The Supreme Court will decide if Donald Trump can be kept off 2024 presidential ballots

[Subduction Zone]

You are not able to correct if you are not informed of facts. You have demonstrated that you do not know the facts, and therefore are not able to do any correcting. Would you like me to explain this to you further?

You only make false claims. You have never explained anything.

 

[Laniakea]

You only make false claims. You have never explained anything.

That statement is an indication that you haven't actually read my posts with understanding, assuming you've read them at all. All of my posts are carefully thought out researched with utmost care. If you do not understand them, that is on you.

 

[F1fan]

And yet you just said: "They are poorly informed and who knows what they are capable of doing."
And that was just 16 minutes ago. Did you already forget?

I was talking of the future. If the election is close and Trump loses, who knows if MAGAs have learned their lesson or not. Would you join a riot and attack the United States if Trump loses in November, or accept the results? Give us some reason to think you might be trustworthy.

 

[Laniakea]

I was talking of the future. If the election is close and Trump loses, who knows if MAGAs have learned their lesson or not. Would you join a riot and attack the United States if Trump loses in November, or accept the results? Give us some reason to think you might be trustworthy.

I'm a poll worker and have worked the past 8 elections. Someone seems to think I'm trustworthy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That statement is an indication that you haven't actually read my posts with understanding, assuming you've read them at all. All of my posts are carefully thought out researched with utmost care. If you do not understand them, that is on you.

I have read your posts. When you are wrong you have not "explained" anything. Perhaps you are using some new definition of "explained".

 

[Laniakea]

I have read your posts. When you are wrong you have not "explained" anything. Perhaps you are using some new definition of "explained".

When you say that I'm wrong, you are only demonstrating that you have not read my post carefully enough to realize that I'm right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

When you say that I'm wrong, you are only demonstrating that you have not read my post carefully enough to realize that I'm right.

That big whooooooosh noise you heard a while ago was a joke going over your head. You still did not get it.

 

[F1fan]

I'm a poll worker and have worked the past 8 elections. Someone seems to think I'm trustworthy.

I'm going to guess a red state, otherwise you would have blown a fuse by now.

 

[Copernicus]

But metis was not commenting on the numbers of people killed and injured. Rather, he was commenting on a dismissive reaction to those deaths and injuries. The reference to 9/11 is just an attempt to deflect by engaging in whataboutism. As Subduction Zone points out, the threats posed by the two incidents were not really similar. 9/11 was a violent attack by a foreign terrorist group, whereas January 6 was a domestic planned attempt to violently disrupt an official act of Congress for the purpose of keeping the loser of an election in an office he was not entitled to. Hence, it has been treated as an act of insurrection.

And 9/11 is often simply referred to as "some people doing some things", and "a couple of buildings being knocked down."

I've never heard it referred to in that way, and I suspect you haven't either. Your silly 9/11 whataboutism is a very weak attempt at avoiding a serious response.

You can frame a narrative any way you like to try to make your own stance appear to be more important.

That is downright ironic, coming off of a whataboutism.

Democracy must be super-fragile if it can be overthrown by people with flag poles.

I agree, but the plan is well-documented and was quite serious from Trump's perspective. If no candidate received a majority of the electoral votes, then the House of Representatives would choose the president, with each state delegation having one electoral vote. That would likely have resulted in a Republican victory, because there were more majority-Republican state delegations in Congress. Trump very much wanted that scenario to happen, so he needed for Mike Pence to throw out the results or for some other situation to call the electoral count into question. He had lost the electoral and popular results, so this was his Hail Mary pass. He did manage to disrupt the official count with his little takeover of the Capitol Building, and that was an event planned by some of the rioters who had led the charge into the building. That is why some of them were convicted on seditious conspiracy, a very rarely prosecuted crime. However, Trump's plan failed, because the Senate reconvened after the rioters were cleared out and finished the count, as prescribed in the Constitution. Trump still blames Pence for ruining his plan. Surely, you recall the "Hang Mike Pence!" chants from that day. Trump wanted Pence intimidated into doing his bidding, so he had whipped up his mob before the attack on the Capitol.

See especially: Wikipedia's Eastman Memos

 

[Laniakea]

That big whooooooosh noise you heard a while ago was a joke going over your head. You still did not get it.

Dat's cuz you deent geev it.

 

[Laniakea]

I'm going to guess a red state, otherwise you would have blown a fuse by now.

More of a purple one actually.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dat's cuz you deent geev it.

No, it was beyond you.

Have you been following the testimony and questions at all? Now due to his own wife's political activity Clarence Thomas should have recused himself from this hearing. But he did not. It is already rather clear as to which way he is leaning. But some of the other judges do appear to be serious when it comes to this. I cannot quote, it is just a feeling that I have gotten from them. I sincerely doubt if they will do the right thing, but it is still a possibility.

 

[Laniakea]

No, it was beyond you.

Have you been following the testimony and questions at all? Now due to his own wife's political activity Clarence Thomas should have recused himself from this hearing. But he did not. It is already rather clear as to which way he is leaning. But some of the other judges do appear to be serious when it comes to this. I cannot quote, it is just a feeling that I have gotten from them. I sincerely doubt if they will do the right thing, but it is still a possibility.

Can't you just accept that you're wrong, and then move on?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Can't you just accept that you're wrong, and then move on?

Oh my, such projection.

 

[Laniakea]

Oh my, such projection.

Oh my! Just get over the loss and move on!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh my! Just get over the loss and move on!

It was your loss.

 

[Laniakea]

It was your loss.

Are you admitting to being in denial now?
Acceptance is the first step to making progress.
Let me know when you get there.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you admitting to being in denial now?
Acceptance is the first step to making progress.
Let me know when you get there.

When you post like this after you lost your argument you only look silly.

I thought that you wanted to move on?

 

[Laniakea]

When you post like this after you lost your argument you only look silly.

I thought that you wanted to move on?

If you don't want to look silly, admit it and move on.
Come on now, I know you're capable. I have faith in you.

 

[metis]

You're obviously not all that convinced that it's strong if you believe people with flagpoles almost overthrew it.

Did you ever listen to those inside the chambers what they saw, hear, and thought? You can find some of that on YouTube.