Unarmed woman is shot by Police in Capitol. The People Who Scream ‘Police Brutality’ Don’t Care.

post 1993 is your post.
/facedesk

Donald got impeached for inciting violence. I sourced it, and so I do not care about your opinion.
Hence it remains it's not my opinion that Donald incited the violence.

That is indeed what "stop the steal" was about and why the fascists attacked the Capitol.

 

Okay, and what does any of this have to do with what Trump said?

Donald was exonerated by the Senate which said that he did not incite the violence. I sourced it, and so I do not care about your opinion. Hence it remains it's not my opinion that Donald did not incite the violence

Yes, so you're saying that if those politicians did not run, that Trump would be President right now!

 

2nd time... You asked me "QUOTE HIM telling them to be violent! You won't be able to!"
And I replied to that in post 1966. I don't see how you can fight and do "pop pop" without being physical.

Irrelevant to the point that he got impeached for inciting the violence. And so it's not just my opinion that he did that. Even his fascists stated so in court as far as I know. While the jan 6th commission is still on it, where the GOP is busy with a cover up by not cooperating with that commission. So all you got going to dispute he did not, is his party who doesn't want to incriminate themselves. It's a pathettic argument you got going.

I am saying that this was there plan: stop the steal. It can not have been done in a peaceful way. And they did not have any other purpose to be there.

 

<Spamming>

That was cancelled out by his exoneration in the Senate.

<Spamming>

Yes, of course that was their plan, but you're pretending that they came VERY close to succeeding! So you're giving that human waste WAY too much credit!

 

<Spamming>

The impeachment wasn't cancelled.

<Spamming>

No buts. It was their plan. Donald's rally was even called "stop the steal".
He used all kinds of words totally suggesting to be violent.
He paid a person to make a similar speech.
There you go.

 

<Spamming>

I said that the impeachment was cancelled OUT!

<Spamming>

 

I already responded to all this junk you posted.

 

A mod has been editing my posts with "<Spamming>." Anyway, obviously you acknowledge that the impeachment was cancelled OUT!

 

You're deflecting and got no argument against what I wrote in post 2005. You're indeed just spamming.

 

My argument was VERY simple! Trump's impeachment was cancelled OUT by his exoneration in the Senate!

 

And so my reply of 2005 still stands.

 

You're correct that he was impeached. However, he was exonerated! Simple!

 

I'm not discussing if Donald was impeached. He was. But that's not the point one bit.
And so my reply of 2005 still stands.

 

Yes and he was exonerated. Simple!

 

I see you got no argument against my post 2005, which is more than the impeachment of Donald.
All you got going is clinging on to something that is irrelevant.
And I do not care about that.

 

You deliberately made the text smaller and you ignored it, but I said that you're pretending that they came VERY close to succeeding! So you're giving that human waste WAY too much credit!

 

Because you acknowledged I am right al along with that "Yes, of course that was their plan".
And I do not care about that "but" part. You're just trolling of topic.

 

Sorry they did not kill even one.

 

What you have done here amounts to an out and out lie. His quote in context was referring to him previously sparring with the media ( not to mention that you have added in text that was not part of that statement). It had not one thing to do with him giving direction to the crowd as you claim.

"The American people do not believe the corrupt, fake news anymore. They have ruined their reputation. But you know, it used to be that they'd argue with me. I'd fight. So I'd fight, they'd fight, I'd fight, they'd fight. Pop pop. You'd believe me, you'd believe them. Somebody comes out. You know, they had their point of view, I had my point of view, but you'd have an argument."
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/966396848/read-trumps-jan-6-speech-a-key-part-of-impeachment-trial

To pretend like he was talking about gunfire is obviously nonsensical since he was referring to what had already happened between him and the media.

Do you care in the slightest that you have grossly misrepresented his words, or is intellectual honesty not important to you as long as you are able to promote the narrative that you wish to put forth?

 

Why the hell does their PLAN matter? They failed SPECTACULARLY!

 

The reverence wasn't about the media. The reference was about Donald claiming he didn't lose the presidential race and the "corrupt fake news" are supposedly lying that he did. And your point that it therefor it can not be that pop pop isn't gunfire, makes absolutely zero sense.

 

It remains to be:
No buts. It was their plan. Donald's rally was even called "stop the steal".
He used all kinds of words totally suggesting to be violent.
He paid a person to make a similar speech.
There you go.

 

According to your ridiculous interpretation of "pop pop!"

 

Ah, so you ARE claiming that Trump meant gunfire! Earlier you said that this is NOT what you are claiming! You're all over the place!

 

post 1993 is your post.
/facedesk

post 1973