You can possibly think that you are being serious here.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do All Republican Candidates Favor Insurrection?
- Thread starter Revoltingest
- Start date
I don't know how to answer this question at all.
Funny, Brazil defeated Bolsonaro - a figure not greatly unlike Trump - and basically, Bolsonaro is gone, and Brazil has moved on. I think that is largely because even conservative lawmakers and leaders in Brazil accepted the results of the election, and behaved like people who wished to hold on to their democracy. Yet, Trump is still the (almost) universally acknowledged leader of the Republican Party in the US, and the lie that the he won the election in 2020 is maintained by far too many leaders in Congress, and throughout the Republican world in the US.
I find it especially disheartening to hear Elsie Stefanik echo Trump in calling those arrested, charged, tried and lawfully convicted of felonies related to January 6 "January 6 hostages." The lie must be kept alive, by whatever means, and for a leader such as Stefanik (Chair of the House Republican Conference and 4th ranking Republican member) stand boldly and repeat the lie in the media tells me that Republican leadership cannot give it up. This is true now of so many Republican leaders, in the House, and in the Senate, that I cannot think anything other than that they either favour insurrection (through the efficacy of the big lie), or are simply too cowardly to stand up and let their own conscience tell the damned truth!
But if my dichotomy in the last paragraph is true, then either they are all Constitutionally unfit for office or leadership, or their own constitutions' cowardice makes them unfit.
Last edited:
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I don't have to because it actually happened. Take it as seriously, or not as seriously as you like.
Think you need to figure out what definition of Insurrection you are using prior to engaging in assumed premise fallacy .. perhaps those Reds you are caulously claiming favor civil war style revolution to take over the Gov't .. do not actually favor that sort of thing ... The Proud Boys are another story.
Already done.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!
Already done.
Dictionary.com | Meanings & Definitions of English Words
The world's leading online dictionary: English definitions, synonyms, word origins, example sentences, word games, and more. A trusted authority for 25+ years!www.dictionary.com
Big Fail .. one which should be cause of embarassment ..
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Why? What is wrong with that? Do you realize that "insurrection" is not a legal term. But we can still recognize one when it occurs. The definitions given there appear to be fine. You can't seem to understand that removing a person from the ballot is a civil act. In fact disqualification is an act where the burden of proof is reversed. If voting officials took the Trump's birther idiocy seriously they could have demanded birth certificates from Obama. He had them. He eventually dug up some copies for Trump. I know it would be difficult for me to get my birth certificate since I was born in another state. I could be challenged and would someone have to get one from where I was born.
You were given links and examples multiple times of how the civil action of removing someone from the ballot does not need a conviction of a crime. It does not even need an indictment (and Trump is indicted for his acts on January 6 amongst other crimes. The DC indictment gives the details of how he headed an insurrection. Those are proper criminal charges that do carry prison time.
It is a lot like the charge of "conspiracy'. That can be used in rhetoric but when it comes to prosecution specific crimes are what one is tried on.
Trump is incapable of experiencing
either embarassment [sic] or shame.
I realized just yesterday that the very name of the "Republican" Party has become dark sarcasm and nothing more.
You are probably right but, what then is your escuse .. ? clearly having no shame nor embarassment over the fact that you have no understanding of what the definition of insurgency means or is in context - demonstrated by your link to a dictionary in the past post and now showing no shame or embarassment in this post -- trying to deflect to the failings of Carrot Top.
What is an "escuse"?
I've not used the word "insurgency".
What do you keep going on about?
It seems you take issue with my posts,
but don't understand them, or even
know which words I use.
Get back on those meds, bruderherz.
You are probably right about Trump but, what then is your excuse .. ? clearly having no shame nor embarassment over the fact that you have no understanding of what the definition of insurgency means or is in context - demonstrated by your link to a dictionary in the past post and now showing no shame or embarassment in this post or this major fail, instead trying to deflect to the failings of Carrot Top of similar nature.
Oh, it seems that you've discovered
how to spell words. That's a good start.
Next, try cogent reasoning.
Then you & I might have a conversation.
Insurrection friend ... the word you used without knowing the definition or meaning in context .. then showing no shame or embarassment when pointed out .. embarrasing yourself further by showing an inability to figure out that the x and the s on the keyboard are very close .. desperate to cling to a typo .. again showing no shame
You were asked a question of clarification in order to help us understand your post. "What is your definition of Insurrection" - Your ability to answer this question has been a complete fail and this fact pointed out to you ... yet you have not shown any embarrassment or shame for that or running around chasing typo's as if that constitutes a valid argument for something other than your own lack of shame.
Do you not understand the question friend ? Looking for the definition used for and in the context of the case against Trump .. not a list of various definitions in a dictionary ... most of which yeild an incorrect answer.
Do you know which definition is the right answer ?
2 nouns, but no verbs you have there.
It has no meaning.
Why is there such an obsession over the word "insurrection"?
I've noticed this a lot lately, not just with this word. It seems that people would prefer to argue over labels, descriptors, word choice, and terminology - while considering the actual object, concept, or event being described is of secondary or tertiary importance.
It seems more important to convey what we feel about things, as opposed to giving neutral, objective, albeit boring, descriptions and characterizations of events.
I've noticed this a lot lately, not just with this word. It seems that people would prefer to argue over labels, descriptors, word choice, and terminology - while considering the actual object, concept, or event being described is of secondary or tertiary importance.
It seems more important to convey what we feel about things, as opposed to giving neutral, objective, albeit boring, descriptions and characterizations of events.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You asked your question poorly and got mad because he used a dictionary? Are you serious? You asked "" What is your definition of insurrection?". When you ask it that way a particular dictionary definition could be the one that he uses. I can now see that you meant, and should have asked or demanded "Please define insurrection in your own words.". Your question was answered as asked.
How embarassing
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
JIMMY12345
Active Member
The Republican party is that only in name.Trump appeals to the new America who see jobs outsourced to China etc.The jobs will not come back as no one can afford to work for those wages.
With social media and artificial intelligence 2/3 of Republicans genuinely believe Trump had his victory stolen.He will probably be back as he has the money to to influence the small deciding votes.He also has business backers in the East and West so I think victory for him is highly certain.