@ Labor Senators

[S019]

This is the Trumpification of the Atlasian left.

Funniest thing I’ve read all day.

When you insist on maintaining the ability of the President to hijack an election via executive order for bs reasons, you get what you deserve.

I'll say it again, you have no credibility on any claim of the left being Trumpist until you purge all 1/6 supporters from your party. I want to hear nothing more on this as long as your party is still supporting people like DeadPrez and Mr. Reactionary.

If you are concerned about Mr. R and Deadprez, then pass the restraints that will protect us from everyone now and in the future from abuse. That is what the constitutional amendment was for.

This is a ridiculous counter argument that acts as if my amendment only restricts laborites.

I am concerned that your caucus continues to keep people who don't support real life democracy and is trying to wedge the left over a game.

This is the Trumpification of the Atlasian left.

Funniest thing I’ve read all day.

When you insist on maintaining the ability of the President to hijack an election via executive order for bs reasons, you get what you deserve.

I'll say it again, you have no credibility on any claim of the left being Trumpist until you purge all 1/6 supporters from your party. I want to hear nothing more on this as long as your party is still supporting people like DeadPrez and Mr. Reactionary.

Neither of the people you listed supported 1/6.

You actively look part in and to this day continue to defend the Atlasian equivalent of 1/6. Let us know when you're ready to apologize.

Did Joe Biden win the 2020 election? Did Donald Trump attempt to overturn the 2020 election? Did Donald Trump incite a mob to go and attack the Capitol to overturn the 2020 election? Did Donald Trump pressure Mike Pence to overturn the 2020 election? Did the vast majority of congressional Republicans vote against finding out what really happened on 1/6?


I'm waiting....

I have literally never posted anything that has even suggested I supported 1/6.

Then answer the questions

Why don't you answer the question. Why does "potential fears of abuse by conservatives" justify blocking the reforms that would protect us from everyone and anyone attempting to abuse the Presidency to steal an election?  You should be wanting this if you are concerned about that.

What I have said in the past is that this unnecessarily weakens the executive branch, which it seems your side seems destined to do further by abolishing Chevron deference. All this will do is gut the executive branch for no real gain. If an administration goes rogue, a tool for that exists: impeachment. If people truly want to steal an election and they have the support to do it, they will resort to other means. Even if this amendment passes, any rogue President with a Senate majority could just pack the Supreme Court with lackeys and overturn an election. Not to mention that the whole purpose of the Cabinet is to serve at the leisure of the president, if the president goes rogue, the Cabinet members have an obligation to resign.

[WD]

This is the Trumpification of the Atlasian left.

Funniest thing I’ve read all day.

When you insist on maintaining the ability of the President to hijack an election via executive order for bs reasons, you get what you deserve.

I'll say it again, you have no credibility on any claim of the left being Trumpist until you purge all 1/6 supporters from your party. I want to hear nothing more on this as long as your party is still supporting people like DeadPrez and Mr. Reactionary.

If you are concerned about Mr. R and Deadprez, then pass the restraints that will protect us from everyone now and in the future from abuse. That is what the constitutional amendment was for.

This is a ridiculous counter argument that acts as if my amendment only restricts laborites.

I am concerned that your caucus continues to keep people who don't support real life democracy and is trying to wedge the left over a game.

This is the Trumpification of the Atlasian left.

Funniest thing I’ve read all day.

When you insist on maintaining the ability of the President to hijack an election via executive order for bs reasons, you get what you deserve.

I'll say it again, you have no credibility on any claim of the left being Trumpist until you purge all 1/6 supporters from your party. I want to hear nothing more on this as long as your party is still supporting people like DeadPrez and Mr. Reactionary.

Neither of the people you listed supported 1/6.

You actively look part in and to this day continue to defend the Atlasian equivalent of 1/6. Let us know when you're ready to apologize.

Did Joe Biden win the 2020 election? Did Donald Trump attempt to overturn the 2020 election? Did Donald Trump incite a mob to go and attack the Capitol to overturn the 2020 election? Did Donald Trump pressure Mike Pence to overturn the 2020 election? Did the vast majority of congressional Republicans vote against finding out what really happened on 1/6?


I'm waiting....

I have literally never posted anything that has even suggested I supported 1/6.

Then answer the questions

Why don't you answer the question. Why does "potential fears of abuse by conservatives" justify blocking the reforms that would protect us from everyone and anyone attempting to abuse the Presidency to steal an election?  You should be wanting this if you are concerned about that.

What I have said in the past is that this unnecessarily weakens the executive branch, which it seems your side seems destined to do further by abolishing Chevron deference. All this will do is gut the executive branch for no real gain. If an administration goes rogue, a tool for that exists: impeachment. If people truly want to steal an election and they have the support to do it, they will resort to other means. Even if this amendment passes, any rogue President with a Senate majority could just pack the Supreme Court with lackeys and overturn an election. Not to mention that the whole purpose of the Cabinet is to serve at the leisure of the president, if the president goes rogue, the Cabinet members have an obligation to resign.

At the end of the day, what this is in part about is weakening any potential future Labor President.

[Mr. Reactionary]

During his speech at the ellipse he literally said they would "walk down to the capitol."

Yes. How is that inciting a mob to attack the Capitol? Walking down to the Capitol isnt imminent lawless action.

[Mr. Reactionary]

At the end of the day, what this is in part about is weakening any potential future Labor President.

Good. No Labor President should ever be again permitted to invade a Region, suspend habeas corpus, set up internment camps, issue phony indictments, steal private property, or nefariously scheme to replace the Election Official for the stated purpose of illegally miscounting votes.

[S019]

During his speech at the ellipse he literally said they would "walk down to the capitol."

Yes. How is that inciting a mob to attack the Capitol? Walking down to the Capitol isnt imminent lawless action.

If you really want to play this game, when he was informed that people were chanting "Hang Mike Pence," he said "maybe Mike Pence should be hung." Also, what should be noted is he resisted telling the rioters to go home for hours and resisted sending in the National Guard. Also people came to his rally with weapons and he wanted them to be let in, because he "knew they weren't there for [him]." He told them that you "can't take back your country with weakness." He had been telling his supporters for weeks to come to Washington on the 6th and even said, "it will be wild." It takes maybe a kindergartener to put 2+2 together, you're a grown man, I know you don't lack critical thinking skills. When the evidence is put before you, and you have none, you should be changing your opinion and siding with the evidence.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

What I have said in the past is that this unnecessarily weakens the executive branch, which it seems your side seems destined to do further by abolishing Chevron deference. All this will do is gut the executive branch for no real gain. If an administration goes rogue, a tool for that exists: impeachment. If people truly want to steal an election and they have the support to do it, they will resort to other means. Even if this amendment passes, any rogue President with a Senate majority could just pack the Supreme Court with lackeys and overturn an election. Not to mention that the whole purpose of the Cabinet is to serve at the leisure of the president, if the president goes rogue, the Cabinet members have an obligation to resign.

The GM is not part of the cabinet for example. The SoFE and RG historically were constitutionally derived pre-reset along with the rest of the cabinet by accident. Your argument holds water if this were SoIA or SoS, but not with the elections officers and we have already decided one function is "outside the cabinet" already because of previous Presidential overreach and conflicts of interest. Can there be any position where this criteria fits more than the ones who administer the President's election?

If the GM can be independent of the cabinet, so can the SoFE and the RG.

[Mr. Reactionary]

During his speech at the ellipse he literally said they would "walk down to the capitol."

Yes. How is that inciting a mob to attack the Capitol? Walking down to the Capitol isnt imminent lawless action.

If you really want to play this game, when he was informed that people were chanting "Hang Mike Pence," he said "maybe Mike Pence should be hung." Also, what should be noted is he resisted telling the rioters to go home for hours and resisted sending in the National Guard. Also people came to his rally with weapons and he wanted them to be let in, because he "knew they weren't there for [him]." He told them that you "can't take back your country with weakness." He had been telling his supporters for weeks to come to Washington on the 6th and even said, "it will be wild." It takes maybe a kindergartener to put 2+2 together, you're a grown man, I know you don't lack critical thinking skills. When the evidence is put before you, and you have none, you should be changing your opinion and siding with the evidence.

None of what you said is particulary persuasive that incitement happened. Crimes have definitions. If you dont meet the definition, you arent a criminal.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

During his speech at the ellipse he literally said they would "walk down to the capitol."

Yes. How is that inciting a mob to attack the Capitol? Walking down to the Capitol isnt imminent lawless action.

If you really want to play this game, when he was informed that people were chanting "Hang Mike Pence," he said "maybe Mike Pence should be hung." Also, what should be noted is he resisted telling the rioters to go home for hours and resisted sending in the National Guard. Also people came to his rally with weapons and he wanted them to be let in, because he "knew they weren't there for [him]." He told them that you "can't take back your country with weakness." He had been telling his supporters for weeks to come to Washington on the 6th and even said, "it will be wild." It takes maybe a kindergartener to put 2+2 together, you're a grown man, I know you don't lack critical thinking skills. When the evidence is put before you, and you have none, you should be changing your opinion and siding with the evidence.

And in Atlasia, a President just has to sign an executive order and they count the votes. No attack on the capital needed. A dynamic you voted to preserve because of Mr. R and Deadprez won't condemn 1/6.

That is like voting to keep lead in gasoline because the oil company won't condemn the effects of lead on people, and because gasoline contributes to global warming and banning lead doesn't solve those also. 

[S019]

During his speech at the ellipse he literally said they would "walk down to the capitol."

Yes. How is that inciting a mob to attack the Capitol? Walking down to the Capitol isnt imminent lawless action.

If you really want to play this game, when he was informed that people were chanting "Hang Mike Pence," he said "maybe Mike Pence should be hung." Also, what should be noted is he resisted telling the rioters to go home for hours and resisted sending in the National Guard. Also people came to his rally with weapons and he wanted them to be let in, because he "knew they weren't there for [him]." He told them that you "can't take back your country with weakness." He had been telling his supporters for weeks to come to Washington on the 6th and even said, "it will be wild." It takes maybe a kindergartener to put 2+2 together, you're a grown man, I know you don't lack critical thinking skills. When the evidence is put before you, and you have none, you should be changing your opinion and siding with the evidence.

None of what you said is particulary persuasive that incitement happened. Crimes have definitions. If you dont meet the definition, you arent a criminal.

Okay so a question, who exactly were they coming with weapons for, if not Trump? Why were people assembled in Washington on the day of the Joint Session of Congress? What is very clear is that there is only one logical place that was their target, especially given that Trump was still trying to overturn the election, and that is the Capitol Building. So, I think it's basically certain that any reasonable observer can deduce that they were going to the Capitol. Now, considering that he knew that were people with riot gear and weapons in the crowd and told them to march to the Capitol, what did he think would happen? Like seriously? What do you think would've happened? No no no no no, they obviously came to the Ellipse in riot gear and with guns just because they wanted to, there was never any plan for violence, no no no, they just dress like that normally. Is this what you're seriously going to argue?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Even if this amendment passes, any rogue President with a Senate majority could just pack the Supreme Court with lackeys and overturn an election.

Does anyone who has bothered to read our constitution want to tell me why this isn't possible?

[fhtagn]

During his speech at the ellipse he literally said they would "walk down to the capitol."

Yes. How is that inciting a mob to attack the Capitol? Walking down to the Capitol isnt imminent lawless action.

If you really want to play this game, when he was informed that people were chanting "Hang Mike Pence," he said "maybe Mike Pence should be hung." Also, what should be noted is he resisted telling the rioters to go home for hours and resisted sending in the National Guard. Also people came to his rally with weapons and he wanted them to be let in, because he "knew they weren't there for [him]." He told them that you "can't take back your country with weakness." He had been telling his supporters for weeks to come to Washington on the 6th and even said, "it will be wild." It takes maybe a kindergartener to put 2+2 together, you're a grown man, I know you don't lack critical thinking skills. When the evidence is put before you, and you have none, you should be changing your opinion and siding with the evidence.

None of what you said is particulary persuasive that incitement happened. Crimes have definitions. If you dont meet the definition, you arent a criminal.

Okay so a question, who exactly were they coming with weapons for, if not Trump? Why were people assembled in Washington on the day of the Joint Session of Congress? What is very clear is that there is only one logical place that was their target, especially given that Trump was still trying to overturn the election, and that is the Capitol Building. So, I think it's basically certain that any reasonable observer can deduce that they were going to the Capitol. Now, considering that he knew that were people with riot gear and weapons in the crowd and told them to march to the Capitol, what did he think would happen? Like seriously? What do you think would've happened? No no no no no, they obviously came to the Ellipse in riot gear and with guns just because they wanted to, there was never any plan for violence, no no no, they just dress like that normally. Is this what you're seriously going to argue?

I don't know if you just don't pay attention or you're just ignoring this for your silly argument, but Republican rallies have people carrying weapons all the time. Its not exactly something out of the ordinary, especially in an outside, not enclosed setting.

[fhtagn]

Even if this amendment passes, any rogue President with a Senate majority could just pack the Supreme Court with lackeys and overturn an election.

Does anyone who has bothered to read our constitution want to tell me why this isn't possible?

That requires actually reading.

[S019]

During his speech at the ellipse he literally said they would "walk down to the capitol."

Yes. How is that inciting a mob to attack the Capitol? Walking down to the Capitol isnt imminent lawless action.

If you really want to play this game, when he was informed that people were chanting "Hang Mike Pence," he said "maybe Mike Pence should be hung." Also, what should be noted is he resisted telling the rioters to go home for hours and resisted sending in the National Guard. Also people came to his rally with weapons and he wanted them to be let in, because he "knew they weren't there for [him]." He told them that you "can't take back your country with weakness." He had been telling his supporters for weeks to come to Washington on the 6th and even said, "it will be wild." It takes maybe a kindergartener to put 2+2 together, you're a grown man, I know you don't lack critical thinking skills. When the evidence is put before you, and you have none, you should be changing your opinion and siding with the evidence.

None of what you said is particulary persuasive that incitement happened. Crimes have definitions. If you dont meet the definition, you arent a criminal.

Okay so a question, who exactly were they coming with weapons for, if not Trump? Why were people assembled in Washington on the day of the Joint Session of Congress? What is very clear is that there is only one logical place that was their target, especially given that Trump was still trying to overturn the election, and that is the Capitol Building. So, I think it's basically certain that any reasonable observer can deduce that they were going to the Capitol. Now, considering that he knew that were people with riot gear and weapons in the crowd and told them to march to the Capitol, what did he think would happen? Like seriously? What do you think would've happened? No no no no no, they obviously came to the Ellipse in riot gear and with guns just because they wanted to, there was never any plan for violence, no no no, they just dress like that normally. Is this what you're seriously going to argue?

I don't know if you just don't pay attention or you're just ignoring this for your silly argument, but Republican rallies have people carrying weapons all the time. Its not exactly something out of the ordinary, especially in an outside, not enclosed setting.

Pretending they just came for the rally is quite disingenuous. Also this still doesn't explain why they were in riot gear? It's clear some people came prepared for a fight.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

During his speech at the ellipse he literally said they would "walk down to the capitol."

Yes. How is that inciting a mob to attack the Capitol? Walking down to the Capitol isnt imminent lawless action.

If you really want to play this game, when he was informed that people were chanting "Hang Mike Pence," he said "maybe Mike Pence should be hung." Also, what should be noted is he resisted telling the rioters to go home for hours and resisted sending in the National Guard. Also people came to his rally with weapons and he wanted them to be let in, because he "knew they weren't there for [him]." He told them that you "can't take back your country with weakness." He had been telling his supporters for weeks to come to Washington on the 6th and even said, "it will be wild." It takes maybe a kindergartener to put 2+2 together, you're a grown man, I know you don't lack critical thinking skills. When the evidence is put before you, and you have none, you should be changing your opinion and siding with the evidence.

None of what you said is particulary persuasive that incitement happened. Crimes have definitions. If you dont meet the definition, you arent a criminal.

Okay so a question, who exactly were they coming with weapons for, if not Trump? Why were people assembled in Washington on the day of the Joint Session of Congress? What is very clear is that there is only one logical place that was their target, especially given that Trump was still trying to overturn the election, and that is the Capitol Building. So, I think it's basically certain that any reasonable observer can deduce that they were going to the Capitol. Now, considering that he knew that were people with riot gear and weapons in the crowd and told them to march to the Capitol, what did he think would happen? Like seriously? What do you think would've happened? No no no no no, they obviously came to the Ellipse in riot gear and with guns just because they wanted to, there was never any plan for violence, no no no, they just dress like that normally. Is this what you're seriously going to argue?

I don't know if you just don't pay attention or you're just ignoring this for your silly argument, but Republican rallies have people carrying weapons all the time. Its not exactly something out of the ordinary, especially in an outside, not enclosed setting.

Pretending they just came for the rally is quite disingenuous. Also this still doesn't explain why they were in riot gear? It's clear some people came prepared for a fight.

So because of your petty beefs with Mr. R and Fhtagn, along with failure to read Article V, Atlasians have to live in perpetual fear of the President's pen?

[fhtagn]

During his speech at the ellipse he literally said they would "walk down to the capitol."

Yes. How is that inciting a mob to attack the Capitol? Walking down to the Capitol isnt imminent lawless action.

If you really want to play this game, when he was informed that people were chanting "Hang Mike Pence," he said "maybe Mike Pence should be hung." Also, what should be noted is he resisted telling the rioters to go home for hours and resisted sending in the National Guard. Also people came to his rally with weapons and he wanted them to be let in, because he "knew they weren't there for [him]." He told them that you "can't take back your country with weakness." He had been telling his supporters for weeks to come to Washington on the 6th and even said, "it will be wild." It takes maybe a kindergartener to put 2+2 together, you're a grown man, I know you don't lack critical thinking skills. When the evidence is put before you, and you have none, you should be changing your opinion and siding with the evidence.

None of what you said is particulary persuasive that incitement happened. Crimes have definitions. If you dont meet the definition, you arent a criminal.

Okay so a question, who exactly were they coming with weapons for, if not Trump? Why were people assembled in Washington on the day of the Joint Session of Congress? What is very clear is that there is only one logical place that was their target, especially given that Trump was still trying to overturn the election, and that is the Capitol Building. So, I think it's basically certain that any reasonable observer can deduce that they were going to the Capitol. Now, considering that he knew that were people with riot gear and weapons in the crowd and told them to march to the Capitol, what did he think would happen? Like seriously? What do you think would've happened? No no no no no, they obviously came to the Ellipse in riot gear and with guns just because they wanted to, there was never any plan for violence, no no no, they just dress like that normally. Is this what you're seriously going to argue?

I don't know if you just don't pay attention or you're just ignoring this for your silly argument, but Republican rallies have people carrying weapons all the time. Its not exactly something out of the ordinary, especially in an outside, not enclosed setting.

Pretending they just came for the rally is quite disingenuous. Also this still doesn't explain why they were in riot gear? It's clear some people came prepared for a fight.

I've been to a large number of 2A rallies with people in riot gear

[S019]

During his speech at the ellipse he literally said they would "walk down to the capitol."

Yes. How is that inciting a mob to attack the Capitol? Walking down to the Capitol isnt imminent lawless action.

If you really want to play this game, when he was informed that people were chanting "Hang Mike Pence," he said "maybe Mike Pence should be hung." Also, what should be noted is he resisted telling the rioters to go home for hours and resisted sending in the National Guard. Also people came to his rally with weapons and he wanted them to be let in, because he "knew they weren't there for [him]." He told them that you "can't take back your country with weakness." He had been telling his supporters for weeks to come to Washington on the 6th and even said, "it will be wild." It takes maybe a kindergartener to put 2+2 together, you're a grown man, I know you don't lack critical thinking skills. When the evidence is put before you, and you have none, you should be changing your opinion and siding with the evidence.

None of what you said is particulary persuasive that incitement happened. Crimes have definitions. If you dont meet the definition, you arent a criminal.

Okay so a question, who exactly were they coming with weapons for, if not Trump? Why were people assembled in Washington on the day of the Joint Session of Congress? What is very clear is that there is only one logical place that was their target, especially given that Trump was still trying to overturn the election, and that is the Capitol Building. So, I think it's basically certain that any reasonable observer can deduce that they were going to the Capitol. Now, considering that he knew that were people with riot gear and weapons in the crowd and told them to march to the Capitol, what did he think would happen? Like seriously? What do you think would've happened? No no no no no, they obviously came to the Ellipse in riot gear and with guns just because they wanted to, there was never any plan for violence, no no no, they just dress like that normally. Is this what you're seriously going to argue?

I don't know if you just don't pay attention or you're just ignoring this for your silly argument, but Republican rallies have people carrying weapons all the time. Its not exactly something out of the ordinary, especially in an outside, not enclosed setting.

Pretending they just came for the rally is quite disingenuous. Also this still doesn't explain why they were in riot gear? It's clear some people came prepared for a fight.

I've been to a large number of 2A rallies with people in riot gear

This isn't remotely comparable to the rally at the Ellipse and I don't need to tell you why. Try harder.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Why isn't every time S019 does something ridiculous, it is some combination of fhtagn/Mr. R/Deadprez made me do it because they said/did x,y,z?

[fhtagn]

During his speech at the ellipse he literally said they would "walk down to the capitol."

Yes. How is that inciting a mob to attack the Capitol? Walking down to the Capitol isnt imminent lawless action.

If you really want to play this game, when he was informed that people were chanting "Hang Mike Pence," he said "maybe Mike Pence should be hung." Also, what should be noted is he resisted telling the rioters to go home for hours and resisted sending in the National Guard. Also people came to his rally with weapons and he wanted them to be let in, because he "knew they weren't there for [him]." He told them that you "can't take back your country with weakness." He had been telling his supporters for weeks to come to Washington on the 6th and even said, "it will be wild." It takes maybe a kindergartener to put 2+2 together, you're a grown man, I know you don't lack critical thinking skills. When the evidence is put before you, and you have none, you should be changing your opinion and siding with the evidence.

None of what you said is particulary persuasive that incitement happened. Crimes have definitions. If you dont meet the definition, you arent a criminal.

Okay so a question, who exactly were they coming with weapons for, if not Trump? Why were people assembled in Washington on the day of the Joint Session of Congress? What is very clear is that there is only one logical place that was their target, especially given that Trump was still trying to overturn the election, and that is the Capitol Building. So, I think it's basically certain that any reasonable observer can deduce that they were going to the Capitol. Now, considering that he knew that were people with riot gear and weapons in the crowd and told them to march to the Capitol, what did he think would happen? Like seriously? What do you think would've happened? No no no no no, they obviously came to the Ellipse in riot gear and with guns just because they wanted to, there was never any plan for violence, no no no, they just dress like that normally. Is this what you're seriously going to argue?

I don't know if you just don't pay attention or you're just ignoring this for your silly argument, but Republican rallies have people carrying weapons all the time. Its not exactly something out of the ordinary, especially in an outside, not enclosed setting.

Pretending they just came for the rally is quite disingenuous. Also this still doesn't explain why they were in riot gear? It's clear some people came prepared for a fight.

I've been to a large number of 2A rallies with people in riot gear

This isn't remotely comparable to the rally at the Ellipse and I don't need to tell you why. Try harder.

You're just looking for excuses and moving goalposts every time your argument falls apart.

[fhtagn]

Why isn't every time S019 does something ridiculous, it is some combination of fhtagn/Mr. R/Deadprez made me do it because they said/did x,y,z?

We live in his head rent free

[S019]

During his speech at the ellipse he literally said they would "walk down to the capitol."

Yes. How is that inciting a mob to attack the Capitol? Walking down to the Capitol isnt imminent lawless action.

If you really want to play this game, when he was informed that people were chanting "Hang Mike Pence," he said "maybe Mike Pence should be hung." Also, what should be noted is he resisted telling the rioters to go home for hours and resisted sending in the National Guard. Also people came to his rally with weapons and he wanted them to be let in, because he "knew they weren't there for [him]." He told them that you "can't take back your country with weakness." He had been telling his supporters for weeks to come to Washington on the 6th and even said, "it will be wild." It takes maybe a kindergartener to put 2+2 together, you're a grown man, I know you don't lack critical thinking skills. When the evidence is put before you, and you have none, you should be changing your opinion and siding with the evidence.

None of what you said is particulary persuasive that incitement happened. Crimes have definitions. If you dont meet the definition, you arent a criminal.

Okay so a question, who exactly were they coming with weapons for, if not Trump? Why were people assembled in Washington on the day of the Joint Session of Congress? What is very clear is that there is only one logical place that was their target, especially given that Trump was still trying to overturn the election, and that is the Capitol Building. So, I think it's basically certain that any reasonable observer can deduce that they were going to the Capitol. Now, considering that he knew that were people with riot gear and weapons in the crowd and told them to march to the Capitol, what did he think would happen? Like seriously? What do you think would've happened? No no no no no, they obviously came to the Ellipse in riot gear and with guns just because they wanted to, there was never any plan for violence, no no no, they just dress like that normally. Is this what you're seriously going to argue?

I don't know if you just don't pay attention or you're just ignoring this for your silly argument, but Republican rallies have people carrying weapons all the time. Its not exactly something out of the ordinary, especially in an outside, not enclosed setting.

Pretending they just came for the rally is quite disingenuous. Also this still doesn't explain why they were in riot gear? It's clear some people came prepared for a fight.

I've been to a large number of 2A rallies with people in riot gear

This isn't remotely comparable to the rally at the Ellipse and I don't need to tell you why. Try harder.

You're just looking for excuses and moving goalposts every time your argument falls apart.

You haven't actually given me any hard evidence besides just anecdotal evidence. Also it's very clear that the people from the Ellipse later went to the Capitol and eventually stormed it. Trump summoned them to DC to begin with, if he had never summoned them, they wouldn't have been there to storm the Capitol.

[fhtagn]

During his speech at the ellipse he literally said they would "walk down to the capitol."

Yes. How is that inciting a mob to attack the Capitol? Walking down to the Capitol isnt imminent lawless action.

If you really want to play this game, when he was informed that people were chanting "Hang Mike Pence," he said "maybe Mike Pence should be hung." Also, what should be noted is he resisted telling the rioters to go home for hours and resisted sending in the National Guard. Also people came to his rally with weapons and he wanted them to be let in, because he "knew they weren't there for [him]." He told them that you "can't take back your country with weakness." He had been telling his supporters for weeks to come to Washington on the 6th and even said, "it will be wild." It takes maybe a kindergartener to put 2+2 together, you're a grown man, I know you don't lack critical thinking skills. When the evidence is put before you, and you have none, you should be changing your opinion and siding with the evidence.

None of what you said is particulary persuasive that incitement happened. Crimes have definitions. If you dont meet the definition, you arent a criminal.

Okay so a question, who exactly were they coming with weapons for, if not Trump? Why were people assembled in Washington on the day of the Joint Session of Congress? What is very clear is that there is only one logical place that was their target, especially given that Trump was still trying to overturn the election, and that is the Capitol Building. So, I think it's basically certain that any reasonable observer can deduce that they were going to the Capitol. Now, considering that he knew that were people with riot gear and weapons in the crowd and told them to march to the Capitol, what did he think would happen? Like seriously? What do you think would've happened? No no no no no, they obviously came to the Ellipse in riot gear and with guns just because they wanted to, there was never any plan for violence, no no no, they just dress like that normally. Is this what you're seriously going to argue?

I don't know if you just don't pay attention or you're just ignoring this for your silly argument, but Republican rallies have people carrying weapons all the time. Its not exactly something out of the ordinary, especially in an outside, not enclosed setting.

Pretending they just came for the rally is quite disingenuous. Also this still doesn't explain why they were in riot gear? It's clear some people came prepared for a fight.

I've been to a large number of 2A rallies with people in riot gear

This isn't remotely comparable to the rally at the Ellipse and I don't need to tell you why. Try harder.

You're just looking for excuses and moving goalposts every time your argument falls apart.

You haven't actually given me any hard evidence besides just anecdotal evidence. Also it's very clear that the people from the Ellipse later went to the Capitol and eventually stormed it. Trump summoned them to DC to begin with, if he had never summoned them, they wouldn't have been there to storm the Capitol.

Bringing people to DC for a rally (which he has a lot of, even now after he is no longer President), and telling people to walk to the Capitol does not fit the definition of incitement under any meaningful definition. 

[S019]

During his speech at the ellipse he literally said they would "walk down to the capitol."

Yes. How is that inciting a mob to attack the Capitol? Walking down to the Capitol isnt imminent lawless action.

If you really want to play this game, when he was informed that people were chanting "Hang Mike Pence," he said "maybe Mike Pence should be hung." Also, what should be noted is he resisted telling the rioters to go home for hours and resisted sending in the National Guard. Also people came to his rally with weapons and he wanted them to be let in, because he "knew they weren't there for [him]." He told them that you "can't take back your country with weakness." He had been telling his supporters for weeks to come to Washington on the 6th and even said, "it will be wild." It takes maybe a kindergartener to put 2+2 together, you're a grown man, I know you don't lack critical thinking skills. When the evidence is put before you, and you have none, you should be changing your opinion and siding with the evidence.

None of what you said is particulary persuasive that incitement happened. Crimes have definitions. If you dont meet the definition, you arent a criminal.

Okay so a question, who exactly were they coming with weapons for, if not Trump? Why were people assembled in Washington on the day of the Joint Session of Congress? What is very clear is that there is only one logical place that was their target, especially given that Trump was still trying to overturn the election, and that is the Capitol Building. So, I think it's basically certain that any reasonable observer can deduce that they were going to the Capitol. Now, considering that he knew that were people with riot gear and weapons in the crowd and told them to march to the Capitol, what did he think would happen? Like seriously? What do you think would've happened? No no no no no, they obviously came to the Ellipse in riot gear and with guns just because they wanted to, there was never any plan for violence, no no no, they just dress like that normally. Is this what you're seriously going to argue?

I don't know if you just don't pay attention or you're just ignoring this for your silly argument, but Republican rallies have people carrying weapons all the time. Its not exactly something out of the ordinary, especially in an outside, not enclosed setting.

Pretending they just came for the rally is quite disingenuous. Also this still doesn't explain why they were in riot gear? It's clear some people came prepared for a fight.

I've been to a large number of 2A rallies with people in riot gear

This isn't remotely comparable to the rally at the Ellipse and I don't need to tell you why. Try harder.

You're just looking for excuses and moving goalposts every time your argument falls apart.

You haven't actually given me any hard evidence besides just anecdotal evidence. Also it's very clear that the people from the Ellipse later went to the Capitol and eventually stormed it. Trump summoned them to DC to begin with, if he had never summoned them, they wouldn't have been there to storm the Capitol.

Bringing people to DC for a rally (which he has a lot of, even now after he is no longer President), and telling people to walk to the Capitol does not fit the definition of incitement under any meaningful definition. 

You still haven't addressed my point, he knew that some of them had guns and riot gear, which is why they wouldn't be allowed near the Ellipse and had to watch the speech from outside. Now knowing that he still told them to march to the Capitol. Also we have reports that Trump was very happy while the riot was going on. I mean is all of this not enough for you?

[fhtagn]

During his speech at the ellipse he literally said they would "walk down to the capitol."

Yes. How is that inciting a mob to attack the Capitol? Walking down to the Capitol isnt imminent lawless action.

If you really want to play this game, when he was informed that people were chanting "Hang Mike Pence," he said "maybe Mike Pence should be hung." Also, what should be noted is he resisted telling the rioters to go home for hours and resisted sending in the National Guard. Also people came to his rally with weapons and he wanted them to be let in, because he "knew they weren't there for [him]." He told them that you "can't take back your country with weakness." He had been telling his supporters for weeks to come to Washington on the 6th and even said, "it will be wild." It takes maybe a kindergartener to put 2+2 together, you're a grown man, I know you don't lack critical thinking skills. When the evidence is put before you, and you have none, you should be changing your opinion and siding with the evidence.

None of what you said is particulary persuasive that incitement happened. Crimes have definitions. If you dont meet the definition, you arent a criminal.

Okay so a question, who exactly were they coming with weapons for, if not Trump? Why were people assembled in Washington on the day of the Joint Session of Congress? What is very clear is that there is only one logical place that was their target, especially given that Trump was still trying to overturn the election, and that is the Capitol Building. So, I think it's basically certain that any reasonable observer can deduce that they were going to the Capitol. Now, considering that he knew that were people with riot gear and weapons in the crowd and told them to march to the Capitol, what did he think would happen? Like seriously? What do you think would've happened? No no no no no, they obviously came to the Ellipse in riot gear and with guns just because they wanted to, there was never any plan for violence, no no no, they just dress like that normally. Is this what you're seriously going to argue?

I don't know if you just don't pay attention or you're just ignoring this for your silly argument, but Republican rallies have people carrying weapons all the time. Its not exactly something out of the ordinary, especially in an outside, not enclosed setting.

Pretending they just came for the rally is quite disingenuous. Also this still doesn't explain why they were in riot gear? It's clear some people came prepared for a fight.

I've been to a large number of 2A rallies with people in riot gear

This isn't remotely comparable to the rally at the Ellipse and I don't need to tell you why. Try harder.

You're just looking for excuses and moving goalposts every time your argument falls apart.

You haven't actually given me any hard evidence besides just anecdotal evidence. Also it's very clear that the people from the Ellipse later went to the Capitol and eventually stormed it. Trump summoned them to DC to begin with, if he had never summoned them, they wouldn't have been there to storm the Capitol.

Bringing people to DC for a rally (which he has a lot of, even now after he is no longer President), and telling people to walk to the Capitol does not fit the definition of incitement under any meaningful definition. 

You still haven't addressed my point, he knew that some of them had guns and riot gear, which is why they wouldn't be allowed near the Ellipse and had to watch the speech from outside. Now knowing that he still told them to march to the Capitol. Also we have reports that Trump was very happy while the riot was going on. I mean is all of this not enough for you?

You have not provided a single shred of evidence that he incited the incident at the Capitol. The only "evidence" you have given doesn't prove your argument in any way. It's pretty well known that the number of people that stormed the Capitol was significantly smaller than the number of people in the crowd at the rally, so I'm not sure where you get this silly idea that one can tell exactly what is going to happen by looking at who was in the crowd, especially when they're dressed similar to how they would dress at any other rally.

[Mr. Reactionary]

If Trump had committed incitement he would have been indicted by Merrick Garland back in 2021.

[S019]

During his speech at the ellipse he literally said they would "walk down to the capitol."

Yes. How is that inciting a mob to attack the Capitol? Walking down to the Capitol isnt imminent lawless action.

If you really want to play this game, when he was informed that people were chanting "Hang Mike Pence," he said "maybe Mike Pence should be hung." Also, what should be noted is he resisted telling the rioters to go home for hours and resisted sending in the National Guard. Also people came to his rally with weapons and he wanted them to be let in, because he "knew they weren't there for [him]." He told them that you "can't take back your country with weakness." He had been telling his supporters for weeks to come to Washington on the 6th and even said, "it will be wild." It takes maybe a kindergartener to put 2+2 together, you're a grown man, I know you don't lack critical thinking skills. When the evidence is put before you, and you have none, you should be changing your opinion and siding with the evidence.

None of what you said is particulary persuasive that incitement happened. Crimes have definitions. If you dont meet the definition, you arent a criminal.

Okay so a question, who exactly were they coming with weapons for, if not Trump? Why were people assembled in Washington on the day of the Joint Session of Congress? What is very clear is that there is only one logical place that was their target, especially given that Trump was still trying to overturn the election, and that is the Capitol Building. So, I think it's basically certain that any reasonable observer can deduce that they were going to the Capitol. Now, considering that he knew that were people with riot gear and weapons in the crowd and told them to march to the Capitol, what did he think would happen? Like seriously? What do you think would've happened? No no no no no, they obviously came to the Ellipse in riot gear and with guns just because they wanted to, there was never any plan for violence, no no no, they just dress like that normally. Is this what you're seriously going to argue?

I don't know if you just don't pay attention or you're just ignoring this for your silly argument, but Republican rallies have people carrying weapons all the time. Its not exactly something out of the ordinary, especially in an outside, not enclosed setting.

Pretending they just came for the rally is quite disingenuous. Also this still doesn't explain why they were in riot gear? It's clear some people came prepared for a fight.

I've been to a large number of 2A rallies with people in riot gear

This isn't remotely comparable to the rally at the Ellipse and I don't need to tell you why. Try harder.

You're just looking for excuses and moving goalposts every time your argument falls apart.

You haven't actually given me any hard evidence besides just anecdotal evidence. Also it's very clear that the people from the Ellipse later went to the Capitol and eventually stormed it. Trump summoned them to DC to begin with, if he had never summoned them, they wouldn't have been there to storm the Capitol.

Bringing people to DC for a rally (which he has a lot of, even now after he is no longer President), and telling people to walk to the Capitol does not fit the definition of incitement under any meaningful definition. 

You still haven't addressed my point, he knew that some of them had guns and riot gear, which is why they wouldn't be allowed near the Ellipse and had to watch the speech from outside. Now knowing that he still told them to march to the Capitol. Also we have reports that Trump was very happy while the riot was going on. I mean is all of this not enough for you?

You have not provided a single shred of evidence that he incited the incident at the Capitol. The only "evidence" you have given doesn't prove your argument in any way. It's pretty well known that the number of people that stormed the Capitol was significantly smaller than the number of people in the crowd at the rally, so I'm not sure where you get this silly idea that one can tell exactly what is going to happen by looking at who was in the crowd, especially when they're dressed similar to how they would dress at any other rally.

The fact that he told them to "march to the Capitol" matters, I think. He was informed yet again that people had guns in the crowd. He said "They're not here to hurt me," like why do you think armed people just show up. Also we know that a possible threat of violence was anticipated by Trump's inner circle leading up to January 6th. Mark Meadows literally said "things could get very bad," 4 days before the riot happened. Why do you think he said that?