What "if" you are wrong

[1213]

She fits the definition. She betrayed her country. She attacked it.

How? By standing on the hall of a building?

She participated in a failed attempted self-coup.

No evidence for that.

She stood with Trump against America and its traditions and laws.

By what I see, she and Trump stand for the constitution and U.S. against tyranny that democRats are bringing.

But you didn't answer my question. Why do you take her part? What is it you like about who she was and what she did?

I try to defend everyone who is wrongly accused and killed, because I think it is wrong when people are murdered.

If Trump calls for you to go invade the Capitol for him again

Trump has not called that anytime.

 

[1213]

Breaking into a building is normal?

Breaking? The videos show that people were let in by the police. It is ridiculous to claim it was an insurrection, it was not even a genuine riot.

January 6th Capitol police let the rioters in the Capitol building!

While Democrats are screaming that Trump supporters caused a riot at the Capitol building, it is more likely that these people were a plant by the deep state, by watching the video you will see the Ca

rumble.com

If it would have been something else than tourist round, they would have had weapons and not been friends with the guards and would not have walked peacefully in the house like tourists.

All evidence points to that democRats staged an insurrection to end all debate about the stolen elections and to gain power.

 

[1213]

So you disagree with Jesus (as quoted in the Gospels)?

No, why do you think so?

 

[1213]

When she was shot, she was participating in a coup attempt.

No evidence for a coup. If there was a coup that day, it was by democRats, who seem to have staged the insurrection.

 

[1213]

Would you take the same position if an armed mob was trying to break into someone's home to attack the people inside?

Why do you think she was attacking, when she had no meaningful weapon?

(And she was armed with a knife, actually. She had a folding tactical knife in her pocket.)

Seriously, you think she was using that for the "coup"?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Breaking? The videos show that people were let in by the police. It is ridiculous to claim it was an insurrection, it was not even a genuine riot.

January 6th Capitol police let the rioters in the Capitol building!

While Democrats are screaming that Trump supporters caused a riot at the Capitol building, it is more likely that these people were a plant by the deep state, by watching the video you will see the Ca

rumble.com

If it would have been something else than tourist round, they would have had weapons and not been friends with the guards and would not have walked peacefully in the house like tourists.

All evidence points to that democRats staged an insurrection to end all debate about the stolen elections and to gain power.

So all those convicted were totally innocent. You must love your justice system if you think it depends upon if it is a Republican or Democrat state.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No evidence for a coup. If there was a coup that day, it was by democRats, who seem to have staged the insurrection.

Do you think the Democrats also arranged the fake electors?

...because that's what makes it a coup attempt.

Do you think Ashli Babbit was a secret agent for the Democrats?

Ashli Babbitt died trying, at the very least, to delay the vote count to prevent the real election results from being certified. This was to buy time for the rest of the coup plot (i.e. get the fake electors counted in place of the real ones).

Whether she would have participated in the next planned steps of the plot (i.e. find and kill Mike Pence so that Trump could install a VP who would do the VP's part in the coup) is unclear, but just the actions she did are clearly part of the coup attempt.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Why do you think she was attacking, when she had no meaningful weapon?

The mob had already attacked several people. I think it was readonable to presume that the mob trying to gain entry also planned to attack people.

What do you think she was trying to do?

Seriously, you think she was using that for the "coup"?

I don't know what she planned to do with it. I was just pointing out that you were wrong and that she was carrying a weapon.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Why do you think she was attacking, when she had no meaningful weapon?

The video in this link shows insurrectionists including Babbitt violently attempting to breach the Capitol just before she was killed by an officer defending it and the congresspersons in it from them. New videos capture fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt during Capitol siege

How? By standing on the hall of a building?

By participating in a violent attempt to breach the Capitol and subvert Congress doing its duty certifying the election as you just saw if you looked at the link's video.

No evidence for that.

People have already been convicted using the evidence you say doesn't exist, some of which I just reproduced for you, and there will be several more to follow including Trump and several of his consiglieres.

By what I see, she and Trump stand for the constitution and U.S. against tyranny that democRats are bringing.

Then you don't see well. Trump was attempting to subvert Congress from doing its constitutional duty using the tactics of tyrants, and Ashli Babbitt was there to help him at his indirect request. She was killed for that, and he will go to prison for it. It doesn't matter that you refuse to see that except to you, who will suffer watching Trump's undoing because you hold those beliefs.

And you can grieve Babbitt's death and consider it an injustice.

Did you see the video footage of the young girl trying to escape her captors who was mistakenly shot by police? Or the people distributing food in Gaza who were killed by bombs along with hungry people close to them? Those deaths are injustices, and all empathetic people suffer a little learning about them, but Babbitt's death was entirely different.

Trump has not called that anytime.

That was a response to, "If Trump calls for you to go invade the Capitol for him again, I suggest that you stay home lest you be shot in the face."

He uses dog whistles to try to maintain plausible deniability, but it probably won't help him at his trial for attempting a self-coup:

“Stand back and stand by.”
'Be There. Will Be Wild!'

Several J6 convicts have said that they understood Trump to mean for them to violently attempt to disrupt the certification of the election results, and I expect the jury to believe them at Trump's trial.

Trump calls for violence when he doesn't like what's happening to him using what is called stochastic terrorism: "stochastic terrorism - the public demonization of a person or group resulting in the incitement of a violent act, which is statistically probable but whose specifics cannot be predicted: The lone-wolf attack was apparently influenced by the rhetoric of stochastic terrorism."

He's still doing it, hence the recent flurry of additional gag orders.

 

[jimb]

No evidence for a coup. If there was a coup that day, it was by democRats, who seem to have staged the insurrection.

Your use of the term "democRats" shows that you are immature and have bought into the foolish terminology of bigotry. If you want anyone to take you seriously, GROW UP!.

 

[Comradio251]

Its actually two questions.
1. To the believers
2. To the nonbelievers(lacking belief)

There is no opponent because its not an argument. Its simply seeking thoughts/opinions if they are wrong.

Then it's a question you could possibly not get much insight for because you can simply reply to it as "then I'm wrong." As for not being used in an argument I would disagree from personal experience. I've been on the receiving end where I argued about the afterlife for example and the next question the person asked was "what if you're wrong?" Well, then I'm wrong. *shrugged* I think it's a question from the overly inflated ego in some contexts.

 

[1213]

The video in this link shows insurrectionists including Babbitt violently attempting to breach the Capitol just before she was killed by an officer defending it and the congresspersons in it from them. New videos capture fatal shooting of Ashli Babbitt during Capitol siege

I don't see the "violently" part. But, nice, now I hope everyone is judged the same way.

By participating in a violent attempt to breach the Capitol and subvert Congress doing its duty certifying the election as you just saw if you looked at the link's video.

It is not credible, when the other videos show that the "protesters" were walking in the Capitol peacefully and were like friends with the guards. The story about "coup" is inconsistent.

Trump was attempting to subvert Congress from doing its constitutional duty using the tactics of tyrants,

What do you mean with that?

He uses dog whistles to try to maintain plausible deniability,

That sounds paranoid.

 

[1213]

Do you think Ashli Babbit was a secret agent for the Democrats?

I think Ray Epps was, because he is free and not shot. Ashli Babbit was probably not for the democrats, because she was murdered.

Ashli Babbitt died trying, at the very least, to delay the vote count to prevent the real election results from being certified. This was to buy time for the rest of the coup plot

The "coup plot" seems to be non existent. Where can the plot be seen?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I don't see the "violently" part.

You only need to watch the video, but you have to do so without your confirmation bias, which seems unlikely.

The story about "coup" is inconsistent.

It's not a story. It was a criminal act. The evidence is overwhelming. The insurrection was just one aspect of the failed self-coup. Many other crimes were committed by Trump or for Trump. And many have or soon will take a fall with Trump. All of these attorneys took a fall for trying to assist Trump in stealing the White House from Joe Biden:

"Three attorneys for former President Donald Trump have pleaded guilty in a wide-ranging racketeering indictment that accuses Trump and 18 others of election tampering in Georgia, and agreed to testify against other defendants in the case, including Trump. Prosecutors in Georgia say illegal actions by lawyers Sidney Powell, Kenneth Chesebro and Jenna Ellis were part of an attempt to overthrow the 2020 presidential election results in the state."​

and

"Former Donald Trump lawyer John Eastman is asking a judge to pause his disbarment so he can continue to work and earn income as an attorney while legal fees mount in his criminal case connected to his attempts to overturn the result of the 2020 election."​

and

"The bulk of Giuliani’s debt stems from the $148 million a jury ordered him to pay in a defamation case brought by two 2020 election workers, which prompted him to file for Chapter 11 protection in December."​

You're probably unaware of the false electors, more crimes and fraud perpetrated by friends of Trump for Trump, and more prison time for a few dozen of his dupes:

"Following the results of the 2020 United States presidential election, an obstruction scheme was devised by outgoing 45th U.S. president Donald Trump and his allies in seven states, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, Arizona, Wisconsin, Nevada, and New Mexico, to create and submit fraudulent certificates of ascertainment that falsely asserted Trump had won the electoral college vote in those states.[1] The intent of the scheme was to pass the fraudulent certificates to then-vice president Mike Pence in the hope he would count them, rather than the authentic certificates, and thus overturn Joe Biden's victory."​

and

"On July 18, Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel criminally charged the 16 individuals in Michigan who signed legal documents on December 14, 2020 falsely claiming to be electors for Donald Trump in the electoral college, despite Trump having lost the state by a margin of 154,000 votes. Michigan was one of seven states where “fake electors” claimed that Donald Trump won the 2020."​

What do you mean with that?

I wrote, "Trump was attempting to subvert Congress from doing its constitutional duty using the tactics of tyrants"

The words speak for themselves. If there are any you don't know, find out what they mean. Is this the problem word? "sub·vert - undermine the power and authority of (an established system or institution)" That was the purpose of the insurrection phase of the coup.

You probably know what constitutional means, and you used the word tyrant yourself.

That sounds paranoid.

Your judgment is impaired by your confirmation bias. You have chosen to find Trump blameless and therefore don't see what others see.

The "coup plot" seems to be non existent. Where can the plot be seen?

Plots aren't seen. Evidence is. It's remarkable that you don't see the evidence there, but the fact that you don't makes your opinions unreliable. Trump will be tried for his assault on democracy and he will be convicted by the evidence that you can't see.

 

[F1fan]

I don't see the "violently" part. But, nice, now I hope everyone is judged the same way.

Really? The rioters breaking down a barricaded door isn't violent? They had just broken out the glass in one of the doors and starting to go through, that is when Babbit was shot. It could have been someone else, but she was whipped up into a fervor and she lost the lottery. There were members of congress on the other side of the door and security had to defend them. No one else tried to eneter the chamber.

If she was well informed and used media wisely she never would have believed Trump's lie about election fraud and stayed home that day. And look at you in the same category as her, not using media wisely. It's amazing how effective disinformation is, but we have to blame the consumers because they make the choice to rely on poor quality and unreliable sources.

It is not credible, when the other videos show that the "protesters" were walking in the Capitol peacefully and were like friends with the guards. The story about "coup" is inconsistent.

The police were overwhelmed. It was like the Alamo. The police testified that they could only manage where the trespassers went once they broke into the Capitol. The police testified that if they tried to use force against the rioters that they could have been overwhelmed, and their weapons taken and used on them. So what you are seeing is police doing the best they can given the circumstances. That does not mean the police gave the rioters permission.

I'll bet your media did not show how the police were beaten and injured, and how some had to hold onto their guns so the attackers didn't get ahold of them, and then kill the officer. These weren't tourists.

 

[Muffled]

Ciao

- viole

I believe he is the champion of being wrong.

 

[Muffled]

No, I did not just believe them.

I thoroughly investigated the information that backs up the claims and only then did I believe them.

I believe it was more likely confirmation bias. You wanted it to be true and wouldn't accept any contrary evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

I believe it was more likely confirmation bias. You wanted it to be true and wouldn't accept any contrary evidence.

I never wanted the Baha'i Faith to be true. I don't even like religion!
There is no contrary evidence.

 

[1213]

Really? The rioters breaking down a barricaded door isn't violent?

Ok, if they broke the door, it was wrong and violent. And I also agree that there were other violence outside the building, after the protesters were shot with rubber bullets. I don't think there is any intelligent reason to call it a coup attempt of insurrection, especially because no such plan from anyone, and no credible evidence for such.

There were members of congress on the other side of the door and security had to defend them.

From a knife attack? Ultra credible.

If she was well informed and used media wisely she never would have believed Trump's lie about election fraud and stayed home that day.

Maybe she listened Ray Epps who is the only one inciting the "coup".

The police were overwhelmed. It was like the Alamo.

The police testified that they could only manage where the trespassers went once they broke into the Capitol. The police testified that if they tried to use force against the rioters that they could have been overwhelmed, and their weapons taken and used on them. So what you are seeing is police doing the best they can given the circumstances. That does not mean the police gave the rioters permission.

I'll bet your media did not show how the police were beaten and injured, and how some had to hold onto their guns so the attackers didn't get ahold of them, and then kill the officer. These weren't tourists.

You seriously claim that polices with guns, could not defend themselves from unarmed people, who made nothing indicating violence, inside the house?

If it was a serious attack, they could have kept the door shut and not open it. But, clearly they thought there was nothing serious, because they let them in and were peacefully with them. If there would have been some real coup attempt, they would have shot everyone in the house.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, if they broke the door, it was wrong and violent. And I also agree that there were other violence outside the building, after the protesters were shot with rubber bullets. I don't think there is any intelligent reason to call it a coup attempt of insurrection, especially because no such plan from anyone, and no credible evidence for such.

Are you talking about Ashi Babbitt's motives specifically, or do you not see credible evidence at all for a coup?