Do All Republican Candidates Favor Insurrection?

[Sargonski]

Shouldn't intent matter? A pitiful, doomed to fail attempt is still an attempt. If overturning the election wasn't their intent, then what was?

Of course intent matters .. why would you claim otherwise .. as I certainly never did. Intent to do what being the primary question. You say a failed attempt .. a failed attempt at what ? There was no attempt at civil war style rebellion .. something that requires military support and involvement of a whole lot more people.

Your own question back at you .. except this time its not strawman fallacy .. shouldn't actus rea matter ? that the people have actually done what they are being accused of .. have to have committed the crime .. to be guilty of insurrection.

There was no civil war attempt .. no attempt at takeover of the Gov't and the Nation through civil war / military action. This is 3rd world kangaroo loopyville - an anathema to logic, reason, the rule of law and principles of Justice.

The protesters hoped to change the Gov't .. but by legitimate means .. investigating election fraud .. that was the intent of the protest .. the hoped for outcome of the protest was an investigation . .having the potential to change an election result .. not a civil war and military take over of the nation. ..

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course intent matters .. why would you claim otherwise .. as I certainly never did. Intent to do what being the primary question. You say a failed attempt .. a failed attempt at what ? There was no attempt at civil war style rebellion .. something that requires military support and involvement of a whole lot more people.

Your own question back at you .. except this time its not strawman fallacy .. shouldn't actus rea matter ? that the people have actually done what they are being accused of .. have to have committed the crime .. to be guilty of insurrection.

There was no civil war attempt .. no attempt at takeover of the Gov't and the Nation through civil war / military action. This is 3rd world kangaroo loopyville - an anathema to logic, reason, the rule of law and principles of Justice.

You've already made this exact same post several different times, despite people explaining the plan to you over and over again.

The protesters hoped to change the Gov't .. but by legitimate means .. investigating election fraud .. that was the intent of the protest .. the hoped for outcome of the protest was an investigation . .having the potential to change an election result .. not a civil war and military take over of the nation. ..

LOL What nonsense. That must be why they used makeshift weapons to smash in windows and doors and climbed through, had weapons stashed nearby in their cars, violently attacked security and police officers, erected a gallows and chanted "Hang Mike Pence" and tried to break into the Senate chamber where Senators were hiding out in fear of their lives.

Just a peaceful, legitimate protest to say "Hey guys, we're just here investigating election fraud! Nothing to see here!"

Gimme a break.

 

[Father Heathen]

Of course intent matters .. why would you claim otherwise .. as I certainly never did. Intent to do what being the primary question. You say a failed attempt .. a failed attempt at what ? There was no attempt at civil war style rebellion .. something that requires military support and involvement of a whole lot more people.

Your own question back at you .. except this time its not strawman fallacy .. shouldn't actus rea matter ? that the people have actually done what they are being accused of .. have to have committed the crime .. to be guilty of insurrection.

There was no civil war attempt .. no attempt at takeover of the Gov't and the Nation through civil war / military action. This is 3rd world kangaroo loopyville - an anathema to logic, reason, the rule of law and principles of Justice.

The protesters hoped to change the Gov't .. but by legitimate means .. investigating election fraud .. that was the intent of the protest .. the hoped for outcome of the protest was an investigation . .having the potential to change an election result .. not a civil war and military take over of the nation. ..

I don't know if I would call breaching barricades, attacking police, and forcing their way into the House chamber "legitimate means". Also, how was such dopey bumpkin behavior supposed to initiate an investigation? For that you need actual evidence, not just butthurt and sour grapes.

 

[Revoltingest]

Unfortunately, I have a massive backlog of "to watch" shows and movies.

Put it at the top of your list.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What part of .. "Provide the definition of insurrection you are using" .. are you having trouble understanding ? your comparison to drunk driving completel nonsense .. drunk driving is a crime .. and yes it is a criminal term but who cares whether the term is criminal or not .. and what a silly thing to say.

Insurrection is a crime. Whether or not the word insurrectin is a "criminal term" does not make the slightest bit of difference to your failed claim that Trump actions were insurrection .. and your failure to provide even what definition of insurrection you are using.


.. and they certainly was not an "Insurrection" .. of the "Civil War" kind .. an armed group with military support trying to take over the Gov't/Nation. Only a 3rd world Kangaroo show would claim such.

I did that for you. You ignored it when I did that just as you kept ignoring the links and quotes I gave of legal precedent in Trump's disqualification case. You only get to do that a limited number of times before I tell you to do your homework. I have not erased the post where I did that for you, I have not had any notifications of breaking the rules where I have responded to you so it is still there.

When you demand something and it is given to you you do not get to keep demanding it again and again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You did not respond to me with a definition of insurrection and rational as to why that definition is the proper one to use .. and thus your claim that Donald was guilty of such crime is false.

You keep deflecting from providing this definition by claiming that you have provided previously. If this is true then give the post number in which you provided this definition and explanation as promised.

The post where I did so is still there.

 

[Revoltingest]

I did that for you. You ignored it when I did that just as you kept ignoring the links and quotes I gave of legal precedent in Trump's disqualification case. You only get to do that a limited number of times before I tell you to do your homework. I have not erased the post where I did that for you, I have not had any notifications of breaking the rules where I have responded to you so it is still there.

When you demand something and it is given to you you do not get to keep demanding it again and again.

Incessant demands for ever more detail are
really just a challenge of the diversionary style.
They can never be satisfied, so they feel as
though winning an argument.
It's a little like a Gish Gallop.
Could be called the "Dr Banjo Gallop".

 

[Laniakea]

Oh I deal with people like you all of the time. You should try to learn what is and what is not a reliable source. There are tools out there to help you. This source not only tells you the bias of various sources. It also tells you whether they are reliable or not and if not how they have failed in the past:

Media Bias/Fact Check News

We are the most comprehensive media bias resource on the internet. There are currently 3900+ media sources listed in our database and growing every day.

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Also, it helps a lot if you can find a source that is on the opposite side that you are on that agrees with you. So even though you are going to disagree with left leaning CNN with only a moderately factual rating, it can be very useful if they confirm your claims:

CNN - Bias and Credibility

LEFT-CENTER BIAS These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording

mediabiasfactcheck.com

If you want a source that you can trust you are going to be hard pressed to find someone more reliable than Reuters. They are almost dead center politically and have a very high credibility rating:

Reuters - Bias and Credibility

LEAST BIASED These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or

mediabiasfactcheck.com

Lemme guess: If it's right-biased, I'm to consider it unreliable, and if it's left-biased, it reliable. Correct?

 

[Laniakea]

Zero murders? Cops were killed by thise Jan 6th insurrectionists.

Wrong. Not a single cop was killed by the protesters that day.
Claiming they were is simply disinformation.

 

[Laniakea]

Would you please, like, address my point?

Would you, like, make a point that's, like, worth addressing?

 

[Laniakea]

LOL

Sure there is: Trump won the election he actually lost.

Don't parrot conspiracy theories now.
Based on the Constitution and election laws, he won.

 

[Laniakea]

You've already made this exact same post several different times, despite people explaining the plan to you over and over again.

LOL What nonsense. That must be why they used makeshift weapons to smash in windows and doors and climbed through, had weapons stashed nearby in their cars, violently attacked security and police officers, erected a gallows and chanted "Hang Mike Pence" and tried to break into the Senate chamber where Senators were hiding out in fear of their lives.

Just a peaceful, legitimate protest to say "Hey guys, we're just here investigating election fraud! Nothing to see here!"

Gimme a break.

The term "peaceful protest" was redefined during the BLM riots as a way of excusing their behavior. What happened on Jan. 6th was ultra-peaceful by comparison. Nothing burned down, no businesses lost, and nobody shot except for an unarmed white woman by a black cop.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wrong. Not a single cop was killed by the protesters that day.
Claiming they were is simply disinformation.

No, claiming so is a fact. It is reality. It happened.

 

[Laniakea]

No, claiming so is a fact. It is reality. It happened.

Claiming is claiming.
If you would like to back up your claim with evidence, then it may or may not become a fact depending on the credibility of your evidence.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Claiming is claiming.
If you would like to back up your claim with evidence, then it may or may not become a fact depending on the credibility of your evidence.

New video shows brutal beating of D.C. Metropolitan Police officer during Jan. 6 riot

As Officer Michael Fanone screamed in agony, one rioter's voice could be heard over the noise: "I got one!"

www.nbcnews.com

Capitol rioters rejoiced in the assault.
As Fanone screams in agony, one rioter's voice can be heard over the noise: "I got one!"
There were also four suicides among the police due to the insurrection.

 

[Laniakea]

New video shows brutal beating of D.C. Metropolitan Police officer during Jan. 6 riot

As Officer Michael Fanone screamed in agony, one rioter's voice could be heard over the noise: "I got one!"

www.nbcnews.com

Capitol rioters rejoiced in the assault.
As Fanone screams in agony, one rioter's voice can be heard over the noise: "I got one!"
There were also four suicides among the police due to the insurrection.

Then your claim:

Zero murders? Cops were killed by thise Jan 6th insurrectionists.

about cops being killed by Jan 6th "insurrectionists" is still false. It didn't happen.

 

[Revoltingest]

New video shows brutal beating of D.C. Metropolitan Police officer during Jan. 6 riot

As Officer Michael Fanone screamed in agony, one rioter's voice could be heard over the noise: "I got one!"

www.nbcnews.com

Capitol rioters rejoiced in the assault.
As Fanone screams in agony, one rioter's voice can be heard over the noise: "I got one!"
There were also four suicides among the police due to the insurrection.

Just face facts....
Trump won the 2020 election.
There was no insurrection.
Pence committed treason by not over-turning the election.
Secretaries Of State who refused to find Trump's votes must be prosecuted.
Trump can have political opposition assassinated by Seal Team 6.
Those women wanted it from Trump. (They let you do that.)
Ingesting bleach cures Covid 19.
God anointed Trump to save Ameristan.
The list goes on.

 

[Sargonski]

The post where I did so is still there.

Great .. then give us the post number so we can read your definition of insurrection and your explanation of why this fits the Capital Protest

 

[Sargonski]

Just face facts....
Trump won the 2020 election.
There was no insurrection.
Pence committed treason by not over-turning the election.
Secretaries Of State who refused to find Trump's votes must be prosecuted.
Trump can have political opposition assassinated by Seal Team 6.
Those women wanted it from Trump. (They let you do that.)
Intravenous bleach cures Covid 19.
The list goes on.

Your silly doublespeak mirroring rhetoric doesn't fool me Mr.

 

[Bthoth]

Just a peaceful, legitimate protest to say "Hey guys, we're just here investigating election fraud! Nothing to see here!"

Gimme a break.

You forgot the pursuit of pence and nancy was just for a poker game.