The chaos is over, let the chaos begin.

That fact was proven a long time ago and we get reminded of it on a regular basis.

 

No! There is no "opinion" possible that would equate two candidates who conceded and a dictator wannabe who incited a deadly insurrection and, to this day, has not conceded.

Just a pathetic excuse!

 

So you prefer I go fish through all your posts and make your argument for you. No thanks.

 

The SC followed the law in 2000, and in any case, GWB won something like 13 out of 14 unofficial recounts. The partisanship here is yours, not mine. I have no party, and voted for Biden in 2020.

 

So breaking and entering is protesting.

 

What Happened to the Democrats Who Never ... - POLITICO
https://www.politico.com › magazine › 2020/12/19 › 2...

Dec 19, 2020 — It was November 2, 2004, and the exit polls had predicted an overwhelming victory for Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. But as the ...

". . . Over the 16 years that followed the 2004 election, candidates have won and conceded; presidents have been inaugurated. But the loosely defined movement that launched back then has lived on. Most of its members are left-wing, though not all of them identify as Democrats. They’ve come to define their cause not around John Kerry’s rightful presidency, but around the idea of election integrity. Some are fixated on voter suppression; some subscribe to deep-state conspiracies about the manipulation of voting machines. What they share is a conviction that the 2004 election was a sham, and that it exposed a sweeping, anti-democratic cabal. Jonathan Simon, a onetime pollster-turned-lawyer-turned-chiropractor who worked with Freeman on his early analysis, summed up the prevailing view at a congressional hearing after the 2004 vote: “What we’re dealing with here, although the formality is all in place, is a stuffed animal, not a real animal—a taxidermic model of democracy.”. . . "

 

Trump's reprehensible behavior is not an explanation for your view.
The fact that there were casualties, regrettable to be sure, does not change the fact that the episode fell well short of insurrection. Anyone who doesn't understand that has never seen the real thing.

 

I'm uninterested in your broad brush polemics. What happened this weak reflected political reality, which is always better out in the open than in secret. This week was healthy.

 

The fact that you choose to be afraid, or pretend to be afraid, does not mean that we need to be afraid.

 

See post # 43. If you could support your assertion you would have done so. You haven't.

 

So... you prefer I fish through all the posts it took me such a long time to research and prepare to make life as easy as can be made for anybody who actually wanted an answer to the question you asked.

Ok. So you're not THAT curious. And you SHOULD be. I mean, having had a criminal President who tried to become a dictator is something that should concern ALL of us.

 

Being afraid, or not, is a red herring. In all things I get the feeling your position is, "the country is strong, it will work out in the end." You seem to regard the diminution of democracy by what I will broadly refer to as Trumpery as a transitory phenomenon. The thing is, it's been in the works since the advent of the Tea Party nutters. Trumpery is a continuation of it that appears has legs even as Don's influence wanes. Arguably it's getting worse, meaning the damage will continue.
Democracy is not a self sustaining enterprise. It's difficult enough to maintain without elements of the POT tearing at its seams. Given your, "what, me worry" attitude I understand fully you think this is an alarmist's perspective. And if our history is a guide nothing I could say will persuade you of your error in judgement. So I'll leave it there.

 

Well said. The only caveat I'd add, would be that I expect the next wrangling to begin Monday, in a, at least partial, re-negotiation of the Freedom House Caucus deal, as some moderates could (and should) balk at voting for these rules. Naturally, the Dems will not support this rules package, either.

 

Given the alternative, voting for Biden does nothing to lessen proof of your partisan proclivities.

Sandra Day O'Connor Now Doubts Wisdom of Bush v. Gore
Ralph Nader agrees, calls the decision the most 'constitutionally violative decision in American legal history.'
https://www.usnews.com/news/newsgra...ndra-day-oconnor-doubts-wisdom-of-bush-v-gore

I don't think the ultimate winner of a recount is pertinent to the matter of the Court's incorrect decision but...........https://www.theguardian.com/world/2001/jan/29/uselections2000.usa

 

I don't care what you do, but you made a claim in THIS thread that you refuse to support in THIS thread. I'm definitely not interested in your excuses as to why you won't.

 

Obstruction and destruction are exactly what federal government needs. Not total destruction, of course, but a healthy haircut. Unfortunately the freedom caucus doesn't have enough power to accomplish it. I would expect same old, same old I'm afraid.

A default by the federal government may be the only way to motivate the politicians to spend less. Too bad it would take something like that to get it done. But less federal government is something that has to happen absolutely by whatever means necessary.

 

Of course I do! You asked for "proof". You think that "proof" of ... ANYTHING... can be shown in a thread?

Obviously not! Serious PROOF of... ANYTHING... requires a lot of research, many references, and much much research. I wrote a total of 9 threads. The proof you seek would require you to read ALL of them (a summary of the proof, the real proof is in the depositions themselves). Forum rules don't allow me to repost the content of 9 threads in a single post. But that's where it is!

There is a reason why right-wingers don't bother with facts. Seeking facts is much more work than just parroting whatever Tucker, Hannity and Alex Jones instruct you to say. But anybody who is INTERESTED in facts, does need to read them.

But, in any case, you already made it clear that you're not actually that interested.

 

Ok. You had your chance. Enjoy the rest of your day.

 

Dictators are to be dreaded, yes -- but, fortunately for all of us, the closest we came to having one, Frankie Roosevelt, is dead and gone! This wanna-be 'court-packer' and Father of the American Welfare State, who committed acts of deceit and deception to get us into Winston Churchill's war is relevant today only in the residual, lasting damage he did to our American way of life!
. "Hey, Hitler, Stalin, and Mussolini were dictators -- so why not ME, too!"

 

Ah-hah! Interesting that less than a month ago in a thread you created entitled, "Extreme Right and Extreme Left - 50 years ago and today", you steadfastly maintained that it was not (NOT) necessary for you, the thread-creator, to be required to present "proof" about a whole host of claims you made orbiting around supposed "right-wing extremism" and "racism"! You maintained instead that we should all just accept the premises you put forth on the basis that "everybody knows" that this, that, and whatever else you claimed was true (all by itself). I called 'bullshit' on that, and you and I went 'round and 'round for a few days before I abandoned the attempt to get you to 'come out' with any actual proof besides the sophomoric, "Everybody knows ______________ (fill in the blank)"

 

Way before my time. But I can understand that ANYBODY who wanted to become a dictator would come closer than Trump given how dumb and incompetent the orange idiot is. But Trump did try... and people died because of it. Not to mention the mess his attempt left behind in the Republican Party.

 

No lover of Donald Trump was I, as I have said repeatedly... he was a 'port in a storm' while Democrat idiocy was RAGING in the form of Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Nevertheless, if you really, seriously, honestly thought for a moment that the out-of-control, angry, messy and destructive protest on "Jan6" was an "INSURRECTION", then it's quite obvious to those of us who HAVE seen an insurrection occur that you and your faction truly do not (NOT) know what you're talking about!

Crimes were committed, yes. Many of those who committed them were apprehended and have now been properly found guilty and sentenced according to the law. But as for people being killed? None of the protesters killed anybody -- all the killing was done by the Capitol Police!

 

No idea what you're talking about. I present proof of facts that CAN be proven. Not of opinions. Of course, I wouldn't bother showing evidence of undisputed facts. So if you demanded "proof" that elephants can't fly... or something like that; it's likely I would have brushed you off with a belly laugh.

Having said that, proof that Trump incited, organized, facilitated... the insurrection DOES exist. And I presented it (summarized it) in the nine threads I referenced for anybody who is interested. So I'm not even sure what your post has to do with any of this.

 

Everybody who says that before introducing a strawman to change the subject is most definitely a lover of Donald Trump.

Who dem?

It doesn't matter what I think. Point is that enough PEOPLE thought it was an insurrection that they rejected MAGAs and Trump has lost his influence in the party. So now they have no leader.

 

You introduced that red herring in your #20.
What you call "Trumpery" goes back to before the Constitution. Please see The Cause by Joseph J. Ellis.