Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso :"Nobody denies that the chants of "Hang Mike Pence" occurred. I have seen nothing in reputable media accusing the FBI of initiating the chants."

Actually, the 'hang Pence' claims all come from Trump haters, there is no video or audio recording to support it. And the FBI infiltration is well-established fact.

---

There is video

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-video-shows-capitol-mob-calling-for-the-death-of-the-vice-president-plaskett-says

Go to minute 40:00. The video is of Trump supporters who are in the Capitol on Jan 6. They are chanting "Hang Mike Pence.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: The point is Trump agreed with the chant, whoever started the chant.

False. That claim is not supported by any evidence or credible witness.

Oso :"Nobody denies that the chants of "Hang Mike Pence" occurred. I have seen nothing in reputable media accusing the FBI of initiating the chants."

Actually, the 'hang Pence' claims all come from Trump haters, there is no video or audio recording to support it. And the FBI infiltration is well-established fact.

Oso: "Nobody denies that Trump said what his COS witnessed."

Again, there is nothing - at all - to support that claim, you just repeat it because you want it to true.

No one bothers denying a temper tantrum or a madman's rant; the falsity is apparent and needs no echo.

You might want to step away from politics if this level of delusion and paranoia is continuing for you, Oso.

You used to be much better than baseless rants. Such a pity.

---

You choose not to believe Trump's COS next to the Oval office on the day of the insurrection. Testimony provided to the committee by former White House staffers who were in the West Wing that day.
You're are the one calling the Trump quotes a "mad man's rant", not I, but I can be convinced.

Sam Lowry said:

---

None of the people who are saying bad things about Trump are credible. We know they're not credible because they're saying bad things about Trump.

---

seems legit

Sam Lowry said:

---

None of the people who are saying bad things about Trump are credible. We know they're not credible because they're saying bad things about Trump.

---

I miss the Sam who understood that his claims have to be supported with more than his opinion.

I am tired of 'multi-standard' Sam.

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso :"Nobody denies that the chants of "Hang Mike Pence" occurred. I have seen nothing in reputable media accusing the FBI of initiating the chants."

Actually, the 'hang Pence' claims all come from Trump haters, there is no video or audio recording to support it. And the FBI infiltration is well-established fact.

---

There is video

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-video-shows-capitol-mob-calling-for-the-death-of-the-vice-president-plaskett-says

Go to minute 40:00. The video is of Trump supporters who are in the Capitol on Jan 6. They are chanting "Hang Mike Pence.

---

Identify them, please.

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: The point is Trump agreed with the chant, whoever started the chant.

False. That claim is not supported by any evidence or credible witness.

Oso :"Nobody denies that the chants of "Hang Mike Pence" occurred. I have seen nothing in reputable media accusing the FBI of initiating the chants."

Actually, the 'hang Pence' claims all come from Trump haters, there is no video or audio recording to support it. And the FBI infiltration is well-established fact.

Oso: "Nobody denies that Trump said what his COS witnessed."

Again, there is nothing - at all - to support that claim, you just repeat it because you want it to true.

No one bothers denying a temper tantrum or a madman's rant; the falsity is apparent and needs no echo.

You might want to step away from politics if this level of delusion and paranoia is continuing for you, Oso.

You used to be much better than baseless rants. Such a pity.

---

You choose not to believe Trump's COS next to the Oval office on the day of the insurrection. Testimony provided to the committee by former White House staffers who were in the West Wing that day.
You're are the one calling the Trump quotes a "mad man's rant", not I, but I can be convinced.

---

You work so hard to make a fiction something more, while ignoring everything that gets in your way.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: The point is Trump agreed with the chant, whoever started the chant.

False. That claim is not supported by any evidence or credible witness.

Oso :"Nobody denies that the chants of "Hang Mike Pence" occurred. I have seen nothing in reputable media accusing the FBI of initiating the chants."

Actually, the 'hang Pence' claims all come from Trump haters, there is no video or audio recording to support it. And the FBI infiltration is well-established fact.

Oso: "Nobody denies that Trump said what his COS witnessed."

Again, there is nothing - at all - to support that claim, you just repeat it because you want it to true.

No one bothers denying a temper tantrum or a madman's rant; the falsity is apparent and needs no echo.

You might want to step away from politics if this level of delusion and paranoia is continuing for you, Oso.

You used to be much better than baseless rants. Such a pity.

---

You choose not to believe Trump's COS next to the Oval office on the day of the insurrection. Testimony provided to the committee by former White House staffers who were in the West Wing that day.
You're are the one calling the Trump quotes a "mad man's rant", not I, but I can be convinced.

---

You work so hard to make a fiction something more, while ignoring everything that gets in your way.

---

You show an extreme lack of awareness of your own bias. I don't often claim expertise, but I do spot this kind of stuff for a living. Believe me when I say it is extraordinary.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: The point is Trump agreed with the chant, whoever started the chant.

False. That claim is not supported by any evidence or credible witness.

Oso :"Nobody denies that the chants of "Hang Mike Pence" occurred. I have seen nothing in reputable media accusing the FBI of initiating the chants."

Actually, the 'hang Pence' claims all come from Trump haters, there is no video or audio recording to support it. And the FBI infiltration is well-established fact.

Oso: "Nobody denies that Trump said what his COS witnessed."

Again, there is nothing - at all - to support that claim, you just repeat it because you want it to true.

No one bothers denying a temper tantrum or a madman's rant; the falsity is apparent and needs no echo.

You might want to step away from politics if this level of delusion and paranoia is continuing for you, Oso.

You used to be much better than baseless rants. Such a pity.

---

You choose not to believe Trump's COS next to the Oval office on the day of the insurrection. Testimony provided to the committee by former White House staffers who were in the West Wing that day.
You're are the one calling the Trump quotes a "mad man's rant", not I, but I can be convinced.

---

You work so hard to make a fiction something more, while ignoring everything that gets in your way.

---

You show an extreme lack of awareness of your own bias. I don't often claim expertise, but I do spot this kind of stuff for a living. Believe me when I say it is extraordinary.

---

Sam accusing others of bias.
You should try open mic night at your local comedy club.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Oso: The point is Trump agreed with the chant, whoever started the chant.

False. That claim is not supported by any evidence or credible witness.

Oso :"Nobody denies that the chants of "Hang Mike Pence" occurred. I have seen nothing in reputable media accusing the FBI of initiating the chants."

Actually, the 'hang Pence' claims all come from Trump haters, there is no video or audio recording to support it. And the FBI infiltration is well-established fact.

Oso: "Nobody denies that Trump said what his COS witnessed."

Again, there is nothing - at all - to support that claim, you just repeat it because you want it to true.

No one bothers denying a temper tantrum or a madman's rant; the falsity is apparent and needs no echo.

You might want to step away from politics if this level of delusion and paranoia is continuing for you, Oso.

You used to be much better than baseless rants. Such a pity.

---

You choose not to believe Trump's COS next to the Oval office on the day of the insurrection. Testimony provided to the committee by former White House staffers who were in the West Wing that day.
You're are the one calling the Trump quotes a "mad man's rant", not I, but I can be convinced.

---

You work so hard to make a fiction something more, while ignoring everything that gets in your way.

---

You show an extreme lack of awareness of your own bias. I don't often claim expertise, but I do spot this kind of stuff for a living. Believe me when I say it is extraordinary.

---

Your insult does not count as evidence to prove your claim, Sam.

We know that the overwhelming majority of protesters who came to DC committed no crime.

We know that the overwhelming majority who did commit an offense simply trespassed.

We know almost no protesters carried any kind of weapon, something any reasonable person would expect in abundance in a genuine "insurrection".

We know the FBI had undercover agents on the scene, and credible accounts these agents were trying to drive the crowd to commit crimes.

We have no substantive evidence that President Trump ever urged violent or illegal action.

But you can pretend you are the 'expert' who stays objective and calm, even when anything Trump sends you off in an emotional fit.

You are so biased yourself, that you cannot even discern between people who approve of everything Trump says and those who discern between passing quips and actual intentions.

I'm an ordinary person with biases like anyone else. But I do have some idea what evidence is, and I think you'd do well to try and learn. Oso and Katz have both made fact claims. Let's look at their evidence and your responses.

Oso's claim: Trump reacted favorably to the idea of hanging Mike Pence.

Oso's evidence: A statement from Mark Meadows. This person is Trump's former chief of staff and was closely involved in Trump's post-election activities, including conversations with election officials in Georgia. He is a staunch defender of Trump who was held in contempt for defying a subpoena from the Jan. 6 committee. His statement is an example of what is known as evidence.

Your responses:
1. The chant was "likely"started by the FBI. This is both speculative and irrelevant.
2. Meadows is not a credible witness. You offer no support for this claim, other than the fact that he said something bad about Trump.
3. "Hang Pence" claims only come from Trump haters. Again you offer no evidence that Meadows is a Trump hater, except that you need him to be.
4. Meadows' statement is like a temper tantrum or madman's rant. Pure opinion on your part.
5. The falsity of the statement is "apparent." More opinion.
6. To believe Meadows is delusional and paranoid. More opinion, and also ad hominem.

Oso offered a statement from an identified witness who was in a position to know. You essentially offered name-calling and nothing else. Oso wins this round by default.

Katz' claim: Pence refused to get in the car with the Secret Service.

Katz' evidence: A report by the Washington Post.

Your responses:
1. It's a fairy tale. Opinion on your part, no factual support.
2. It's the kind of story that comes from leftists. In this case the source is Tim Giebels, Pence's lead security agent, via the Washington Post. Like many newspapers, WaPo does lean to the left. But you offer no evidence that this particular story was affected by bias. You offer no evidence that Giebels or Pence are leftists, and neither of them have denied the story.

Katz offered a statement from an identified witness who was in a position to know. You offered more name-calling, plus the fact that WaPo is generally considered to have a liberal bias. Katz wins this round.

You're entitled to your opinion that Trump never expressed approval for the "hang Pence" chant and Pence never hesitated to get in the car. You may even be right. Just don't imagine that your opinion is evidence-based in any way. It's simply what you happen to feel, and will probably always feel, regardless of what evidence is presented.

If you seriously believe the WaPo, NYT and CNN are objective, you are hopelessly dependent on garbage media.

Your bias is real, but it affects your opinion far more than you realize, Sam.

You have not proved your case, you don't realize all you are doing is employing sophistry to pretend Trump's enemies somehow count as objective sources.

You attack me over and over, but I don't play your game. If I were, I could dredge up Breibart, AON, or any of a couple dozen biased pro-Trump sources, but I simply rely on the established facts.

I honestly feel pity for you, Sam. You act as if Trump is hiding under your bed, cutting you off in traffic, and flooding your email with spam. You will and have ignored everything he did well, your protests to the contrary void by the absence any post defending him during the Mueller investigation or that first witch-hunt impeachment.

Yes, you have your buddie who also want to see Trump destroyed. The plain truth that this will never happen only seems to make you angrier, to the point that you go after anyone who sticks to the facts as some kind of MAGA extremist.

It only makes you look hysterical.

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm an ordinary person with biases like anyone else. But I do have some idea what evidence is, and I think you'd do well to try and learn. Oso and Katz have both made fact claims. Let's look at their evidence and your responses.

Oso's claim: Trump reacted favorably to the idea of hanging Mike Pence.

Oso's evidence: A statement from Mark Meadows. This person is Trump's former chief of staff and was closely involved in Trump's post-election activities, including conversations with election officials in Georgia. He is a staunch defender of Trump who was held in contempt for defying a subpoena from the Jan. 6 committee. His statement is an example of what is known as evidence.

Your responses:
1. The chant was "likely"started by the FBI. This is both speculative and irrelevant.
2. Meadows is not a credible witness. You offer no support for this claim, other than the fact that he said something bad about Trump.
3. "Hang Pence" claims only come from Trump haters. Again you offer no evidence that Meadows is a Trump hater, except that you need him to be.
4. Meadows' statement is like a temper tantrum or madman's rant. Pure opinion on your part.
5. The falsity of the statement is "apparent." More opinion.
6. To believe Meadows is delusional and paranoid. More opinion, and also ad hominem.

Oso offered a statement from an identified witness who was in a position to know. You essentially offered name-calling and nothing else. Oso wins this round by default.

Katz' claim: Pence refused to get in the car with the Secret Service.

Katz' evidence: A report by the Washington Post.

Your responses:
1. It's a fairy tale. Opinion on your part, no factual support.
2. It's the kind of story that comes from leftists. In this case the source is Tim Giebels, Pence's lead security agent, via the Washington Post. Like many newspapers, WaPo does lean to the left. But you offer no evidence that this particular story was affected by bias. You offer no evidence that Giebels or Pence are leftists, and neither of them have denied the story.

Katz offered a statement from an identified witness who was in a position to know. You offered more name-calling, plus the fact that WaPo is generally considered to have a liberal bias. Katz wins this round.

You're entitled to your opinion that Trump never expressed approval for the "hang Pence" chant and Pence never hesitated to get in the car. You may even be right. Just don't imagine that your opinion is evidence-based in any way. It's simply what you happen to feel, and will probably always feel, regardless of what evidence is presented.

---

Bro you gotta stop pretending like J6 was a real threat against this country. If there was an actual threat, the feds would have opened fire and murdered everyone involved and jailed anyone who dared engaging in "threatening democracy" for life.

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm an ordinary person with biases like anyone else. But I do have some idea what evidence is, and I think you'd do well to try and learn. Oso and Katz have both made fact claims. Let's look at their evidence and your responses.

Oso's claim: Trump reacted favorably to the idea of hanging Mike Pence.

Oso's evidence: A statement from Mark Meadows. This person is Trump's former chief of staff and was closely involved in Trump's post-election activities, including conversations with election officials in Georgia. He is a staunch defender of Trump who was held in contempt for defying a subpoena from the Jan. 6 committee. His statement is an example of what is known as evidence.

Your responses:
1. The chant was "likely"started by the FBI. This is both speculative and irrelevant.
2. Meadows is not a credible witness. You offer no support for this claim, other than the fact that he said something bad about Trump.
3. "Hang Pence" claims only come from Trump haters. Again you offer no evidence that Meadows is a Trump hater, except that you need him to be.
4. Meadows' statement is like a temper tantrum or madman's rant. Pure opinion on your part.
5. The falsity of the statement is "apparent." More opinion.
6. To believe Meadows is delusional and paranoid. More opinion, and also ad hominem.

Oso offered a statement from an identified witness who was in a position to know. You essentially offered name-calling and nothing else. Oso wins this round by default.

Katz' claim: Pence refused to get in the car with the Secret Service.

Katz' evidence: A report by the Washington Post.

Your responses:
1. It's a fairy tale. Opinion on your part, no factual support.
2. It's the kind of story that comes from leftists. In this case the source is Tim Giebels, Pence's lead security agent, via the Washington Post. Like many newspapers, WaPo does lean to the left. But you offer no evidence that this particular story was affected by bias. You offer no evidence that Giebels or Pence are leftists, and neither of them have denied the story.

Katz offered a statement from an identified witness who was in a position to know. You offered more name-calling, plus the fact that WaPo is generally considered to have a liberal bias. Katz wins this round.

You're entitled to your opinion that Trump never expressed approval for the "hang Pence" chant and Pence never hesitated to get in the car. You may even be right. Just don't imagine that your opinion is evidence-based in any way. It's simply what you happen to feel, and will probably always feel, regardless of what evidence is presented.

---

Bro you gotta stop pretending like J6 was a real threat against this country. If there was an actual threat, the feds would have opened fire and murdered everyone involved and jailed anyone who dared engaging in "threatening democracy" for life.

---

But he and the like NEED Jan6 to be an insurrection in order to smear the leader of the GOP and the majority of the party who support him. So it is.

Oldbear83 said:

---

If you seriously believe the WaPo, NYT and CNN are objective, you are hopelessly dependent on garbage media.

Your bias is real, but it affects your opinion far more than you realize, Sam.

You have not proved your case, you don't realize all you are doing is employing sophistry to pretend Trump's enemies somehow count as objective sources.

You attack me over and over, but I don't play your game. If I were, I could dredge up Breibart, AON, or any of a couple dozen biased pro-Trump sources, but I simply rely on the established facts.

I honestly feel pity for you, Sam. You act as if Trump is hiding under your bed, cutting you off in traffic, and flooding your email with spam. You will and have ignored everything he did well, your protests to the contrary void by the absence any post defending him during the Mueller investigation or that first witch-hunt impeachment.

Yes, you have your buddie who also want to see Trump destroyed. The plain truth that this will never happen only seems to make you angrier, to the point that you go after anyone who sticks to the facts as some kind of MAGA extremist.

It only makes you look hysterical.

---

I just said the WaPo was biased. Everyone is biased. That means nothing if you can't even put a fact in dispute.

It's your feeling that I never posted to defend Trump during the Mueller investigation or the witch hunt impeachment. The evidence shows otherwise:

https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/27974/replies/714407
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/29901/replies/770340
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/29883/replies/765552
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/29786/replies/766122
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/29765/replies/762235
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/28724/replies/736969
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/31026/replies/797915
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/30619/replies/785309
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/30157/replies/774008
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/30084/replies/772798
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/32157/replies/824478
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/33399/replies/862055
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/33102/replies/853246
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/32472/replies/835079
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/43675/replies/1133223
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/41397/replies/1087704
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/39587/replies/1046006
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/39856/replies/1051024
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/43797/replies/1140509
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/45298/replies/1169101
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/44328/replies/1149732
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/41523/replies/1110157
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/43820/replies/1136805
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/45876/replies/1180635
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/49078/replies/1250233
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/48551/replies/1239297
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/37908/replies/1134389
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/47302/replies/1213794
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/47310/replies/1213354
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/46968/replies/1204101
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/61480/replies/1575134
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/56816/replies/1427713
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/43205/replies/1125657
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/58684/replies/1478665
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/57296/replies/1440861
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/55369/replies/1397168
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/55212/replies/1391151
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/53881/replies/1369816
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/52249/replies/1329829
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/63025/replies/1609976
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/62067/replies/1590426


Feelings. Evidence. See the difference?

January 6th Committee Discusses The Insurrection...#Capitol #Jan6thCommittee pic.twitter.com/4GBq9b567j

— @stevenvoiceover (@stevenvoiceover) December 14, 2021

I will look through your links.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I will look through your links.

---

Please look at the "Hang Mike Pence" video

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I will look through your links.

---

Please look at the "Hang Mike Pence" video

---

Identify the people saying that. Who, how many, how were they armed?

That sort of detail matters.

I stopped checking the links after a dozen. I found a couple which defended Trump, but mostly you went after Obama and the Democrats. Fair, but not quite what we were discussing.

I do think it is still reasonable to say that somewhere mid 2020 you lost faith in Trump, and like a broken infatuation your opinion spiraled from approval to distaste and bitterness.

I also think you began pooling everyone who supports the former President in one lump, so as to deride them regardless of specifics. Ironically, this means that you get into arguments with people who might otherwise agree with you to some degree about Trump's temper, sometimes foolish desire to butt into issues he should leave alone, and/or his desire to have complete support in whatever fight he picks.

I am frankly amused to see you use the word "evidence", because you still ignore evidence if it does not suit your argument. That certainly is a common behavior, especially among lawyers (I just won a judgment in Pennsylvania, because the defense attorney believed the judge was not serious when he warned that failure to appear at a mandatory arbitration could lead to a summary judgment against the party not in attendance), but for here it dilutes someone's credibility to build a house on sand, which is to say, base a claim on just the parts you like and ignore whatever does not fit.

I am presently working on a project which may or may not bear fruit. In 2020 the key states had polls which disagreed, even in the final days, about whether Trump or Biden would win. For a time I wondered if the mail-in ballots made it impossible to accurately predict the outcome, but I now think it maybe useful to look at the accuracy of those polls in 2012, 2016, and 2020 to help see the starting picture for 2024.

Certainly the primary results in Georgia are food for thought, but no more than Texas and other states where Trump-supported candidates won. I also plan to look at the exit poll demographics from Pennsylvania, where the recount between Trump-supported Oz and Trump-hater McCormick illustrates the divide among GOP voters. By the way, you may already know this, but if Oz wins the Senate seat he would be the first Muslim to serve as a United States Senator.

in any case, thanks for your links, even if I disagree a bit about what they show.

Oldbear83 said:

---

I stopped checking the links after a dozen.

---

Fair enough. I stopped reading there.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I stopped checking the links after a dozen.

---

Fair enough. I stopped reading there.

---

Ironically proving a point I made further in my post.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I stopped checking the links after a dozen.

---

Fair enough. I stopped reading there.

---

Ironically proving a point I made further in my post.

---

So not reading proves a point...but only when I do it.

QED.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I stopped checking the links after a dozen.

---

Fair enough. I stopped reading there.

---

Ironically proving a point I made further in my post.

---

So not reading proves a point...but only when I do it.

QED.

---

OK, tell you what. I will go through the rest of the links, while you read and consider my points, in toto.

Deal?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I stopped checking the links after a dozen.

---

Fair enough. I stopped reading there.

---

Ironically proving a point I made further in my post.

---

So not reading proves a point...but only when I do it.

QED.

---

OK, tell you what. I will go through the rest of the links, while you read and consider my points, in toto.

Deal?

---

Sure!

whiterock said:

---

Doc Holliday said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

I'm an ordinary person with biases like anyone else. But I do have some idea what evidence is, and I think you'd do well to try and learn. Oso and Katz have both made fact claims. Let's look at their evidence and your responses.

Oso's claim: Trump reacted favorably to the idea of hanging Mike Pence.

Oso's evidence: A statement from Mark Meadows. This person is Trump's former chief of staff and was closely involved in Trump's post-election activities, including conversations with election officials in Georgia. He is a staunch defender of Trump who was held in contempt for defying a subpoena from the Jan. 6 committee. His statement is an example of what is known as evidence.

Your responses:
1. The chant was "likely"started by the FBI. This is both speculative and irrelevant.
2. Meadows is not a credible witness. You offer no support for this claim, other than the fact that he said something bad about Trump.
3. "Hang Pence" claims only come from Trump haters. Again you offer no evidence that Meadows is a Trump hater, except that you need him to be.
4. Meadows' statement is like a temper tantrum or madman's rant. Pure opinion on your part.
5. The falsity of the statement is "apparent." More opinion.
6. To believe Meadows is delusional and paranoid. More opinion, and also ad hominem.

Oso offered a statement from an identified witness who was in a position to know. You essentially offered name-calling and nothing else. Oso wins this round by default.

Katz' claim: Pence refused to get in the car with the Secret Service.

Katz' evidence: A report by the Washington Post.

Your responses:
1. It's a fairy tale. Opinion on your part, no factual support.
2. It's the kind of story that comes from leftists. In this case the source is Tim Giebels, Pence's lead security agent, via the Washington Post. Like many newspapers, WaPo does lean to the left. But you offer no evidence that this particular story was affected by bias. You offer no evidence that Giebels or Pence are leftists, and neither of them have denied the story.

Katz offered a statement from an identified witness who was in a position to know. You offered more name-calling, plus the fact that WaPo is generally considered to have a liberal bias. Katz wins this round.

You're entitled to your opinion that Trump never expressed approval for the "hang Pence" chant and Pence never hesitated to get in the car. You may even be right. Just don't imagine that your opinion is evidence-based in any way. It's simply what you happen to feel, and will probably always feel, regardless of what evidence is presented.

---

Bro you gotta stop pretending like J6 was a real threat against this country. If there was an actual threat, the feds would have opened fire and murdered everyone involved and jailed anyone who dared engaging in "threatening democracy" for life.

---

But he and the like NEED Jan6 to be an insurrection in order to smear the leader of the GOP and the majority of the party who support him. So it is.

---

They're pretending to be concerned.

A lot of politics is pretend.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I will look through your links.

---

Please look at the "Hang Mike Pence" video

---

Identify the people saying that. Who, how many, how were they armed?

That sort of detail matters.

---

Can we agree that there is video of the rioters chanting "Hang Mike Pence"?

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I will look through your links.

---

Please look at the "Hang Mike Pence" video

---

Identify the people saying that. Who, how many, how were they armed?

That sort of detail matters.

---

Can we agree that there is video of the rioters chanting "Hang Mike Pence"?

---

we can agree there is a video that you can hear the audio hang mike pence..

Video can be manipulated and audio can be dubbed. With current AI tech, i could make you shout Hang Mike Pence on video or put your face on some dude in a porno and send it to your wife.

We already know trumps opponents are very capable of making up evidence and lying under oath about it.

Maybe the chanting happened, maybe it didnt.. maybe it was lead by govt agents. Maybe the video was faked.

Maybe the govt can use geolocation to find out who was there and get real eye witness testimony. Oh yea, they already used geolocation to figure out who was there.. guess that tech does work when they want it to.. just not in ballot harvesting cases

Good grief

Osodecentx said:

---

Good grief

---

you dont agree that the Dems clearly made up evidence before and could be making up evidence now?

You dont agree that fed agents were part of mich gov kidnap plot, and known to be in the crowd on Jan 6?

We think we know these things like the video to be the truth but in fact we dont.. the evidence must be taken in context.

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I will look through your links.

---

Please look at the "Hang Mike Pence" video

---

Identify the people saying that. Who, how many, how were they armed?

That sort of detail matters.

---

Can we agree that there is video of the rioters chanting "Hang Mike Pence"?

---

No, we can agree that you found video of someone chanting that. Again, we already know the FBI had infiltrated the protest and was actively urging illegal actions. We also know that the crowd was not armed for an actual insurrection, meaning that anyone actually making that chant was either A) a provocateur or B) ranting emotionally without any real intent to carry out that threat.

This is why identification is crucial to this point.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I will look through your links.

---

Please look at the "Hang Mike Pence" video

---

Identify the people saying that. Who, how many, how were they armed?

That sort of detail matters.

---

Can we agree that there is video of the rioters chanting "Hang Mike Pence"?

---

Again, we already know the FBI had infiltrated the protest and was actively urging illegal actions.

---

Based on what evidence?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I will look through your links.

---

Please look at the "Hang Mike Pence" video

---

Identify the people saying that. Who, how many, how were they armed?

That sort of detail matters.

---

Can we agree that there is video of the rioters chanting "Hang Mike Pence"?

---

No, we can agree that you found video of someone chanting that. Again, we already know the FBI had infiltrated the protest and was actively urging illegal actions. We also know that the crowd was not armed for an actual insurrection, meaning that anyone actually making that chant was either A) a provocateur or B) ranting emotionally without any real intent to carry out that threat.

This is why identification is crucial to this point.

---

I don't see how we can continue this discussion.

You denied there was video of rioters chanting "Hang Mike Pence". I bring you video and you still won't admit there is video.

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I will look through your links.

---

Please look at the "Hang Mike Pence" video

---

Identify the people saying that. Who, how many, how were they armed?

That sort of detail matters.

---

Can we agree that there is video of the rioters chanting "Hang Mike Pence"?

---

No, we can agree that you found video of someone chanting that. Again, we already know the FBI had infiltrated the protest and was actively urging illegal actions. We also know that the crowd was not armed for an actual insurrection, meaning that anyone actually making that chant was either A) a provocateur or B) ranting emotionally without any real intent to carry out that threat.

This is why identification is crucial to this point.

---

I don't see how we can continue this discussion.

You denied there was video of rioters chanting "Hang Mike Pence". I bring you video and you still won't admit there is video.

---

no he didnt, try again..

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I will look through your links.

---

Please look at the "Hang Mike Pence" video

---

Identify the people saying that. Who, how many, how were they armed?

That sort of detail matters.

---

Can we agree that there is video of the rioters chanting "Hang Mike Pence"?

---

No, we can agree that you found video of someone chanting that. Again, we already know the FBI had infiltrated the protest and was actively urging illegal actions. We also know that the crowd was not armed for an actual insurrection, meaning that anyone actually making that chant was either A) a provocateur or B) ranting emotionally without any real intent to carry out that threat.

This is why identification is crucial to this point.

---

I don't see how we can continue this discussion.

You denied there was video of rioters chanting "Hang Mike Pence". I bring you video and you still won't admit there is video.

---

no he didnt, try again..

---

Here is Old's post:

Oldbear83 said:
Oso :"Nobody denies that the chants of "Hang Mike Pence" occurred. I have seen nothing in reputable media accusing the FBI of initiating the chants."

Actually, the 'hang Pence' claims all come from Trump haters, there is no video or audio recording to support it. And the FBI infiltration is well-established fact.

Osodecentx said:

---

4th and Inches said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Osodecentx said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

I will look through your links.

---

Please look at the "Hang Mike Pence" video

---

Identify the people saying that. Who, how many, how were they armed?

That sort of detail matters.

---

Can we agree that there is video of the rioters chanting "Hang Mike Pence"?

---

No, we can agree that you found video of someone chanting that. Again, we already know the FBI had infiltrated the protest and was actively urging illegal actions. We also know that the crowd was not armed for an actual insurrection, meaning that anyone actually making that chant was either A) a provocateur or B) ranting emotionally without any real intent to carry out that threat.

This is why identification is crucial to this point.

---

I don't see how we can continue this discussion.

You denied there was video of rioters chanting "Hang Mike Pence". I bring you video and you still won't admit there is video.

---

no he didnt, try again..

---

Here is Old's post:

Oldbear83 said:
Oso :"Nobody denies that the chants of "Hang Mike Pence" occurred. I have seen nothing in reputable media accusing the FBI of initiating the chants."

Actually, the 'hang Pence' claims all come from Trump haters, there is no video or audio recording to support it. And the FBI infiltration is well-established fact.

---

Just skipping the FBI problem, I see.