"Has fascist-in-chief arrested anyone for insurrection for Jan 6. No."
There is so much wrong in this one sentence I don't know where to start, but, I'll just leave it at the lack of an arrest for something is not evidence that the thing didn't happen.
It is also worth nothing that people have been tried and convicted of seditious conspiracy (an insurrection adjacent crime) and obstruction of an official proceeding (though the suppreme court is currently reviewing the applicability of that charge to the capitol rioters).
"Were any of the rioters armed? Nope."
Absolutely false. Some of them, by their own statements claim, to have been armed, and we see from the viedos various makeshift and actual weapons being used against Capitol police (bear spray, etc.). Some were wearing body armor.
If you specifically mean firearms, as opposed to other types of weapons, some rioters but relatively few did have them.
So much wrong with the sentence? WHAT'S wrong with it?
So, you are, in your sad way, trying to maintain that Trump should be disqualified for running for office based on an insurrection that no one has been arrested for, in an incident with over 40,000 hours of video, none of which provides prosecutable evidence of insurrection. In spite of this absurd suggestion, you think you are the rational one.
As for seditious conspiracy, let's examine THAT with a rational mind: There were, I believe, ten convictions. Ten. Not of actual sedition, but of conspiracy. In other words, actual sedition NEVER HAPPENRD. Again, that's not my belief, it is a FACT that Fascist-in-Chief, Merrick Garland, couldn't create enough of a case to demonstrate any actual sedition. So, whatever you saw in the videos, it wasn't sedition. So says Merrick Garland. And remember, you are making your case about Trump. So, Michael, make your case that these ten people conspired WITH TRUMP. Good luck with that.
Here's something you might want to do, instead: Acknowledge to yourself that you've allowed yourself to be totally misinformed and mislead. And then promise to yourself to never again be such a useful fool. That's what I did, years ago.
"So, you are, in your sad way, trying to maintain that Trump should be disqualified for running for office based on an insurrection that no one has been arrested for, in an incident with over 40,000 hours of video, none of which provides prosecutable evidence of insurrection. In spite of this absurd suggestion, you think you are the rational one."
1. I don't know whether Trump should be disqualified. I think an honest application of originalism would dictate that he should be. But it is a hard uestion for me because I don't believe in originalism as the one sole method of constitutional interpretation. (For me it is A method not THE method).
2. "an insurrection that no one has been arrested for." This is a silly talking point. more than a thousand have been arrested, several hundred have been convicted or pled guilty, for their activities on Jan 6, for crimes that vary from misdemeanors at the low end to seditious conspiracy at thew high end.
3. "Merrick Garland, couldn't create enough of a case to demonstrate any actual sedition."
So, I'm supposed to be impressed with your ability to copy/paste links?
What is this, the third time I've stated, flat-out that there was no insurrection, and the best you can do to refute it is to spew hyperbole and post links I can't be bothered with. There's an expression I live by: Put up, or shut up.
Maybe your civics teacher will accept such a low level of effort. I won't
I think what you actually seem to mean is "put up or shut up, but if you put up I won;t look at it and instead I will just call you a liar."
You claimed that, literally, that there was no sedition and that the government didn't even accuse anyone of sedition. That's false - there have been convictions for seditious conspiracy. I provided links because they document that.
Have a good day, sir. To me there is no point in contiuing this conversation.
"Has fascist-in-chief arrested anyone for insurrection for Jan 6. No."
There is so much wrong in this one sentence I don't know where to start, but, I'll just leave it at the lack of an arrest for something is not evidence that the thing didn't happen.
It is also worth nothing that people have been tried and convicted of seditious conspiracy (an insurrection adjacent crime) and obstruction of an official proceeding (though the suppreme court is currently reviewing the applicability of that charge to the capitol rioters).
"Were any of the rioters armed? Nope."
Absolutely false. Some of them, by their own statements claim, to have been armed, and we see from the viedos various makeshift and actual weapons being used against Capitol police (bear spray, etc.). Some were wearing body armor.
If you specifically mean firearms, as opposed to other types of weapons, some rioters but relatively few did have them.
So much wrong with the sentence? WHAT'S wrong with it?
So, you are, in your sad way, trying to maintain that Trump should be disqualified for running for office based on an insurrection that no one has been arrested for, in an incident with over 40,000 hours of video, none of which provides prosecutable evidence of insurrection. In spite of this absurd suggestion, you think you are the rational one.
As for seditious conspiracy, let's examine THAT with a rational mind: There were, I believe, ten convictions. Ten. Not of actual sedition, but of conspiracy. In other words, actual sedition NEVER HAPPENRD. Again, that's not my belief, it is a FACT that Fascist-in-Chief, Merrick Garland, couldn't create enough of a case to demonstrate any actual sedition. So, whatever you saw in the videos, it wasn't sedition. So says Merrick Garland. And remember, you are making your case about Trump. So, Michael, make your case that these ten people conspired WITH TRUMP. Good luck with that.
Here's something you might want to do, instead: Acknowledge to yourself that you've allowed yourself to be totally misinformed and mislead. And then promise to yourself to never again be such a useful fool. That's what I did, years ago.
"So, you are, in your sad way, trying to maintain that Trump should be disqualified for running for office based on an insurrection that no one has been arrested for, in an incident with over 40,000 hours of video, none of which provides prosecutable evidence of insurrection. In spite of this absurd suggestion, you think you are the rational one."
1. I don't know whether Trump should be disqualified. I think an honest application of originalism would dictate that he should be. But it is a hard uestion for me because I don't believe in originalism as the one sole method of constitutional interpretation. (For me it is A method not THE method).
2. "an insurrection that no one has been arrested for." This is a silly talking point. more than a thousand have been arrested, several hundred have been convicted or pled guilty, for their activities on Jan 6, for crimes that vary from misdemeanors at the low end to seditious conspiracy at thew high end.
3. "Merrick Garland, couldn't create enough of a case to demonstrate any actual sedition."
Your agenda-laden framing aside, that is false.
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/jury-convicts-four-leaders-proud-boys-seditious-conspiracy-related-us-capitol-breach
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/four-oath-keepers-found-guilty-seditious-conspiracy-related-us-capitol-breach
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/four-additional-oath-keepers-sentenced-seditious-conspiracy-related-us-capitol-breach
My case that people conspired with Trump:
https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/trump-jan-6-indictment-2020-election/1f1c76972b25c802/full.pdf
So, I'm supposed to be impressed with your ability to copy/paste links?
What is this, the third time I've stated, flat-out that there was no insurrection, and the best you can do to refute it is to spew hyperbole and post links I can't be bothered with. There's an expression I live by: Put up, or shut up.
Maybe your civics teacher will accept such a low level of effort. I won't
"Put up, or shut up"
I think what you actually seem to mean is "put up or shut up, but if you put up I won;t look at it and instead I will just call you a liar."
You claimed that, literally, that there was no sedition and that the government didn't even accuse anyone of sedition. That's false - there have been convictions for seditious conspiracy. I provided links because they document that.
Have a good day, sir. To me there is no point in contiuing this conversation.