keep you. sorry you dont measure up

 

[Old Man Jingles]

Trump loves those racists. He said so when he finally said it’s time to stop. He needs the racist vote.

Ignorance may be bliss but, as in your case, it's usually just butt ugly and dumb!

 

[vantexan]

Sorry I don’t keep that kind of company.

You should upgrade.

 

[Macbrother]

As with all media, you have to dig through the propaganda to determine what facts are being presented.

Don't pretend as if you care about facts. A pro-Trump narrative is all you are interested in.

You are the one who put forth the premise that the entire judiciary was "in on it". I never made that claim, so I don't have to defend it. The judiciary didn't have to be "in on" anything for my views to still be accurate

No - this is what you are forced to believe, if you subscribe to the election fraud hoax. Unless you know of a court that affirmed Trump's claims of widespread voter fraud and/or illegality. You can easily prove me wrong here - just show me a court ruling!

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

No - this is what you are forced to believe

No it isn't.
Stop being ridiculous.

Unless you know of a court that affirmed Trump's claims of widespread voter fraud and/or illegality. You can easily prove me wrong here - just show me a court ruling!

Don't pretend as if you care about facts. An anti-Trump narrative is all you are interested in.

 

[zubenelgenubi]

Don't pretend as if you care about facts. A pro-Trump narrative is all you are interested in.


No - this is what you are forced to believe, if you subscribe to the election fraud hoax. Unless you know of a court that affirmed Trump's claims of widespread voter fraud and/or illegality. You can easily prove me wrong here - just show me a court ruling!

If the facts support Trump, I accept them, you won't. If they don't support Trump, I accept them, same as you. I don't support him pushing a fast tracked vaccine through approval. I didn't like how much he antagonized the media, I don't think he acted with the dignity of the office. But, considering all that, I preferred him to the alternative.

As for the judiciary conspiracy issue, I do not stipulate your premise. It does not take the entire judiciary acting in conspiracy in order to see the outcomes we did. You are trying to get me to agree to your outlandish and unprovable theory that a conspiracy of the judiciary was the only way that we could have the outcome that you claim we had. It won't work. I don't stipulate your claim that the courts all agreed there was no evidence, and I don't stipulate your premise that the courts had to be engaged in conspiracy. You already listed cases that proved the point I was making, thanks for that. There's no need for me to do anything else. Prove the courts all heard evidence and ruled against Trump in 64 cases, that's your claim. Prove that a conspiracy was necessary for the courts to unjustly dismiss cases before evidence was presented. That's your claim.

 

[newfie]

A pro-Trump narrative is all you are interested in.

not that there is anything wrong with that

 

[newfie]

 

[Macbrother]

If the facts support Trump, I accept them, you won't. If they don't support Trump, I accept them, same as you. I don't support him pushing a fast tracked vaccine through approval. I didn't like how much he antagonized the media, I don't think he acted with the dignity of the office. But, considering all that, I preferred him to the alternative.

It is clear who the facts support, there is no "if." The people voted. Every single state certified that vote. Every single legal challenge was defeated. Those are the facts, on the ground, and that's why you couldn't convince a single court to go along with Donald's last con. Anything beyond that is self-serving speculation, innuendo, and conspiracy.

I will say - I am somewhat impressed you at least recognize a few of his negative qualities.

As for the judiciary conspiracy issue, I do not stipulate your premise. It does not take the entire judiciary acting in conspiracy in order to see the outcomes we did. You are trying to get me to agree to your outlandish and unprovable theory that a conspiracy of the judiciary was the only way that we could have the outcome that you claim we had. It won't work. I don't stipulate your claim that the courts all agreed there was no evidence, and I don't stipulate your premise that the courts had to be engaged in conspiracy. You already listed cases that proved the point I was making, thanks for that. There's no need for me to do anything else. Prove the courts all heard evidence and ruled against Trump in 64 cases, that's your claim. Prove that a conspiracy was necessary for the courts to unjustly dismiss cases before evidence was presented. That's your claim.

Then what is your suggestion? What does it take for every level of the judiciary to rule unanimously against Trump, if not for collusion? Why couldn't Trump get the judiciary on board with his election fraud claims?