The Insurrection Case Against Donald John Trump

NiftyNiblick said:
Tell me, AssHat,

have you seen any of the rest of the world yet?

Do you still view everything from a parochial perspective?

If so, how does that qualify you to offer any kind of valuable opinion?

The thing is, AssHat....it doesn't.
Click to expand...

this extended ad hominem attack is an epic fail.
 
BidenPresident said:
You are a lost soul. I cannot debate your delusions.
Click to expand...

In real life, there is often (usually) a final determination of right and wrong.

This comment of yours reflects the reality that some things can no longer be debated when the obvious evidence removes any doubt about the conclusion.
 
Drummie123 said:
In real life, there is often (usually) a final determination of right and wrong.

This comment of yours reflects the reality that some things can no longer be debated when the obvious evidence removes any doubt about the conclusion.
Click to expand...

You provided no evidence that Trump won the election. Nothing to debate. An opinion by someone you called an ex prosecutor counts for nothing.
 
Phantasmal said:
LOL, says the Trump supporter :laugh:
Click to expand...

If you loved America and wanted our economic system and system of government and our Constitution to prevail, you would love Trump.

And I conclude that the reason you don't love Trump is because you don't love America enough or at all.
 
Drummie123 said:
In real life, there is often (usually) a final determination of right and wrong.

This comment of yours reflects the reality that some things can no longer be debated when the obvious evidence removes any doubt about the conclusion.
Click to expand...

Facts and conclusions alike are irrelevant in a debate unless stipulations are met first.

Without agreed upon stipulations, logic cannot arrive at a decision.

Failure to reach stipulations does not result in one conclusion being obvious if the debate were to take place.

Failure to reach stipulations merely indicates that the debate will not take place.

I tend to disagree with BidenPresident that you're a lost soul because to me, soul was just 1960s rhythm and blues music.

If you still have both of your feet, however, you might have soles.
 
martin said:
I understand the cover it was intended to provide well enough. The insurrection is the effort through violence to prevent a Biden presidency with the aim of reinstalling a Trump presidency. That the effort was absurd and doomed to end in disaster does not erase the seditious intent, the violence that attended it, or Trump's part as its essential instigator. Moreover, the "march" isn't the question. It's what happened at the end of the march.

I hope that answers it for you.
Click to expand...

questioning electoral votes is a legal right.

I was watching live. as soon as senators did that , the fake news started.
 
BidenPresident said:
You provided no evidence that Trump won the election. Nothing to debate. An opinion by someone you called an ex prosecutor counts for nothing.
Click to expand...

What I was hoping I wouldn't need to explain to you is that I only cited the experts I did to show you that they know what is good or bad evidence well or poorly handled.

And that there is no way the evidence they collected and examined and prepared for consideration would not pass muster.

They are veterans of the legal process in theory and in practice in the highest stakes trials.

If these experts, all with sterling legal reputations, didn't think they had a good case and good evidence, they would not have opened themselves up to ridicule.
 
Drummie123 said:
If you loved America and wanted our economic system and system of government and our Constitution to prevail, you would love Trump.

And I conclude that the reason you don't love Trump is because you don't love America enough or at all.
Click to expand...
I remember when morons told me the same thing about the Iraq war. They were wrong, and I was right.
 
Drummie123 said:
What I was hoping I wouldn't need to explain to you is that I only cited the experts I did to show you that they know what is good or bad evidence well or poorly handled.

And that there is no way the evidence they collected and examined and prepared for consideration would not pass muster.
Click to expand...


Like I said, I have no interest in entertaining the delusions of people I had no respect for in the first place.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
Facts and conclusions alike are irrelevant in a debate unless stipulations are met first.

Without agreed upon stipulations, logic cannot arrive at a decision.

Failure to reach stipulations does not result in one conclusion being obvious if the debate were to take place.

Failure to reach stipulations merely indicates that the debate will not take place.

I tend to disagree with BidenPresident that you're a lost soul because to me, soul was just 1960s rhythm and blues music.

If you still have both of your feet, however, you might have soles.
Click to expand...

ridiculous stipulations do indicate one party is retarded, however.

:tardthoughts:
 
An insurrection is a violent uprising by definition and that’s exactly what happened at the Capitol.
in·sur·rec·tion

/ˌinsəˈrekSH(ə)n/





noun

  • a violent uprising against an authority or government.
    "the insurrection was savagely put down"



 
martin said:
I understand the cover it was intended to provide well enough. The insurrection is the effort through violence to prevent a Biden presidency with the aim of reinstalling a Trump presidency. That the effort was absurd and doomed to end in disaster does not erase the seditious intent, the violence that attended it, or Trump's part as its essential instigator. Moreover, the "march" isn't the question. It's what happened at the end of the march.

I hope that answers it for you.
Click to expand...

That was not insurrection.

This is insurrection.

iu
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top