Biden: "You can’t be pro-insurrection and pro-America."

[supermist]

I think it's hilarious that you think people tried. Even on Trump's end, it was stage performance.

If Trump actually was trying, he would have told his army to attack like some civil war general. One person was shot; an "insurrectionist".

You are a loony toon, clutching pearls for a political elite that won't lift a finger to stop looters from robbing you and burning down your house, as long as they can capitalize on the agenda.

A reasonable or intelligent discussion with you is impossible because you've demonstrated to be an extremely unreasonable and unintelligent person.

This is not the first time and probably not the last time this will be said to you. You continue to prove this statement correct given your stances on 1/6 and Trump.

We're not getting a productive conversation with someone like you but I'll call you out.

 

[Chris2055]

Look at the topic: Biden tweet
Look at what you want to talk about: Trump
Start a thread about Biden: Promote Biden without mentioning Trump. (Can you do it without getting sick?)

It's not difficult to decode.

Except the Tweet is about Trump's insurrection, so it naturally follows we are talking about Trump in this topic. You tried to assert that you support Biden when someone called you a Trump supporter and when I asked you how you said for me to start a new topic. In the quote you were complaining I wanted to talk about Biden, now you're complaining I want to talk about Trump. Next-level gaslighting!

I don't know what "meaningful" means to you. On the receiving end, here, I am seeing calls to weigh in on multiple international "conflicts" at the behest of the US (as usual). What can we do? Accept, obey? We face a kind of dictatorship that does not originate here.

I have no idea what you're rambling on about in this quote.

Here is a scenario:

P1: Trump, you've been accused of inciting an insurrection.
Trump: I haven't incited an insurrection.
P1: Well the state of "Watchumakalit" has determined that you have.
Trump: Well, I don't believe that "Watchumakalit" has the jurisdiction.
P1: You've signed an oath to us, Mr. Trump; you gave us jurisdiction.
Trump: But that was before I knew you guys were interested in secession.
P1: Aha! But you signed the oath after that it was clear that secession was on the table.

I mean, it's make-believe, like your optional oath. Point is, don't give an inch. I can think of many different scenarios where it would be possible, I don't know what Trump has planned.

That's a ridiculous take, especially since Trump actually did commit insurrection and still hasn't been held accountable for it despite taking an oath not only to the state but also to the constitution.

 

[supermist]

MAGAs have an IQ 2 standard deviations below the mean. Tab's IQ is even lower than that

 

[Chris2055]

I think it's hilarious that you think people tried. Even on Trump's end, it was stage performance.

If Trump actually was trying, he would have told his army to attack like some civil war general. One person was shot; an "insurrectionist".

You are a loony toon, clutching pearls for a political elite that won't lift a finger to stop looters from robbing you and burning down your house, as long as they can capitalize on the agenda.

Trump doesn't operate that way. He watched The Godfather too many times to incriminate himself by directly giving orders. Just ask his past fixer, Michael Cohen.

 

[tabzer]

Except the Tweet is about Trump's insurrection, so it naturally follows we are talking about Trump in this topic. You tried to assert that you support Biden when someone called you a Trump supporter and when I asked you how you said for me to start a new topic. In the quote you were complaining I wanted to talk about Biden, now you're complaining I want to talk about Trump. Next-level gaslighting!

I already answered how. I had asserted more support for Biden than anyone else in this thread by merely pointing out that the guy exists. You wanted more than that, in the context of Trump. Talking about Biden in terms of Trump is pretty limiting. I didn't complain that you wanted to talk about Biden. I was complaining that you wanted me to talk about Biden without offering anything yourself (context).

I have no idea what you're rambling on about in this quote.

I live in a country that follows America's behest. The president doesn't matter as much as the agenda we have to follow. You are putting stock in Biden now, and I am wondering what you find "meaningful".

That's a ridiculous take, especially since Trump actually did commit insurrection

According to who?

Trump doesn't operate that way. He watched The Godfather too many times to incriminate himself by directly giving orders. Just ask his past fixer, Michael Cohen.

Sucks that it took the IRS to bring down the mafia. Maybe that justice system needs some work. Lowering the thresholds of the definition of words just to get Trump makes everyone who said anything politically charged a potential insurrectionist. Maybe including those that call Trump an insurrectionist despite being acquitted.

A reasonable or intelligent discussion with you is impossible because you've demonstrated to be an extremely unreasonable and unintelligent person.

This is not the first time and probably not the last time this will be said to you. You continue to prove this statement correct given your stances on 1/6 and Trump.

We're not getting a productive conversation with someone like you but I'll call you out.

Everything you say only proves me right. (I can say what you say in less words.)

 

[Xzi]

I don't really have to "play dumb" when the premise is already there, sir trump-ception.

So it's just your natural state of being then, got it.

And that's the fine print that you were too dishonest to say out loud in the beginning. You want Trump to make an oath that circumnavigates SCOTUS.

No, moron. The oath is not unconstitutional, it's entirely in line with the constitution's anti-insurrection language. It's signalling, once again, that Trump is the type to wipe his ass with that document rather than attempt to read it. Fine for some JAG on the internet like you, but wholly disqualifying for somebody who wants to run for president.

It's something you'll inevitably whine about when it comes back around later to bite him in the ass, but for the moment the consequences seem somehow too obtuse for you to understand.

 

[supermist]

I already answered how. I had asserted more support for Biden than anyone else in this thread by merely pointing out that the guy exists. You wanted more than that, in the context of Trump. Talking about Biden in terms of Trump is pretty limiting. I didn't complain that you wanted to talk about Biden. I was complaining that you wanted me to talk about Biden without offering anything yourself (context).



I live in a country that follows America's behest. The president doesn't matter as much as the agenda we have to follow. You are putting stock in Biden now, and I am wondering what you find "meaningful".



According to who?



Sucks that it took the IRS to bring down the mafia. Maybe that justice system needs some work. Lowering the thresholds of the definition of words just to get Trump makes everyone who said anything politically charged a potential insurrectionist. Maybe including those that call Trump an insurrectionist despite being acquitted.



Everything you say only proves me right. (I can say what you say in less words.)

I'm not the one saying that Trump isn't behind an insurrection.

 

[vb_encryption_vb]

You should explicitly state what you mean, because it's not clear. Are you saying January 6th doesn't fit the definition of insurrection? If so, what was it then?

Unorganized chaos.

 

[Xzi]

Unorganized chaos.

I'll assume that's sarcasm. The speeches weren't made up on the spot, and the buses weren't chartered last minute. The date was chosen specifically to interrupt the certification of electoral votes by the event's organizers.

 

[supermist]

"Proud Boys, stand back and stand by"

"Fight like hell!"

 

[Xzi]

Looks like it might be time to include another chapter in a revised version of my book, The Life-Changing Science of Detecting Bulls#!t.

That would be immensely helpful...if only Trump cultists read anything other than the ABV on their beer.

 

[Chris2055]

I already answered how. I had asserted more support for Biden than anyone else in this thread by merely pointing out that the guy exists. You wanted more than that, in the context of Trump. Talking about Biden in terms of Trump is pretty limiting. I didn't complain that you wanted to talk about Biden. I was complaining that you wanted me to talk about Biden without offering anything yourself (context).

That's a non-answer, that's why I wanted more. But since you want to talk about Biden, here we go:

I live in a country that follows America's behest. The president doesn't matter as much as the agenda we have to follow. You are putting stock in Biden now, and I am wondering what you find "meaningful".

Investments in the middle class and the poor (strengthened safety net, tax credits for the middle class and the poor, tax increases for the wealthy), student debt forgiveness, tuition free community college, investments in infrastructure, civil rights, voting rights, humane immigration policies, strengthening our institutions instead of tearing them down (especially education).

By contrast, republicans want to disband the department of education, filter what can be taught in schools, ban books, inhibit the IRS, roll back Biden's SAVE program which was implemented after republicans successfully blocked Biden's student debt forgiveness, force women into unwanted pregnancies, control gender identity, rework elections in their favor, roll back the safety net (they've already done it twice in the past year, first by insisting on the end of COVID-era programs like Pandemic EBT as a condition to pass a budget, and then again by raising the maximum age for SNAP work requirements from 49 to 54 as a condition for raising the debt ceiling), put immigrants in camps, impose work requirements for Medicaid. The list goes on and on.

According to who?

Again:

• The 117th Congress (impeachment).
• The state of Colorado (ballot disqualification).
• The state of Maine (ballot disqualification).
• Multiple members of Trump's own administration (sworn statements).

Most of it is on video too. You can see it for yourself.

Sucks that it took the IRS to bring down the mafia. Maybe that justice system needs some work. Lowering the thresholds of the definition of words just to get Trump makes everyone who said anything politically charged a potential insurrectionist. Maybe including those that call Trump an insurrectionist despite being acquitted.

The justice system definitely needs work, but the definition of insurrection is not being lowered to "get Trump".

 

[Lumstar]

"Proud Boys, stand back and stand by"

"Fight like hell!"

Precisely. Arguing Trump's participation was "trivial" is an attempt to evade the issue. Anything short of irrefutable condemnation of 1/6, is supporting installing a dictator.

 

[tabzer]

nvestments in the middle class and the poor (strengthened safety net, tax credits for the middle class and the poor, tax increases for the wealthy), student debt forgiveness, tuition free community college, investments in infrastructure, civil rights, voting rights, humane immigration policies, strengthening our institutions instead of tearing them down (especially education).

By contrast, republicans want to disband the department of education, filter what can be taught in schools, ban books, inhibit the IRS, roll back Biden's SAVE program which was implemented after republicans successfully blocked Biden's student debt forgiveness, force women into unwanted pregnancies, control gender identity, rework elections in their favor, roll back the safety net (they've already done it twice in the past year, first by insisting on the end of COVID-era programs like Pandemic EBT as a condition to pass a budget, and then again by raising the maximum age for SNAP work requirements from 49 to 54 as a condition for raising the debt ceiling), put immigrants in camps, impose work requirements for Medicaid. The list goes on and on.

That sounds really nice. I would vote for him if I wanted the government to take care of me and "pad" every aspect of my living experience.

Again:

• The 117th Congress (impeachment).

Acquitted

• The state of Colorado (ballot disqualification).
• The state of Maine (ballot disqualification).

Falls out of line congressional/constitutional decree and is pending SCOTUS decision.

• Multiple members of Trump's own administration (sworn statements).

Most of it is on video too. You can see it for yourself.

Mob/riot? 174 people claimed that they they thought they following Trump's orders, out of how many?

The justice system definitely needs work, but the definition of insurrection is not being lowered to "get Trump".

I'm partly referring to the word "try" in the context of "overthrowing democracy" but there is also the whole protected class insinuation that displays a clear imbalance between the "mostly peaceful riots" and "the worst thing to happen to democracy in a really long time".

The checkbox qualifiers and people getting excited about it is really lame. (IE. Were they armed? Someone had a gun! Check!)

People are excited to be "apart of history" and they just want to be on the right side of it.

 

[MPRTwice]

Regardless of which politician is being discussed this time, many can say they are pro-American and involve themselves in falsification of documents involving children's records for the purposes of cheating (the word they used) millions of dollars per year from the state and pocket it hidden from the IRS, as a former supervisor asked me to do with her (and I politely refused). The point is, don't pay attention to what people say. Pay attention to what they do. People have said nearly everything I have said, and the actions are always the difference. How does a leader react to violence towards himself? How does a leader react to scoffing and many forms of assault with it? Does he control his tongue when he is angry and refuses to curse when brought to the brink? Does he refuse to fight his enemies even when they assault him, knowing he is full well capable of killing any person in hand to hand combat in an instant, because he wants to make the better choice even if it means he does not strike them back? Does he refuse offers for all the money he wants in exchange for hurting and taking advantage of people? Is he honest and make his words count? Ladies and gentlemen, look at the actions and see if they justify the words. That is how you will find a great Leader.

 

[Chris2055]

That sounds really nice. I would vote for him if I wanted the government to take care of me and "pad" every aspect of my living experience.

I don't expect conservatives to approve of liberal ideas, but you asked me what I liked about Biden other than him not being Trump and I provided an answer.

Acquitted

Yes, because Republicans controlled the Senate, not because he wasn't guilty.

Falls out of line congressional/constitutional decree and is pending SCOTUS decision.

State's ability to handle their elections is within bounds of the constitution. SCOTUS is stacked with corrupt republicans though so I don't have much faith they will rule properly on this. And by properly, I don't necessarily mean the outcome of the ruling but the justification for it.

Mob/riot? 174 people claimed that they they thought they following Trump's orders, out of how many?

What's the point? How many people have to admit it for you to be convinced? What's the magic number? 1000? Every last person that was there?

I'm partly referring to the word "try" in the context of "overthrowing democracy" but there is also the whole protected class insinuation that displays a clear imbalance between the "mostly peaceful riots" and "the worst thing to happen to democracy in a really long time".

I don't know what you're talking about by "protected class". It seems way out of context in this discussion. If you're talking about January 6th as a mostly peaceful riot, first there's no such thing as a peaceful riot. That's an oxymoron. Second, January 6th only ended when it did because Capitol police stopped the insurrection. If they hadn't it would've been much worse.

The checkbox qualifiers and people getting excited about it is really lame. (IE. Was there a weapon? Someone had a gun! Check!)

You're doing the same thing with Trump's guilt when you ask if he was convicted while ignoring the partisan aspect. Republicans have no defense for Trump other than doing what you're doing here, and that's downplaying what actually happened on the 6th. That has no basis in reality and the entire thing is on video, so that argument is not going to have any credibility with anyone but the ignorant and the brainwashed.

 

[Xzi]

Anything short of irrefutable condemnation of 1/6, is supporting installing a dictator.

At the very least, attempting to soften the language regarding Jan 6th betrays that a person would not be opposed to the event repeating itself.

 

[tabzer]

I don't expect conservatives to approve of liberal ideas, but you asked me what I liked about Biden other than him not being Trump and I provided an answer.

It's a good answer.

Yes, because Republicans controlled the Senate, not because he wasn't guilty.

Congress determined his guilt.

State's ability to handle their elections is within bounds of the constitution. SCOTUS is stacked with corrupt republicans though so I don't have much faith they will rule properly on this. And by properly, I don't necessarily mean the outcome of the ruling but the justification for it.

Not disagreeing with your first point. Disagreeing that they are doing it within the bounds of the constitution. If SCOTUS is corrupt, and they are the rule of your land, then why argue for a system that is beholden to it?

What's the point? How many people have to admit it for you to be convinced? What's the magic number? 1000? Every last person that was there?

There is an astronomically higher ratio of people saying Trump inciting insurrection than there are of Trump supporters doing "insurrection" at his call. There should be some parity if I am to believe that there is honesty. Really, I would expect every person to agree that it was what Trump wanted. There should be no grey. There is mostly white, with some black, and that means that the terms aren't matching the actual situation. This is political theater bullshit.

I don't know what you're talking about by "protected class". It seems way out of context in this discussion. If you're talking about January 6th as a mostly peaceful riot, first there's no such thing as a peaceful riot. That's an oxymoron. Second, January 6th only ended when it did because Capitol police stopped the insurrection. If they hadn't it would've been much worse.

Sorry, I'm referring to the "mostly peaceful protests" that politicians and media helped incite. A lot more suffering happened as a result. Biden, congress, etc. shouldn't be more important than you, imho.

You're doing the same thing with Trump's guilt when you ask if he was convicted while ignoring the partisan aspect. Republicans have no defense for Trump other than doing what you're doing here, and that's downplaying what actually happened on the 6th. That has no basis in reality and the entire thing is on video, so that argument is not going to have any credibility with anyone but the ignorant and the brainwashed.

The "partisan aspect" is not a constitutional concern. You are destined for authoritarianism in one way or another, as long as the trajectory is towards a more centralized government.

 

[Xzi]

Really, I would expect every person to agree that it was what Trump wanted. There should be no grey. There is mostly white, with some black, and that means that the terms aren't matching the actual situation. This is political theater bullshit.

If you're actually expecting Trump supporters to be honest about why he appeals to them and what crimes he's guilty of, you're the one staging political theater.

You are destined for authoritarianism in one way or another, as long as the trajectory is towards a more centralized government.

Gee it's almost like somebody should argue in favor of states' right to keep authoritarians off the ballot.

 

[Chris2055]

Congress determined his guilt.

It's unfortunately not that simple. The Senate voted to acquit, they did not determine that he is not guilty. You should look up some of the reactions of republicans right on that day. The bar for impeachment is high to the point of ineffectiveness. The constitution assumed the good faith of all actors when designing the process. Unfortunately Romney is the only Senator in history that voted to impeach a president of his own party.

Not disagreeing with your first point. Disagreeing that they are doing it within the bounds of the constitution. If SCOTUS is corrupt, and they are the rule of your land, then why argue for a system that is beholden to it?

I support SCOTUS reform, but it has to be done from within the democratic system and I know republicans aren't going to do it. What's the alternative? Lawlessness and chaos? Fascism? Every institution has the potential for abuse and SCOTUS is inherently flawed, but it can become better over time with the right policies and the right leaders.

There is an astronomically higher ratio of people saying Trump inciting insurrection than there are of Trump supporters doing "insurrection" at his call. There should be some parity if I am to believe that there is honesty. Really, I would expect every person to agree that it was what Trump wanted. There should be no grey. There is mostly white, with some black, and that means that the terms aren't matching the actual situation. This is political theater bullshit.

It's pretty much impossible to get a unanimous agreement on anything. People hate to believe they're wrong and have different views, priorities, ideologies and thresholds of what they're willing to accept. Even the constitution doesn't call for unanimous agreement. Just simple or super majorities. There's a reason for that. If unanimous agreement was required nothing would ever get done.

Sorry, I'm referring to the "mostly peaceful protests" that politicians and media helped incite. A lot more suffering happened as a result. Biden, congress, etc. shouldn't be more important than you, imho.

So you think of January 6th as a "mostly peaceful protest" and you blame the media and politicians for inciting it, but not Trump? Despite the fact that he spread false claims to the electorate about the election being rigged and stolen, about Mike Pence's ability to stop the certification of the vote, despite the fact that he explicitly called for his followers to go to the capitol and fight like hell or they wouldn't have a country.

Not sure what Biden and Congress have to do with my own importance. Where does that fit into the discussion?

The "partisan aspect" is not a constitutional concern. You are destined for authoritarianism in one way or another, as long as the trajectory is towards a more centralized government.

It is of every concern. There's a difference between not being guilty because you didn't do the thing and not being guilty because your party controls the decision.