Now it's 'dangerous,' we are told, to stop Dems from overthrowing the American people

[Geeko Sportivo]

The mass produced and endlessly parroted talking point from Democrats now is that President Trump has to accept the permanent hijacking and theft of "our democracy" by an illegitimate dictator...because not doing so is "dangerous."

These are the same people who didn't think it was "dangerous" to:

-spend the last four years using anarchy, arson, doxing, assault, vandalism, looting, and murder to violently terrorize everyone out of their rights

-launch their partisan impeachment stunt while COVID was spreading to our country

-kill people by lying about Hydroxychloriquine

-lie about President Trump being a secret Russian agent

-stage mock assassinations, beheadings, and start pages like "Assassinate Trump"

-lie about Kavanaugh being a gang-rapist

-lie about the Covington Catholics

-lie about Trump being a white supremacist

-lie about Trump using Nazi symbols

-lie about Trump ignoring bounties on soldiers

-or lie about Trump telling people to drink Lysol

And the award for the most self-unaware human beings ever to exist on planet Earth goes to...the jaw-droppingly dishonest hypocrites of the left.

Newsflash: You don't get to set the bar for civility at literally zero for four years straight in every unprecedented way imaginable and then demand "unity" from your opponents.

How about eat a bowl of dicks and expect this treasonous election theft to be responded to like the declaration of war on the American people that it is.

Donald Trump's refusal to concede is no joke – it's a dangerous precedent

^^^ But it wasn't setting a "dangerous precedent" when Gore refused to concede until mid-December in 2000. Notice how that works? Let us steal the presidency or be smeared as selfish and dangerous.

I completely disagree with everything you just ranted!

But keep saying them- Q believes you! Marjorie Taylor Greene believes you!

Rush Limbaugh would probably back you up- if he could- but his ass has more-than-likely grown together by now!

 

[artichoke]

I completely disagree with everything you just ranted!

But keep saying them- Q believes you! Marjorie Taylor Greene believes you!...

So, assign some fringe label to points you can't refute and hope people won't notice your failure to debate?

Devastating strategy there, Napoleon.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

So, assign some fringe label to points you can't refute and hope people won't notice your failure to debate?

Devastating strategy there, Napoleon.

View attachment 19997

No Sir!

I've already had my say on all of these subject matters, and you didn't agree.

So, we'll just have to agree to disagree.

I really get tired of reiterating my points over and over again to those who only argue for arguments sake- AND FOR LYING'S SAKE!

SO please let's not argue, let's just VOTE at this point!

THANKS THOUGH!

 

[artichoke]

No Sir!

I've already had my say on all of these subject matters, and you didn't agree.

*got destroyed on all of these "subject matters" (ever consider learning English?), hence you avoiding the debate now with empty, arbitrary labels and diversionary tactics.

I really get tired of reiterating my points over and over again to those who only argue for arguments sake- AND FOR LYING'S SAKE!

SO please let's not argue, let's just VOTE at this point!

1) It's a debate site, imbecile. You come here to debate, not to agree to disagree.

2) Nobody's ASKING you to repeat your garbage logic that's already been repeatedly debunked.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

This is the fallacy of singling out one piece of evidence, in this case, the indictment, and asserting that because that one source does not identify him as Antifa, then there must not be other sources that do. It is an established fact that this dude participated in the "peaceful protest," sold his footage to the news media, and had his stuff seized by the feds, while also being Antifa.

So like I said, Antifa was there, which is odd. No part of that is "making stuff up," as the evidence already posted proves. This is just you butchering logic and making invalid points.

I don't think you quite understand what fallacies are. You are singling out claims by RW blogs that claim he is antifa without any evidence supporting their claim and then you are claiming their lack of evidence is all the evidence you need. Sullivan himself claims he is "Revealing the truth about Antifa and BLM's communist plans to overthrow democracy" on his website for the group he started. In November of 2020, Sullivan was considered persona non grata at BLM rallies because he was considered a provocateur who was only there to create problems and didn't really support the movement. That is based on twitter messages from that time period. If your argument is that Sullivan is antifa because he showed up at rallies where antifa was at then by that logic Sullivan must also be a Trump supporter because he showed up on Jan 6th when Trump supporters showed up. Sullivan is probably not a Trump supporter and he is probably not antifa. He is an opportunist.

But even if we accept your claim that Sullivan was antifa, that is only one person out of all these. Where are all the other antifa that you seem to think exist? Can you point any of them out in this photo?

Over 500 people have been arrested and none of them are antifa in the charging documents. Many of them are however listed as supporters of Trump. They made statements to officers that Trump told them to go to the Capitol or they thought the election was stolen.
https://www.justice.gov/usao-dc/capitol-breach-cases

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

More garbage logic. Identifying one Antifa guy to prove the claim that Antifa was there in no way indicates that more left-wing individuals weren't there, or that everyone else there was committing a legal or illegal act.

You really suck at adult level logic.

You made the claim. It is up to you to show evidence in support of your claim. I keep trying to get you to show us evidence of BLM and Antifa at the Jan 6th insurrection when Trump supporters attacked the US Capitol but you can't seem to point to any.
Here we go again. - Please point out anyone that is antifa in this photo of people in the US Capitol during the Jan 6th insurrection.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

The claim was that Antifa wasn't there. That has now been debunked and the Democrat liar who was calling others liars for telling the truth about it has been exposed as the actual liar. So you are responding by moving the goalposts in a dishonest and phony way. If I show you three, you will move it to five, as you just did from one to three. And as we saw with all the fake town halls Democrats staged with Democrat activists, they didn't show up wearing "I'm With Her" shirts...because that would be moronic if you're trying to stage fake support for an unpopular candidate...as it would be with trying to make someone other than Democrats look like terrorists for once.

Try again.

If you can actually show me three with evidence of them being antifa, I won't move it to 5. I have never claimed antifa wasn't there. But whether they were or not there were over 500 Trump supporters that entered the US Capitol using violence on Jan 6th. Something you seem to want to pretend didn't happen.

The simple fact that you haven't shown me one person who is antifa tells me you can't show me 3. John Sullivan is not a member of Antifa or BLM. RW blogs don't prove he was. His website would indicate he wasn't. Sullivan's statements about not being a member of antifa “If people are saying I’m antifa, as far as a terrorist organization, I’m not,” he said. would point to him not being antifa.

https://www.deseret.com/utah/2021/1...first-to-try-and-enter-house-chamber-sullivan

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

1) Hundreds of Democrat terrorist attacks over four years, including attacks on capitals and domestic terrorism openly encouraged by elected Democrat officials...and as I predicted, Democrats will never stop habitually clinging to the one time someone did anything like what they do on a daily basis in every corner of the country. It will be like the Central Park Five, we will be hearing about it for DECADES after it happened, because it's the one case that supposedly can be used to make Democrat talking points look like they're only 99% false.

Do you have one picture of anyone in a Hillary or a Biden hat attacking a Capitol? (or even a capital letter on a sign?) If these 100 of attacks by Democrats happened surely you must have one picture that shows someone with a Hillary or a Biden hat actually attacking something or someone. Here is a picture of people in Trump hats attacking police.

2) One case of people rightly trying to stop proven election theft does not make the American people (conservatives) anything like the lunatic fringe terrorists of the Demagogue Party.

3) The examples of proof of Democrat election theft already provided ARE easy to understand, even for low-IQ Democrats. Understandability is not the issue. Democrat privilege is.

Funny. I have posted multiple pictures of people in Trump hats attacking the US Capitol and police and you have posted zero of people in Biden or Hillary hats attacking anyone. Where is this evidence you claim exists? A simple picture would make your argument much stronger but you can't even provide one of a Biden or Hillary supporter attacking anyone let alone attacking the US Capitol. It seems you trying to claim insurrection by Trump supporters on Jan 6th is the same thing as jay walking by a Biden supporter since you haven' provided any evidence.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

1) You failing to comprehend that an Antifa guy being identified at this "peaceful protest" verifies the claim that Antifa was there is not others failing to back up their points. It's you being too stupid to be on an adult debate site.



2) False challenge. This would be like me showing you a picture of the police not killing a black person and demanding that you show me where in the picture a cop is killing a black person. It would be idiotic. A child can reason better than you.

If you were to show me a picture of a black person not being killed by a police and claim that proves black people aren't killed by police, I could readily dispute your claim by simply posting a picture of a black person being killed by a police officer. There are multiple pictures and videos that would show that. You are free to dispute my claim the same way by replying, "there are no antifa in that picture but here is a picture of antifa in the US Capitol on Jan 6th." and then posting a picture that clearly shows what you are claiming.

So, here's a picture of Trump supporters in the US Capitol on Jan 6th. If you can't point to a single member of antifa in the picture, simply provide your own picture with members of antifa inside the US Capitol on Jan 6th.

It seems even you are aware (unconsciously perhaps) it wasn't peaceful since you resorted to using quotation marks around the words peaceful protest.

 

[LV426]

So, your counterpoint to the argument that correcting rigged Democrat polling propaganda to Deripaska and Kilimnik so they would bother establishing official ties to anyone other than Hillary

It was Republican polling that Manafort shared with Kilimnik to give to Deripaska.

And neither of those guys are Russian government officials.

So there goes your lie about Trump doing what other Presidential candidates have done before, proving that you're full of shit.

What else ya got, poseur?

 

[LV426]

.is to argue that they weren't technically agents in the direct employ of the Russian government

What does GOP polling data have to do with Oleg Deripaska and Konstantin Kilimnik, neither of whom are government officials, and one of them (Kilimnik) isn't even Russian!

which would mean it was not only not a crime to "collude" with them, but also not even controversial to do so?

Wait - so now you're admitting that Trump colluded with Russians but your new position is that it's not a crime to do so?

So I guess your whole "no collusion" is bullshit, then, just like your bullshit claim that the 2020 election was stolen.

You don't believe any of that shit, do you? You're just running a grift.

Be honest, I can tell when you're lying.

 

[LV426]

So, only if you become a domestic terrorist like Democrats can you object to Democrat election theft and treason.

Any patriot would take action if the country was being destroyed as you claim it is.

So I guess you're not a patriot, then.

 

[artichoke]

I don't think you quite understand what fallacies are.

Says the guy pushing this blatantly flawed logic: This one piece of evidence does not mention the fact you are citing, therefore it must not be a fact and must not be mentioned or confirmed by other sources.

You are singling out claims by RW blogs that claim he is antifa without any evidence supporting their claim and then you are claiming their lack of evidence is all the evidence you need.

The Reuters article (not a 'right-wing blog') clarifies that he was a left-wing activist who attended their extremist rallies. Deseret News (also not a 'right-wing blog') also provided the following:

"One of the organizers of a protest in Provo that resulted in a motorist being shot was arrested on Thursday. John Earle Sullivan, 25, of Sandy, was booked into the Utah County Jail for investigation of rioting, making a threat of violence and criminal mischief...Another group planned a counterprotest at the same time and place. On Facebook, its event page was originally titled End Police Brutality but was later changed to Marching for Racial Equality. The Facebook pages listed the event’s hosts as the groups Insurgence, Solidarity for Justice, Salt Lake Equal Rights Movement and the Salt Lake Antifascist Coalition. “As a protest organizer John Sullivan is heard and seen as he is promoting protesters to block roadways, keeping motorists from traveling lawfully and freely.” Sullivan was also captured on video threatening to beat a woman in an SUV, according to the affidavit, and then kicking her door, leaving a dent. Sullivan was seen with Jesse Taggart — the man charged with shooting the motorist — throughout the protest, the affidavit states. “As a protest organizer, John Sullivan is heard talking about seeing the shooting, looking at the gun and seeing smoke coming from it. John did not condemn the attempted murder nor attempt to stop it nor aide in its investigation by police.” "John did not condemn the attempted murder nor attempt to stop it nor aide in its investigation by police.”​

The "right-wing blogs" (like this and this) you're trying to change the subject to directly cite and link to such utterly NOT right-wing blogs, as well as the left-wing activist's own social media posts.

Sullivan himself claims he is "Revealing the truth about Antifa and BLM's communist plans to overthrow democracy" on his website for the group he started.

Follow the links. It shows him boasting about faking being a Trump supporter to promote the bullshit "insurrection" narrative. What you're quoting is something he literally publicly bragged about faking.

 

[artichoke]

It was Republican polling that Manafort shared with Kilimnik to give to Deripaska.

And neither of those guys are Russian government officials.

Again, even accepting this at face value, "colluding" (debunking Democrat polling propaganda to set up normal foreign relations) with people who aren't even government-related...is EVEN LESS controversial. How can their dealings hurt anything if they have zero ties to any government.



Way to think it through, as usual.

So there goes your lie about Trump doing what other Presidential candidates have done before, proving that you're full of shit.

Translation: I stubbornly refuse to comprehend that every presidential candidate reaches out to foreign governments and major players to establish ties while still running for practice...and me parading around my ignorance of common knowledge facts makes you a liar.

Might be time to take a first-year political science course.

What else ya got, poseur?

Um, how about Washington, D.C. being the nation's capital? Want to indignantly deny that common knowledge fact and call me a liar for knowing that as well?

 

[LV426]

Again, even accepting this at face value, "colluding" (debunking Democrat polling propaganda to set up normal foreign relations) with people who aren't even government-related...is EVEN LESS controversial.

No, it's more controversial because it means Trump and his campaign were indebted to private individuals who are not accountable to any government.

Also, it is completely illegal to accept campaign contributions of value (like a troll army or disinfo campaign) from unregistered and unlicensed foreign agents.

Also, y'all lied about it from the beginning; you denied this even happened for years.

Now you're reversing course and it's making you look bad.

 

[LV426]

Way to think it through, as usual

You didn't think this through because you just admitted that Trump's campaign engaged in something illegal; it's illegal to accept campaign contributions of any kind from unlicensed and unregistered foreign agents.

 

[LV426]

Translation: I stubbornly refuse to comprehend that every presidential candidate reaches out to foreign governments and major players to establish ties while still running for practice...and me parading around my ignorance of common knowledge facts makes you a liar.

Hold on! You just moved the bar with the bolded.

Before, you said it was OK to reach out to foreign governments...now you shifted the goalpost to include "major players".

Also, why lie about it for four years? Remember, you've been saying there was no contact with Russia at all. Turns out that wasn't true.

It is not legal to accept campaign contributions from unlicensed and unregistered foreign agents. That's why Flynn was canned, dipshit.

 

[LV426]

Um, how about Washington, D.C. being the nation's capital? Want to indignantly deny that common knowledge fact and call me a liar for knowing that as well?

The same DC you were too chickenshit to go to on 1/6, despite pretending for months that the election was stolen.

Some patriot you are. LOL.

Why were you not in DC on 1/6? Don't you believe the election was stolen? I don't believe you actually do.

I believe you believe the election was legit, and all these posts from you to the contrary are just attempts to make friends with Nazis because no one wants to be your friend IRL.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Says the guy pushing this blatantly flawed logic: This one piece of evidence does not mention the fact you are citing, therefore it must not be a fact and must not be mentioned or confirmed by other sources.

The Reuters article (not a 'right-wing blog') clarifies that he was a left-wing activist who attended their extremist rallies. Deseret News (also not a 'right-wing blog') also provided the following:

"One of the organizers of a protest in Provo that resulted in a motorist being shot was arrested on Thursday. John Earle Sullivan, 25, of Sandy, was booked into the Utah County Jail for investigation of rioting, making a threat of violence and criminal mischief...Another group planned a counterprotest at the same time and place. On Facebook, its event page was originally titled End Police Brutality but was later changed to Marching for Racial Equality. The Facebook pages listed the event’s hosts as the groups Insurgence, Solidarity for Justice, Salt Lake Equal Rights Movement and the Salt Lake Antifascist Coalition. “As a protest organizer John Sullivan is heard and seen as he is promoting protesters to block roadways, keeping motorists from traveling lawfully and freely.” Sullivan was also captured on video threatening to beat a woman in an SUV, according to the affidavit, and then kicking her door, leaving a dent. Sullivan was seen with Jesse Taggart — the man charged with shooting the motorist — throughout the protest, the affidavit states. “As a protest organizer, John Sullivan is heard talking about seeing the shooting, looking at the gun and seeing smoke coming from it. John did not condemn the attempted murder nor attempt to stop it nor aide in its investigation by police.” "John did not condemn the attempted murder nor attempt to stop it nor aide in its investigation by police.”​

The "right-wing blogs" (like this and this) you're trying to change the subject to directly cite and link to such utterly NOT right-wing blogs, as well as the left-wing activist's own social media posts.

Follow the links. It shows him boasting about faking being a Trump supporter to promote the bullshit "insurrection" narrative. What you're quoting is something he literally publicly bragged about faking.

It's funny when you read the headline vs the body of the text. The headline claims BLM and then the list of groups he coordinated with don't include BLM. So which is it?

Then the second just recites RW internet posts. Talk about circular reasoning.

 

[artichoke]

You didn't think this through because you just admitted that Trump's campaign engaged in something illegal; it's illegal to accept campaign contributions of any kind from unlicensed and unregistered foreign agents.

Um...no, you failing to comprehend that setting up normal ties with foreign governments like every other presidential candidate is anything like accepting campaign contributions is YOU not thinking it through. Kind of like how you lie about others being in bed with foreign governments while your party is wholly owned and operated by China.