When a crackpot dictator wannabe says "If so and so happens, then there is going to be death and destruction" it is not a warning. It is a call to action. It is standard authoritarian playbook 101.
Meanwhile his defenders on this board: "show me where he incited violence, when did he actually say to do it? He is not saying to do it!"
His exact words were "march down peacefully" and cheer on your Congressperson. Does that sound like inciting violence?
Meanwhile, Biden went on national TV with Marines behind him and declared that anyone who didn't vote for him was an enemy of the state.
When broken down by ethnicity (Hispanic/Non-Hispanic) then Hispanics commit 18.8 percent of crimes. They are virtually all included in the race category of white. A few might be black.
When broken down by ethnicity (Hispanic/Non-Hispanic) then Hispanics commit 18.8 percent of crimes. They are virtually all included in the race category of white. A few might be black.
Unfortunately, once a liberal decides what they feel their opinion is no amount of facts or logic will change their mind.
Wait until if and when an indictment is published.
Read the indictment and compare to relevant US law.
Then comment if you feel indictment not warranted referring relevant US laws etc.
DON'T
Parrot conspiracy theories made by people (often Trump himself, or supporting GOP politicians) who have not gone through a proper assessment as above and who have vested interests in deceiving people.
Are you really a co-founder of this site? Exercise critical thinking please.
Wait until if and when an indictment is published.
Read the indictment and compare to relevant US law.
Then comment if you feel indictment not warranted referring relevant US laws etc.
DON'T
Parrot conspiracy theories made by people (often Trump himself, or supporting GOP politicians) who have not gone through a proper assessment as above and who have vested interests in deceiving people.
Are you really a co-founder of this site? Exercise critical thinking please.
When a crackpot dictator wannabe says "If so and so happens, then there is going to be death and destruction" it is not a warning. It is a call to action. It is standard authoritarian playbook 101.
Meanwhile his defenders on this board: "show me where he incited violence, when did he actually say to do it? He is not saying to do it!"
His exact words were "march down peacefully" and cheer on your Congressperson. Does that sound like inciting violence?
But then, just recently, in his blaming of Mike Pence for the events of Jan 6, Trump effectively admitted that the goal of the gathering he called was to bolster his months long effort to stop the certification of the election!
What he (Trump) said is that if Mike Pence had sent the EC votes back to the key state legislatures (something Trump claims Pence had the legal power to do, because it was not explicitly prohibited in law at the time) then there would have been no violence. Sure, there may have been an illegal seizure of power, backed by the threat of mob violence, but there would have been no violence per se, because his goal would have been realized, and he would have been reinstalled as President.
The only question is whether Trump has ever actually believed that the election was stolen via massive fraud. Because he has made it perfectly clear on many occasions that summoning a mob of "patriots" on Jan 6 was part of his months long plan to see the certification the election blocked. His blaming of Pence for the violence absolutely confirms that he intended the mob to reinforce this effort. And how did he think the presence of 1000s of demonstrators he'd just spent an hour riling up was going to play this role except through the threat of violence? You could all be see the nod and the wink when he urged a crowd-- one whose propensities he knew very well-- to proceed "peacefully" to the Capitol.
When a crackpot dictator wannabe says "If so and so happens, then there is going to be death and destruction" it is not a warning. It is a call to action. It is standard authoritarian playbook 101.
Meanwhile his defenders on this board: "show me where he incited violence, when did he actually say to do it? He is not saying to do it!"
His exact words were "march down peacefully" and cheer on your Congressperson. Does that sound like inciting violence?
Hey girl. We were talking about the violence inciting from today and yesterday by Trump. You are talking about the other time he incited violence. I know it is hard to keep up. But you hate Trump too like you said so I am sure you would agree that "tweeting" that Death and destruction is coming is not cool for a Prez candidate.
His exact words were "march down peacefully" and cheer on your Congressperson. Does that sound like inciting violence?
But then, just recently, in his blaming of Mike Pence for the events of Jan 6, Trump effectively admitted that the goal of the gathering he called was to bolster his months long effort to stop the certification of the election!
What he (Trump) said is that if Mike Pence had sent the EC votes back to the key state legislatures (something Trump claims Pence had the legal power to do, because it was not explicitly prohibited in law at the time) then there would have been no violence. Sure, there may have been an illegal seizure of power, backed by the threat of mob violence, but there would have been no violence per se, because his goal would have been realized, and he would have been reinstalled as President.
The only question is whether Trump has ever actually believed that the election was stolen via massive fraud. Because he has made it perfectly clear on many occasions that summoning a mob of "patriots" on Jan 6 was part of his months long plan to see the certification the election blocked. His blaming of Pence for the violence absolutely confirms that he intended the mob to reinforce this effort. And how did he think the presence of 1000s of demonstrators he'd just spent an hour riling up was going to play this role except through the threat of violence? You could all be see the nod and the wink when he urged a crowd-- one whose propensities he knew very well-- to proceed "peacefully" to the Capitol.
Of course he believed there was fraud. The was the entire point of Pence sending the results back to the states to have them ensure the results were legitimate.
Because Trump believed the six disputed states (Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin) ran entirely fraudulent elections, and because their legislatures did not dictate fraudulent elections, the state certifications were invalid.
Pence doing this wouldn't declare Trump the winner it would have allowed more time for the alleged fraud to be looked in to.
As the system currently works there is so little time between the election and mandatory certification dates that it's physically impossible to produce the evidence required by the courts even if it exists.
His exact words were "march down peacefully" and cheer on your Congressperson. Does that sound like inciting violence?
But then, just recently, in his blaming of Mike Pence for the events of Jan 6, Trump effectively admitted that the goal of the gathering he called was to bolster his months long effort to stop the certification of the election!
What he (Trump) said is that if Mike Pence had sent the EC votes back to the key state legislatures (something Trump claims Pence had the legal power to do, because it was not explicitly prohibited in law at the time) then there would have been no violence. Sure, there may have been an illegal seizure of power, backed by the threat of mob violence, but there would have been no violence per se, because his goal would have been realized, and he would have been reinstalled as President.
The only question is whether Trump has ever actually believed that the election was stolen via massive fraud. Because he has made it perfectly clear on many occasions that summoning a mob of "patriots" on Jan 6 was part of his months long plan to see the certification the election blocked. His blaming of Pence for the violence absolutely confirms that he intended the mob to reinforce this effort. And how did he think the presence of 1000s of demonstrators he'd just spent an hour riling up was going to play this role except through the threat of violence? You could all be see the nod and the wink when he urged a crowd-- one whose propensities he knew very well-- to proceed "peacefully" to the Capitol.
You can see Trump's playbook a mile away. And It is plain to see that Trumps BS defense will be that he truly believed he won and there was fraud. But there is plenty of sworn testimony that he was told in no uncertain terms multiple times that there was no fraud and he lost. On top of that "it isn't a thing" legally to say that you committed crimes but you believed you were justified so all is cool. Most every criminal behind bars could say the same.
The "race" category is at the top of the table. Find me the "latino" or "hispanic" column. Or even the "latinx" if you can find it.
Hint: It's not there.
You still can't figure it out. Read the part I quoted and try to use your big boy brain. You simply can't support the statement you made with the data you've linked.
And that's without even addressing the issue of vote breakdown by sex, or that most criminals are not voters for either party. But you're just a dumb race warrior who likes to call black people democrats, as a slur.
The "race" category is at the top of the table. Find me the "latino" or "hispanic" column. Or even the "latinx" if you can find it.
Hint: It's not there.
You still can't figure it out. Read the part I quoted and try to use your big boy brain. You simply can't support the statement you made with the data you've linked.
And that's without even addressing the issue of vote breakdown by sex, or that most criminals are not voters for either party. But you're just a dumb race warrior who likes to call black people democrats, as a slur.
Use your big boy brain and tell me where the hispanic crimes are in Table 43.
Falsification of business records and campaign violations are the least of his crimes against this country. But, you don't really believe anything you just posted, do you?
If no affair occurred then why in hell would someone pay Stormy Daniels 130,000 dollars. That would make no sense, right?
Do you really think Michael Cohen out of the goodness of his heart, without Trump knowing, would give 130,000 dollars of his personal money to Stormy Daniels? That makes no sense, right?
At some point your willingness to defend Trump at the expense of common sense should stop.
The law doesn't care how much you hate Trump. The law is the law.
Except when it yields an unfavorable political outcome. Then the law is corrupt or being corrupted.
You still can't figure it out. Read the part I quoted and try to use your big boy brain. You simply can't support the statement you made with the data you've linked.
And that's without even addressing the issue of vote breakdown by sex, or that most criminals are not voters for either party. But you're just a dumb race warrior who likes to call black people democrats, as a slur.
Use your big boy brain and tell me where the hispanic crimes are in Table 43.
If you can't you're wrong.
So you're going to try to prove that you are correct by showing that your data doesn't support your claim?
“Russian email accounts sent a series of hoax bomb threats targeting the Manhattan district attorney and court buildings for three straight days this week amid a grand jury investigation of former president Donald Trump.”
If by clever, you mean retarded, then yes, I'm not retarded enough to make basic statistical errors.
Run back to Breitbart and see if one of your race warriors can get you some new material that isn't so easily debunked.
If it was "easily debunked" you could simply debunk it. Instead you sling insults and the "R" word.
Don't be so woke. Plus, no one calls mentally handicapped people retarded, anymore. The term is reserved for people like you who can't understand basic demographic charts.
Ah, yes, that is because you are the "Adult in the room" so no one can counter anything you say, and if they do, it is "name calling". Well, I suppose you calling someone "Big Boy" must mean you know him and somehow he is related to Quinn "Big Boy" Williams, a B movie actor from the 1930's.
Well, "adult", I have yet to read anything logical and factual that you have written that makes sense, whether here or on the Ukraine thread or some others you like to "butt" in on.
Best wishes and enjoy your travels through Fantasy Land here on LRC
