Lol cry more fuck Trump.

@Rafaella Leon, here's roughly what I'd (ask you to) do, to start making a case:

^{Draw up timelines for each relevant locale, places where votes were counted, that stuff.
Mark all relevant events on them, referring to evidence (the more evidence the better, the less the worse).
Stack the timelines, especially if something is relevant across locales.
Mark open ends, e.g. unknown origins of material evidence, whatever.
Draw up a chart of alleged actors, including unknowns.
Connect actors that (must have) cooperated or conspired together, include their (corroborated) statements.
Add (corroborated) statements of others, e.g. photographers, witnesses, and cross-reference timelines/evidence.
Determine alternate scenarios that might explain the evidence (the more weaker explanations the better).}

So, a technical thing, like forensics, reconstruction.
The allegations are fairly serious, I'd expect something fairly good to support them.

I wonder, though, why wouldn't the President have gotten someone to do that?
Sure would be better than some scattered unsourced photos of stacks of paper with some arrows and circles on them and such, or just saying so.

Aw your daddy was made to beg.

Must be tired of winning, fucking loser.

Jesus, the guy really is an idiot. At what point is finally retracting your support for violent far-right lunatics not going to seem remotely sincere? When you left it a week and have just been impeached for inciting a violent, far-right insurrection. Nobody not up his ass is going to read this as anything other than panic about his impeachment.

Again, all evidence of “incitement” comes from that stuff in your skull, or worse, propaganda. That it closely resembles the Democrat’s articles of impeachment is no comfort.

Some may have came to the same perverse “logical conclusion” of yours, I admit, but to believe Trump is guilty for making you come to those conclusions, or in the protester’s case, to come to those conclusions and storm Congress, then that is something you’ll have to prove from evidence outside of your skull. It’s just that simple. — NOS4A2

In fact you are really the one suffering from Trump derangement syndrome. If you have the President constantly, repeatedly lying that the election would be and was stolen, the logical conclusion of those who truly believed him would be to storm the Capital. Perhaps you cannot see the long obvious reason why it has come to this, but you can easily see it with Trump supporters starting to carry last year guns quite openly in demonstrations. That's a telling sign that the country was going to more like Weimar Germany or Yugoslavia before it's breakup.

This really isn't normal for supporters of Presidential candidate, apart a country close to Civil War:



And Trump was arguing that the elections were stolen already in 2016, but then contrary to what he himself believed, he won the election. But now, all those justices, the whole justice system with also Trump appointed people would go along with the steal is simply ludicrous.

But I guess that doesn't personally matter so much, as you are living in a mainly peaceful Canada.

I don't understand how he can condemn a violent insurrection, considering the will of the people was subverted when the election, which wasn't even close, was stolen. Isn't democracy worth dying for?

Or maybe he's full of shit, never actually believing the election was stolen, but never anticipating the rabble he was rousing would nut up and cost him all his influence, so now he's trying a new approach. It apparently is working with you, so good for him.

Wow wasn't it all conspiracy theory?

Trump won Texas.

Or maybe he's full of shit, never actually believing the election was stolen, but never anticipating the rabble he was rousing would nut up and cost him all his influence, so now he's trying a new approach. — Hanover

And do notice that he is reading from a teleprompter and not speaking whatever he wants, as usually.

This is classic Trump. When you go too much over, have the lawyers / aides prepare a statement that you then read and Republicans and your supporters can say that Trump "has learned" and has stepped back to the line.

This is an interesting interview with one of the founders of the Lincoln Project. He claims the coalition that defeated Trump is fragile, and that the Lincoln Project can take credit for Trump's win.

Trump won Texas. — frank

That's why she operated from Texas. All those seven million (or so) votes!!! :wink:

You mean she caused Trump to win Texas? Dammit! I'm taking my horn hat to Austin!

I don’t understand, how did he publish that video? I thought the radical left muzzled the mad king.

:lol: Trump throws his fellow MAGA terrorists under a bus after he gets impeached. "I don't know those guys..."

Rat trying to leave his own sinking ship.

You only need a conviction and 7,999,999 more of the same and Trump was right, he won! The conspiracy was widespread voter fraud of an unprecedented scale and that has been thoroughly debunked. Besides:



So, Biden won by an even bigger landslide. :party:

My favourite thing is that everytime he does this, there's inevitably a wave of his supporters who end up being utterly incredulous that he disavowed them. Usually racist pigs, but to watch them cry, like NOS has been doing here, is so sweet.

Poor NOS and Brett suddenly realising they weren't supposed to support the terrorism. *Confused face*. *Pretend we never said that*.

He never invited any such thing, and has always called for law and order, so anyone not burying their face in anti-Trump laps might come to a different conclusion.

I don’t understand, how did he publish that video? I thought the radical left muzzled the mad king.

I've heard that argument going around. It's kind of like saying that because Lenny Bruce could still do comedy shows he was never censored.

In fact you are really the one suffering from Trump derangement syndrome. If you have the President constantly, repeatedly lying that the election would be and was stolen, the logical conclusion of those who truly believed him would be to storm the Capital. Perhaps you cannot see the long obvious reason why it has come to this, but you can easily see it with Trump supporters starting to carry last year guns quite openly in demonstrations. That's a telling sign that the country was going to more like Weimar Germany or Yugoslavia before it's breakup.

I don’t care what is normal or not. There is no strand of chewing gum connecting Trump’s election claims and fiery rhetoric to any violence, and in fact these strange conclusions contradict anything else he has said on the matter of violent protest and riots, which he has opposed throughout the entirety of his term.

I do see why it has come to this. No rally goer or protester would need to carry guns and to wear riot gear to protest if they weren’t routinely set upon by violent mobs of delusional soy drinkers. No citizen would need to stock up on weaponry if his business wasn’t burned to the ground, or if some Antifa pedophile didn’t seize entire blocks of their city. No patriot would need to exercise 2nd amendment rights if he wasn’t locked down by state order, only to find out that those who made the order are allowed to flout their very own rules. Trump isn’t telling them to do any of this.

I don't understand how he can condemn a violent insurrection, considering the will of the people was subverted when the election, which wasn't even close, was stolen. Isn't democracy worth dying for?

Or maybe he's full of shit, never actually believing the election was stolen, but never anticipating the rabble he was rousing would nut up and cost him all his influence, so now he's trying a new approach. It apparently is working with you, so good for him.

Was Democracy worth dying for when Stacy Abrahms or Elizabeth Warren or Al Gore said the election was stolen? Was it worth dying for when we were told for years that the president was a manchurian candidate? Was Clinton or Carter guilty of inciting violence, or some other species of malicious action, when they said the president was illegitimate or installed by Russia? The answer is no. Sorry, I still don't see how anyone can come to the conclusion that violence is the answer.

I don’t understand, how did he publish that video? I thought the radical left muzzled the mad king.

I've heard that argument going around. It's kind of like saying that because Lenny Bruce could still do comedy shows he was never censored. — NOS4A2

It’s a little concerning to me that Trump has allowed his act to be censored, meaning that the threats must be so credible that even he fears (his legacy will be further stained by continued violence from his supporters) them.

Yes. One fraud does not make a stolen election. Some fraud is to be expected when 150 million people vote. Nice confirmation bias.

Wow, what a change in Trump's demeanour today. For four years it's been 'I'm higher than the law'. Now suddenly it's 'I'm afraid of the law'.

Is a possible penalty for insurrection still hanging? I am not up to date on my American law.

Damn.

If ever that pathetic deluded individual realises who is his own worst enemy, that will be the end of him. And that is my last ever post in the Trump thread, promise.

He never invited any such thing, — NOS4A2

Irrelevant. He stood by them for a week after his "I love you" and changed his tune only after the threat of being convicted for it was very real. You'd have to be extremely prejudiced to believe that was in good faith.

It's also hilarious that he insists that no one in his movement would incite violence after HIS lawyer at HIS rally called for "trial by combat". RG fired yet? Nope? Seems pretty groovy with his movement inciting violence then.

Was Clinton or Carter guilty of inciting violence, or some other species of malicious action, when they said the president was illegitimate or installed by Russia? — NOS4A2

Don't think there was a violent insurrection because if it, know any different, or are you suggesting that because Trump is being held responsible for an actual insurrection, other people should be charged with the same even in the absence of one? Because logically that's kind of screwed up.

That lady was not a « Biden election official », and you are a liar.

If it was a pointless poll, what was the point citing it in the first place?