Terrorists break into US Capitol Building

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

Democrats never had that stance unless it's politically convenient for them.

Defund the Police.

Immigration.

Riots.

They are the anti-law and order party.

---

Hey now, I'm pretty sure it was Liberalus Maximus Time4Fun that said it on these boards first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

And ere I thought it was the Democrat's stance that we were a nation of laws. I guess it isn't when the shoe is on the other foot?

---

There you go again, assuming that anyone not wearing a maga hat is a Dem.

Calling someone a crook doesn't add up to thinking that no laws apply and they should be killed for it. Or, like... dragging around a gallows and shouting for their death. Nothing like that. It's just calling them a crook. The end. There's no shoe. No foot. You're fabricating on the fly as is the Republican way now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhaalizmo

There you go again, assuming that anyone not wearing a maga hat is a Dem.

Calling someone a crook doesn't add up to thinking that no laws apply and they should be killed for it. Or, like... dragging around a gallows and shouting for their death. Nothing like that. It's just calling them a crook. The end. There's no shoe. No foot. You're fabricating on the fly as is the Republican way now.

---

I’m not fabricating anything. I’m asking for evidence. So far no one has provided any, just their opinions.

And what do you consider yourself, politically?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

I’m not fabricating anything. I’m asking for evidence. So far no one has provided any, just their opinions.

And what do you consider yourself, politically?

---

Anti-Trumpist.

Other than that, he's too retarded to have an intelligent thought on this or any other subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

I’m not fabricating anything. I’m asking for evidence. So far no one has provided any, just their opinions.

And what do you consider yourself, politically?

---

There is no evidence of an assassination threat when someone threatening makes a comment about a person's family. But we all know what it means, having seen alot of mob movies and law / cop dramas. There is no evidence of a threat, at least not enough for a courtroom drama to unfold, but the threat is understood almost universally nonetheless.

What do you think that your asking for evidence of chump having crimed accomplishes, other than making it seem like you're content knowing that he crimed and it can't be proven in court because he uses mob speak? Is it safe to say that you know he did it and you're glad it can't be easily proven?

To answer your question, I don't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkbandit

So we have moved from "OMG TRUMP STARTED AN ARMED INSURRECTION!" to "HIS SPEECH ON JAN 6TH INFLAMED THE RIOT TO OVERTHROW THE GOVERNMENT!" to "IT WAS AN ATTEMPTED COUP!" to now Trump threatened election officials?

---

Uh no crazy, those are all off the same list of what transpired and he's being held accountable for. Duh

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

Uh no crazy, those are all off the same list of what transpired and he's being held accountable for. Duh

---

I honestly hope your retard Party charges President Trump with inciting an "armed insurrection" because I will laugh my ass off.

Retard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhaalizmo

. But we all know what it means, having seen alot of mob movies and law / cop dramas.

---

https://c.tenor.com/TJo3oY4BSPYAAAAM/headshake-most.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bhaalizmo

There is no evidence of an assassination threat when someone threatening makes a comment about a person's family. But we all know what it means, having seen alot of mob movies and law / cop dramas. There is no evidence of a threat, at least not enough for a courtroom drama to unfold, but the threat is understood almost universally nonetheless.

What do you think that your asking for evidence of chump having crimed accomplishes, other than making it seem like you're content knowing that he crimed and it can't be proven in court because he uses mob speak? Is it safe to say that you know he did it and you're glad it can't be easily proven?

To answer your question, I don't.

---

You want people to be thrown in prison for “mob speak”?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelston

You want people to be thrown in prison for “mob speak”?

---

I would refuse to answer your question based on the fact that you didn't answer mine, but I'm afraid that would only prompt more fabrication on your part.

To answer your question, no I don't want people to be thrown in prison for mob speak. It's not black and white, all or nothing though. Chump's involvement before, during, and after Jan 6th is one such case and should be prosecutable despite his consistent defensive use of mob speak. His intents and desires are as obvious to you as they are to me. Just because he managed to not self incriminate doesn't mean he didn't inspire, direct, and inflame an insurrection.

One shouldn't be able to crime in public just because you know what not to say or how not to say it. The intent is clear here. His criminality runs deep and his use of mob speak to avoid self incrimination should not render him immune to legal consequences for his actions.

I'd feel the same way about someone saying threateningly "You have a nice family. It would be a shame if something happened to them". The intent is clear. The use of mob speak should not render the person delivering the threat invulnerable to prosecution.