I don’t see any of that. I don’t know what to tell you.

If you took the time to read what I said, and don't worry you would still have plenty of time left to spew, you would see that I am not talking about one exchange with one member.

But there is no doubt that this will fall on deaf ears. You like to hear yourself talk too much to hear anything else.

I'll leave you to it.

The underhanded insults and hidden ad hominem are really, really not helpful. I tend to appreciate more mature, pointed and honest interactions.

Can you point out to me examples of my conduct you actually find problematic, rather than making a vague, substance-less attack?? (I also note the absolutely extraordinary irony in that fact. ). Feel free to PM me. I am open to whatever you have to say - What i am not open to is slinging shit in a drive-by on a thread irrelevant to it.

I'm not a subscriber. I can see the article fine?

I guess only Americans need to subscribe.

In praxis’ defense I left out the .amp out of the link.

My defense is your apparent untrustworthiness, frankly.

Just follow your imagination. Works every time.

In the past, you've said contradictory things that indicate dishonesty. There's also the fact you're a diehard Trump supporter. I can't see how anyone who values truth could be such a diehard Trump supporter.

Your whole schtick is stoicism but I can only read rank emotion. At any rate, I apologize for sending you off into clown world.

I don't think that you can only see stoic playacting and rank emotion. I think you're merely trolling, badly.

...a 3-hour riot was a violent insurrection... — NOS4A2

Rather...

A 3-hour riot interrupted the peaceful transfer of power.

Trump was personally directing Pence to publicly place the election results in question by questioning the electoral college results. He was supposed to act confused about what he should do when handed two different slates of electors. There were roughly 150 congressional members that voted against the electoral college results. Some of them were directly involved in the personal transfer of the aforementioned slate of electors. We need to know who knew what and when.

There were roughly 150 congressional members that voted against the electoral college results. — creativesoul

147, to be precise.

The January 6th coup attempt is ongoing.

Objecting to certification was exactly what congressional democrats did in 2017.

To some degree, yes. They did. And they were wrong.

A milquetoast 'standing up' and being immediately sat down by the presider with some force (that presider, was Joe Biden) is not, in any way conceivable the same in kind as an attack on the Capitol.

It was far worse. They tried to frame the democratically-elected president for treason and waged a years-long coup based on Clinton campaign conspiracy theories that reached the highest echelons of the intelligence community and the administrative state. The riot on J6 was just their Reichstag moment.

It was far worse. They tried to frame the democratically-elected president for treason and waged a years-long coup based on Clinton campaign conspiracy theories that reached the highest echelons of the intelligence community and the administrative state. The riot on J6 was just their Reichstag moment. — NOS4A2

Oh my. I used to think you were a rational human being.

She’s resorting to insults. But that’s OK. The evidence affords greater weight to my characterization than yours, and history will correct the record.

Sure. And you believe the facts are so obvious that there's no need to present the evidence and reasoning.

I do. I’m not making a case; I’m just sharing my beliefs.

Besides, you and I have litigated the evidence and reasoning already, and the consistent appeals to authority have remained entirely unconvincing throughout. One day I would like to hear your own conclusions rather than someone else’s. Let me know if it ever occurs.

I do. I’m not making a case; I’m just sharing my beliefs — NOS4A2

You should join a religion forum.

It was far worse. They tried to frame the democratically-elected president for treason and waged a years-long coup based on Clinton campaign conspiracy theories that reached the highest echelons of the intelligence community and the administrative state. The riot on J6 was just their Reichstag moment. — NOS4A2

It’s clear that laws were broken on J6. What laws were broken in this coup you mention?

It’s clear that laws were broken on J6. What laws were broken in this coup you mention?

I'm not sure any laws were broken. The CIA, the FBI, the media, the DNC, have the lawful power to defraud the country, to investigate their political opponents, and to submit the entire world to their propaganda and conspiracy theories.

Wild.

I have to genuinely admire your obstinance in the face of overwhelmingly unfavourable reception. I suppose that's informed by my knowledge that you're talking shite, but hey. I genuinely, not a word of sarcasm, respect your determination.

I'm not sure any laws were broken. — NOS4A2

You must not believe there was any assault, disruption of Congress, or any of the other charges. Most of the defendants pleaded guilty, btw, even the MAGA shaman (guy with the horns) and spiritual people never lie.

The CIA, the FBI, the media, the DNC, have the lawful power to defraud the country — NOS4A2

Don't forget the GOP, with their fake electors shenanigans and whatnot. Wait, that is illegal.

You must not believe there was any assault, disruption of Congress, or any of the other charges. Most of the defendants pleaded guilty, btw, even the MAGA shaman (guy with the horns) and spiritual people never lie.

You asked what laws were broken in the coup I mentioned.

Ah, it appears as though you're saying that you weren't sure that any laws were broken on J6, stating in the next line that the DNC, etc have "lawful power." If the DNC, FBI, CIA, and the media have lawful power to defraud the country, investigate their political opponents, and submit the entire world to their propaganda and conspiracy theories, then those actions aren't breaking any laws. But your first sentence is "I'm not sure any laws were broken," and the response is in the same order as my response, with J6 first followed by "coup".

Anyway, just to clear up any remaining misreads and for the official record, you hold that:

1) Laws were broken by rioters on J6.

2) No laws were broken in the years-long coup that you mentioned.

3) You realize that coups are unlawful.

lawful power to defraud the country — praxis

This is oxymoronic. I also disagree it seemed as if he was responding to J6.

What laws were broken in this coup you mention?

I'm not sure any laws were broken. — NOS4A2

You asked a question and he answered it with surprising directness.

That’s right. I answered your question. I can’t find that they broke any laws. Hitler never broke any laws either, so appealing to law is a grave stupidity.

I'm unsure this is the time to enact Godwin's Law