71d
@djj saidWe still discussing the not-insurrection? Tell me this.....Would a reasonable panel of objective people really believe that a few hundred (most of them were tourists with cameras) would think that they could overthrow a government with the strongest military in the world?
@shavixmir said:
You will notice that the courts do not need to find him guilty of insurrection, only of actions which lead to a situation of insurrection,
Actions, of a mob setting things on fire and trying to storm the capitol (thus preventing government officials from doing their jobs). Does that fall under the definition of insurrection? Another example of the degenerate party double standard. It's OK when we do it.
The answer is no, so why do you keep harping on this. Your time might be better spent preparing for Trump's Coming. I sure am.
71d
@averagejoe1 saidJust because the goals are unbelievably naieve, doesn’t make the actions taken any less serious.
We still discussing the not-insurrection? Tell me this.....Would a reasonable panel of objective people really believe that a few hundred (most of them were tourists with cameras) would think that they could overthrow a government with the strongest military in the world?
The answer is no, so why do you keep harping on this. Your time might be better spent preparing for Trump's Coming. I sure am.
They violently entered the seat of government, chanting to hang the vice-president and shytting on a politician’s desk.
There is no country in the world where this would be seen as a friendly gaff. Sorry. They’d be punished to the maximum of the law and any politician defending their actions would be found guilty of treason.
That is the fact of the matter.
You republicans are so far off reality on this issue, the mind boggles.
We seen it happen real time. It was on live TV.
Just a bunch of tourists… moronic.
71d
@mott-the-hoople saidYou do realise that if the US is signed up to a treaty it over-rides national law, don’t you?
you apparently dont know what US law is.
71d
@kevcvs57 saidI read that link. The facts, speak, Kev, not you. Maybe you should read it too. Clearly no diff than the 6th,....except different govt building.....and the one with the PRESIDENT himself inside.
Because they do not carry out the hand over of power in may you freaking moron
Y'all are really reaching, now many more months before you libs start stating interesting information. I am resorting to reading old Sonhouse Posts!! Arrrrrrgggh
71d
@Mott-The-Hoople
Here is what Trump is being charged with in relation to Jan 6:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/latest-federal-charges-donald-trump/story?id=101918701
71d
@averagejoe1 saidDon't make me vomit.
Your time might be better spent preparing for Trump's Coming. I sure am.
71d
@averagejoe1 saidYes, the facts speak for themselves. And then the US Supreme Court has the balls to ignore all that and defend Trump and what he did.
I read that link. The facts, speak, Kev, not you. Maybe you should read it too. Clearly no diff than the 6th,....except different govt building.....and the one with the PRESIDENT himself inside.
Y'all are really reaching, now many more months before you libs start stating interesting information. I am resorting to reading old Sonhouse Posts!! Arrrrrrgggh
71d
@averagejoe1 saidAlmost the dumbest thing you ever said.
Whew. Let’s try this, maybe find a common denominator. Do you think that fish know that they are wet?
@djj saidThe only person who planned and executed an insurrection in America in this century is Donald J. Trump. Per the US Constitution, he should be banned from elected office for the remainder of his pathetic life.
@shavixmir said:
You will notice that the courts do not need to find him guilty of insurrection, only of actions which lead to a situation of insurrection,
Actions, of a mob setting things on fire and trying to storm the capitol (thus preventing government officials from doing their jobs). Does that fall under the definition of insurrection? Another example of the degenerate party double standard. It's OK when we do it.
71d
@suzianne saidhahahaha. SCOTUS hardly ignores the briefs of the lawyers. Why do you say that? And, in case you do not know (dam you make me type too much, me, professor AvJoe)...the judges have to set out and publish the reason for their decisions, every one of which is based on Constitutional law. So, take back what you said, that they ignore.
Yes, the facts speak for themselves. And then the US Supreme Court has the balls to ignore all that and defend Trump and what he did.
What they ignore is screaming meemies with signs on their front steps.