Porteroso said:

---

Canon said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Why is anyone adding the "violent" insurrection qualifier? Some attempt to muddy the waters?

It was definitely an insurrection. The mob had the stated purpose of overthrowing the election, arresting Pelosi, a few wanted to hang the Vice President. That's just what insurrections are.

---

Everyone in that crowd wanted to overthrow the election? Interesting. Link?

---

It's a bit late for you to start wanting details from Jan 6. I've been over this on this forum several times. You can Google what the crowd chanted, you can Google what they posted on Facebook during the insurrection, you can Google who they hunted around the Capitol for, what they said in their court hearings of their motivation, I mean you could inform yourself any number of ways, but in the end, they wanted to breach the Capitol at that specific time to prevent Congress from accepting the States' certified results, and instead accept the alternate group of electors Trump wanted, or revote in states he lost.

---

I suspect I am more informed than you on the events of Jan. 6th. I was just curious if you could answer the question, which would help fit your square peg in the round hole.

Apparently not.

---

If you can't find the answer to your question in my post you need some new readers. Round, square, they just need to work for your eye balls.

---

It's humorous that you think what the crowd chanted, and what a few defendants said in court hearings evidences a meeting of the minds on an organized insurrection with stated goals.

In truth, we need look no further than the charges brought to see the fiction you are perpetuating. I understand your motivations for perpetuating that fiction.

---

You have a serious lack of honesty. You know what the motivation for the mob was, overthrowing the election, and yet you decide that doesn't matter because it wasn't organized enough?

And I've only said it dozens of times, but the state rarely charges anyone with treason or insurrection, due to how the law defines both, and the power of the First Amendment. That doesn't mean insurrection never happens, just that the state normally has plenty other things they can get an insurrectionist on.

If you are bringing up court proceedings, guess how many judges called it an insurrection?

---

The only person being dishonest here is you. The protest revolved around a demand that Pence and Congress reject Biden's victory, due to perceived voter fraud. I've given you the definition of insurrection, and this protest doesn't come close to falling within that definition.

If it's not an insurrection under the law, it's not an insurrection.

---

insurrection an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.
Insurrectionist a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions)
Law the act or an instance of revolting especially violently against civil or political authority or against an established government also : the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States…

---

imbecile
mb-sl, -sl
noun
A person who is considered foolish or stupid.
A person of moderate to severe mental ******ation having a mental age of from three to seven years and generally being capable of some degree of communication and performance of simple tasks under supervision. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
One who is imbecile.

---

Going for the brute force method? Call enough people enough names that you'll get the attention you are so desperate for?

I've said it a hundred times but again, Baylor should be teaching everyone logic 101. The absolute destruction of intelligent discourse is just pitiful to watch.

---

I don't argue with fools who claim unicorns are real.

Word Cholera right there.

January 6 can reasonably be called a protest where some went too far, it can be called trespass by some.

It cannot rationally be called "insurrection", but the devil will never yield to the saint on that kind of thing.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Word Cholera right there.

January 6 can reasonably be called a protest where some went too far, it can be called trespass by some.

It cannot rationally be called "insurrection", but the devil will never yield to the saint on that kind of thing.

---

Devil? Saint?
There is a disagreement. I believe it was an insurrection by hundreds of stupid people. Being inept and stupid doesn't make it less.

I've noticed that those who believe it isn't an insurrection feel the need to include insults in their posts, like that blisters their argument or intimidates.

Transgender Antifa rioter has federal case for assaulting Portland cops dropped after she completed just 30 hours community service



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10356143/Portland-Antifa-rioter-federal-case-assaulting-cops-dropped.html

Canon said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Why is anyone adding the "violent" insurrection qualifier? Some attempt to muddy the waters?

It was definitely an insurrection. The mob had the stated purpose of overthrowing the election, arresting Pelosi, a few wanted to hang the Vice President. That's just what insurrections are.

---

Everyone in that crowd wanted to overthrow the election? Interesting. Link?

---

It's a bit late for you to start wanting details from Jan 6. I've been over this on this forum several times. You can Google what the crowd chanted, you can Google what they posted on Facebook during the insurrection, you can Google who they hunted around the Capitol for, what they said in their court hearings of their motivation, I mean you could inform yourself any number of ways, but in the end, they wanted to breach the Capitol at that specific time to prevent Congress from accepting the States' certified results, and instead accept the alternate group of electors Trump wanted, or revote in states he lost.

---

I suspect I am more informed than you on the events of Jan. 6th. I was just curious if you could answer the question, which would help fit your square peg in the round hole.

Apparently not.

---

If you can't find the answer to your question in my post you need some new readers. Round, square, they just need to work for your eye balls.

---

It's humorous that you think what the crowd chanted, and what a few defendants said in court hearings evidences a meeting of the minds on an organized insurrection with stated goals.

In truth, we need look no further than the charges brought to see the fiction you are perpetuating. I understand your motivations for perpetuating that fiction.

---

You have a serious lack of honesty. You know what the motivation for the mob was, overthrowing the election, and yet you decide that doesn't matter because it wasn't organized enough?

And I've only said it dozens of times, but the state rarely charges anyone with treason or insurrection, due to how the law defines both, and the power of the First Amendment. That doesn't mean insurrection never happens, just that the state normally has plenty other things they can get an insurrectionist on.

If you are bringing up court proceedings, guess how many judges called it an insurrection?

---

The only person being dishonest here is you. The protest revolved around a demand that Pence and Congress reject Biden's victory, due to perceived voter fraud. I've given you the definition of insurrection, and this protest doesn't come close to falling within that definition.

If it's not an insurrection under the law, it's not an insurrection.

---

insurrection an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.
Insurrectionist a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions)
Law the act or an instance of revolting especially violently against civil or political authority or against an established government also : the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States…

---

imbecile
mb-sl, -sl
noun
A person who is considered foolish or stupid.
A person of moderate to severe mental ******ation having a mental age of from three to seven years and generally being capable of some degree of communication and performance of simple tasks under supervision. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
One who is imbecile.

---

My apologies for being an imbecile. I thought you asked for the definitions of insurrectionists and they indeed line up with 1/6

Waco1947 said:

---

Canon said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Why is anyone adding the "violent" insurrection qualifier? Some attempt to muddy the waters?

It was definitely an insurrection. The mob had the stated purpose of overthrowing the election, arresting Pelosi, a few wanted to hang the Vice President. That's just what insurrections are.

---

Everyone in that crowd wanted to overthrow the election? Interesting. Link?

---

It's a bit late for you to start wanting details from Jan 6. I've been over this on this forum several times. You can Google what the crowd chanted, you can Google what they posted on Facebook during the insurrection, you can Google who they hunted around the Capitol for, what they said in their court hearings of their motivation, I mean you could inform yourself any number of ways, but in the end, they wanted to breach the Capitol at that specific time to prevent Congress from accepting the States' certified results, and instead accept the alternate group of electors Trump wanted, or revote in states he lost.

---

I suspect I am more informed than you on the events of Jan. 6th. I was just curious if you could answer the question, which would help fit your square peg in the round hole.

Apparently not.

---

If you can't find the answer to your question in my post you need some new readers. Round, square, they just need to work for your eye balls.

---

It's humorous that you think what the crowd chanted, and what a few defendants said in court hearings evidences a meeting of the minds on an organized insurrection with stated goals.

In truth, we need look no further than the charges brought to see the fiction you are perpetuating. I understand your motivations for perpetuating that fiction.

---

You have a serious lack of honesty. You know what the motivation for the mob was, overthrowing the election, and yet you decide that doesn't matter because it wasn't organized enough?

And I've only said it dozens of times, but the state rarely charges anyone with treason or insurrection, due to how the law defines both, and the power of the First Amendment. That doesn't mean insurrection never happens, just that the state normally has plenty other things they can get an insurrectionist on.

If you are bringing up court proceedings, guess how many judges called it an insurrection?

---

The only person being dishonest here is you. The protest revolved around a demand that Pence and Congress reject Biden's victory, due to perceived voter fraud. I've given you the definition of insurrection, and this protest doesn't come close to falling within that definition.

If it's not an insurrection under the law, it's not an insurrection.

---

insurrection an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.
Insurrectionist a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions)
Law the act or an instance of revolting especially violently against civil or political authority or against an established government also : the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States…

---

imbecile
mb-sl, -sl
noun
A person who is considered foolish or stupid.
A person of moderate to severe mental ******ation having a mental age of from three to seven years and generally being capable of some degree of communication and performance of simple tasks under supervision. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
One who is imbecile.

---

My apologies for being an imbecile. I thought you asked for the definitions of insurrectionists and they indeed line up with 1/6

---

I didn't and they don't. Thanks

Canon said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Canon said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Why is anyone adding the "violent" insurrection qualifier? Some attempt to muddy the waters?

It was definitely an insurrection. The mob had the stated purpose of overthrowing the election, arresting Pelosi, a few wanted to hang the Vice President. That's just what insurrections are.

---

Everyone in that crowd wanted to overthrow the election? Interesting. Link?

---

It's a bit late for you to start wanting details from Jan 6. I've been over this on this forum several times. You can Google what the crowd chanted, you can Google what they posted on Facebook during the insurrection, you can Google who they hunted around the Capitol for, what they said in their court hearings of their motivation, I mean you could inform yourself any number of ways, but in the end, they wanted to breach the Capitol at that specific time to prevent Congress from accepting the States' certified results, and instead accept the alternate group of electors Trump wanted, or revote in states he lost.

---

I suspect I am more informed than you on the events of Jan. 6th. I was just curious if you could answer the question, which would help fit your square peg in the round hole.

Apparently not.

---

If you can't find the answer to your question in my post you need some new readers. Round, square, they just need to work for your eye balls.

---

It's humorous that you think what the crowd chanted, and what a few defendants said in court hearings evidences a meeting of the minds on an organized insurrection with stated goals.

In truth, we need look no further than the charges brought to see the fiction you are perpetuating. I understand your motivations for perpetuating that fiction.

---

You have a serious lack of honesty. You know what the motivation for the mob was, overthrowing the election, and yet you decide that doesn't matter because it wasn't organized enough?

And I've only said it dozens of times, but the state rarely charges anyone with treason or insurrection, due to how the law defines both, and the power of the First Amendment. That doesn't mean insurrection never happens, just that the state normally has plenty other things they can get an insurrectionist on.

If you are bringing up court proceedings, guess how many judges called it an insurrection?

---

The only person being dishonest here is you. The protest revolved around a demand that Pence and Congress reject Biden's victory, due to perceived voter fraud. I've given you the definition of insurrection, and this protest doesn't come close to falling within that definition.

If it's not an insurrection under the law, it's not an insurrection.

---

insurrection an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.
Insurrectionist a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions)
Law the act or an instance of revolting especially violently against civil or political authority or against an established government also : the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States…

---

imbecile
mb-sl, -sl
noun
A person who is considered foolish or stupid.
A person of moderate to severe mental ******ation having a mental age of from three to seven years and generally being capable of some degree of communication and performance of simple tasks under supervision. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
One who is imbecile.

---

My apologies for being an imbecile. I thought you asked for the definitions of insurrectionists and they indeed line up with 1/6

---

I didn't and they don't. Thanks

---

Again my apologies. I was responding to Mothra not you. I am sorry for the confusion.

Canon said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Canon said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Why is anyone adding the "violent" insurrection qualifier? Some attempt to muddy the waters?

It was definitely an insurrection. The mob had the stated purpose of overthrowing the election, arresting Pelosi, a few wanted to hang the Vice President. That's just what insurrections are.

---

Everyone in that crowd wanted to overthrow the election? Interesting. Link?

---

It's a bit late for you to start wanting details from Jan 6. I've been over this on this forum several times. You can Google what the crowd chanted, you can Google what they posted on Facebook during the insurrection, you can Google who they hunted around the Capitol for, what they said in their court hearings of their motivation, I mean you could inform yourself any number of ways, but in the end, they wanted to breach the Capitol at that specific time to prevent Congress from accepting the States' certified results, and instead accept the alternate group of electors Trump wanted, or revote in states he lost.

---

I suspect I am more informed than you on the events of Jan. 6th. I was just curious if you could answer the question, which would help fit your square peg in the round hole.

Apparently not.

---

If you can't find the answer to your question in my post you need some new readers. Round, square, they just need to work for your eye balls.

---

It's humorous that you think what the crowd chanted, and what a few defendants said in court hearings evidences a meeting of the minds on an organized insurrection with stated goals.

In truth, we need look no further than the charges brought to see the fiction you are perpetuating. I understand your motivations for perpetuating that fiction.

---

You have a serious lack of honesty. You know what the motivation for the mob was, overthrowing the election, and yet you decide that doesn't matter because it wasn't organized enough?

And I've only said it dozens of times, but the state rarely charges anyone with treason or insurrection, due to how the law defines both, and the power of the First Amendment. That doesn't mean insurrection never happens, just that the state normally has plenty other things they can get an insurrectionist on.

If you are bringing up court proceedings, guess how many judges called it an insurrection?

---

The only person being dishonest here is you. The protest revolved around a demand that Pence and Congress reject Biden's victory, due to perceived voter fraud. I've given you the definition of insurrection, and this protest doesn't come close to falling within that definition.

If it's not an insurrection under the law, it's not an insurrection.

---

insurrection an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.
Insurrectionist a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the constituted authority (especially in the hope of improving conditions)
Law the act or an instance of revolting especially violently against civil or political authority or against an established government also : the crime of inciting or engaging in such revolt whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States…

---

imbecile
mb-sl, -sl
noun
A person who is considered foolish or stupid.
A person of moderate to severe mental ******ation having a mental age of from three to seven years and generally being capable of some degree of communication and performance of simple tasks under supervision. The term belongs to a classification system no longer in use and is now considered offensive.
One who is imbecile.

---

My apologies for being an imbecile. I thought you asked for the definitions of insurrectionists and they indeed line up with 1/6

---

I didn't and they don't. Thanks

---

Thank you for the clarity. I am only apologizing only to you. My apologies for being an imbecile

Oldbear83 said:

---

The people who insist that illegal entry conflates to "insurrection" are lying, plain truth.

---

You need to work on honesty as well. Someone details that breaking into the Capitol in order to overturn our fair election amounts to an insurrection, and you respond with "trespassing isn't insurrection." Surely you can do better. Surely you have an actual argument that doesn't rely upon falsehoods?

You work on your own logs, Porteroso. My honesty beats yours by a mile any day.

Canon said:

---

Transgender Antifa rioter has federal case for assaulting Portland cops dropped after she completed just 30 hours community service



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10356143/Portland-Antifa-rioter-federal-case-assaulting-cops-dropped.html

---

But he didn't assault an officer aT tHe cApItAl so we are going to ignore this.

Porteroso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The people who insist that illegal entry conflates to "insurrection" are lying, plain truth.

---

You need to work on honesty as well. Someone details that breaking into the Capitol in order to overturn our fair election amounts to an insurrection, and you respond with "trespassing isn't insurrection." Surely you can do better. Surely you have an actual argument that doesn't rely upon falsehoods?

---

They were upset with the election results. They couldn't overturn the election results through their actions. They couldn't overthrow the government even if they were successful in stopping the certification. So we're left with the broad category of "violence against authority" for your box checking of definitions. Definitions are meaningless unless the totality of the facts align with what an insurrection, coup, rebellion, or whatever else this has been framed as. Time to stop projecting what might or could have happened with what actually happened.

Oldbear83 said:

---

You work on your own logs, Porteroso. My honesty beats yours by a mile any day.

---

That's all you have? I know you are, but what am I?

Pathetic.

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The people who insist that illegal entry conflates to "insurrection" are lying, plain truth.

---

You need to work on honesty as well. Someone details that breaking into the Capitol in order to overturn our fair election amounts to an insurrection, and you respond with "trespassing isn't insurrection." Surely you can do better. Surely you have an actual argument that doesn't rely upon falsehoods?

---

They were upset with the election results. They couldn't overturn the election results through their actions. They couldn't overthrow the government even if they were successful in stopping the certification. So we're left with the broad category of "violence against authority" for your box checking of definitions. Definitions are meaningless unless the totality of the facts align with what an insurrection, coup, rebellion, or whatever else this has been framed as. Time to stop projecting what might or could have happened with what actually happened.

---

Actually they did think they could overturn the election results. If you will just pay a teeny tiny bit of attention, many testified that they thought they could intimidate Congress, a few wanted to kill Pence, some wanted to arrest Pelosi, but all of them attacked the Capitol because they thought it would accomplish something, which was overturning a fair election.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

You work on your own logs, Porteroso. My honesty beats yours by a mile any day.

---

That's all you have? I know you are, but what am I?

---

Thanks for the Pee Wee Herman impression, Porteroso, but we both know I am on point while you are left to defend the, hmmm, Brandon position.

---

I'm providing facts and dictionary definitions, while you are providing assurances that you are on point. Do you think this is cute, destroying America? How old are you again?

Who specifically made the threats you claim? After all this time, all there seems to be is media noise with no proof. AOC level delusion.

Actually no, you are providing no proof at all, and ignoring the actual definition of the words you use. Sitting at Pelosi's desk is not insurrection, nor is walking around dressed like a cartoon character. With no firearms or explosives, no evidence of strategy or direction, your claims start as specious and only stink worse over time.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Who specifically made the threats you claim? After all this time, all there seems to be is media noise with no proof. AOC level delusion.

---

It's been posted many times here. Do you need me to tell you again? I'll need assurances that you can remember it this time if I'm going to invest more time in educating you. Will you consent to a written test afterwards? No cheating!

Oldbear83 said:

---

Actually no, you are providing no proof at all, and ignoring the actual definition of the words you use. Sitting at Pelosi's desk is not insurrection, nor is walking around dressed like a cartoon character. With no firearms or explosives, no evidence of strategy or direction, your claims start as specious and only stink worse over time.

---

Total lack of honesty. Nobody says sitting on a desk is insurrection. You are so desperate. Pathetic.

Porteroso said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Porteroso said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

The people who insist that illegal entry conflates to "insurrection" are lying, plain truth.

---

You need to work on honesty as well. Someone details that breaking into the Capitol in order to overturn our fair election amounts to an insurrection, and you respond with "trespassing isn't insurrection." Surely you can do better. Surely you have an actual argument that doesn't rely upon falsehoods?

---

They were upset with the election results. They couldn't overturn the election results through their actions. They couldn't overthrow the government even if they were successful in stopping the certification. So we're left with the broad category of "violence against authority" for your box checking of definitions. Definitions are meaningless unless the totality of the facts align with what an insurrection, coup, rebellion, or whatever else this has been framed as. Time to stop projecting what might or could have happened with what actually happened.

---

Actually they did think they could overturn the election results. If you will just pay a teeny tiny bit of attention, many testified that they thought they could intimidate Congress, a few wanted to kill Pence, some wanted to arrest Pelosi, but all of them attacked the Capitol because they thought it would accomplish something, which was overturning a fair election.

---

Or maybe they were protesting what they viewed as an unfair election and wanted to send a message, illegally in many ways, to Congress and others. I don't agree with them, but I also don't think of BLM or ANTIFA as insurrectionists, even the violent ones who say they want to overturn the "unfair system". But it still boils down to them not being an insurrection. They wouldn't have overturned the government, and in fact, they accomplished about as much as they could have. The funny thing is you guys arguing these actions as the insurrection when if you wanted to push the insurrection angle you need to pull in Trump, the military or a military and military leaders. That's what insurrections/coups etc require. And if everyone who's said crazy stuff about what they wanted to do to politicians is an insurrectionist, we'd be rounding up thousands.

I still can't believe what we have turned these few hours of riots into.

It's you claiming there was an insurrection. Are you at long last admitting that claim is not true?

I see more evasion. If such threats had actually been made, there would be proof and those individuals charged. All you have is noise and nothing to back it up.

Oldbear83 said:

---

The people who insist that illegal entry conflates to "insurrection" are lying, plain truth.

---

It was much more than trespassing

Oldbear83 said:

---

I see more evasion. If such threats had actually been made, there would be proof and those individuals charged. All you have is noise and nothing to back it up.

---

Did you watch HBO documentary from HBO? It is video without commentary.


It was an insurrection.

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I see more evasion. If such threats had actually been made, there would be proof and those individuals charged. All you have is noise and nothing to back it up.

---

It was an insurrection.

---

Only to an idiot or a liar. Which are you?

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I see more evasion. If such threats had actually been made, there would be proof and those individuals charged. All you have is noise and nothing to back it up.

---

Did you watch HBO documentary from HBO? It is video without commentary.


It was an insurrection.

---

Not changing your mind, but I'd say it makes the case it wasn't. Mob out of control, yes. Insurrection, no. It does make the case that Trump incited a riot. I actually agree with that.

No, after everything we know now, it very clearly was not.

TDS is the only apparent motive for selling that fiction.

Oldbear83 said:

---

No, after everything we know now, it very clearly was not.

TDS is the only apparent motive for selling that fiction.

---

Lazy logic and wrong. I could say something like "Trump Love" keeps you from admitting what your eyes see, but that would be lazy as well

I believe it was an insurrection. Look and listen to the video

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I see more evasion. If such threats had actually been made, there would be proof and those individuals charged. All you have is noise and nothing to back it up.

---

Did you watch HBO documentary from HBO? It is video without commentary.


It was an insurrection.

---

Not changing your mind, but I'd say it makes the case it wasn't. Mob out of control, yes. Insurrection, no. It does make the case that Trump incited a riot. I actually agree with that.

---

I respect your opinion.

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

No, after everything we know now, it very clearly was not.

TDS is the only apparent motive for selling that fiction.

---

Lazy logic and wrong. I could say something like "Trump Love" keeps you from admitting what your eyes see, but that would be lazy as well

I believe it was an insurrection. Look and listen to the video

---

Words have meanings. If you apply 'insurrection' to Jan 6, then we had over half a hundred 'insurrections' last year.

Jan 6 was not an insurrection by definition. Only by hyperbole.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

No, after everything we know now, it very clearly was not.

TDS is the only apparent motive for selling that fiction.

---

Lazy logic and wrong. I could say something like "Trump Love" keeps you from admitting what your eyes see, but that would be lazy as well

I believe it was an insurrection. Look and listen to the video

---

Words have meanings. If you apply 'insurrection' to Jan 6, then we had over half a hundred 'insurrections' last year.

Jan 6 was not an insurrection by definition. Only by hyperbole.

---

Trump love

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

No, after everything we know now, it very clearly was not.

TDS is the only apparent motive for selling that fiction.

---

Lazy logic and wrong. I could say something like "Trump Love" keeps you from admitting what your eyes see, but that would be lazy as well

I believe it was an insurrection. Look and listen to the video

---

Words have meanings. If you apply 'insurrection' to Jan 6, then we had over half a hundred 'insurrections' last year.

Jan 6 was not an insurrection by definition. Only by hyperbole.

---

Trump love

---

Nope, just a rational evaluation.

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

ATL Bear said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Mothra said:

---

I think anyone who broke the law and committed violence on Jan. 6th needs to be held accountable. I've said that from day one. So, how is that "excusing" them?

Like you, I do wish Trump would go away. The difference between us is I don't let my personal dislike of the man make me nuts. I still have the ability to think rationally.

---

You're allegiance to your narrative determines your response

Video of mostly peaceful Jan 6 insurrection
HBO trailer 2 hours of mostly peaceful mob

---

I notice you didn't answer my question. Let me repeat it in case you missed it.

How is not believing this was a violent insurrection excusing the protestors who committed violence?

The only one married to a narrative here is you, bro.

---

Cool answer, Bro

---

Are you scared to answer my question? Too difficult for you?

Huh. Never figured you for a coward.

---

It's a fiction.
This was an insurrection trying to install the losing candidate as POTUS

You're spiinning Trump's narrative

Did I answer your question?

---

How could they have installed the losing candidate?

---

I don't think they could. They believed they could.
A stupid bank robber still tried to rob the bank

---

Harassing the tellers and the manager doesn't make you a bank robber.

---

This is what happens to a narrative when intent is excluded.