Porteroso said:Canon said:Waco1947 said:insurrection an act or instance of rising in revolt, rebellion, or resistance against civil authority or an established government.Mothra said: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.Porteroso said:Mothra said: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.Porteroso said:Mothra said: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.Porteroso said:Mothra said:Everyone in that crowd wanted to overthrow the election? Interesting. Link?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.
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.
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.
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?
If it's not an insurrection under the law, it's not an insurrection.
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.