61

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump didn't do it

« on: January 14, 2021, 05:33:16 PM »

Nope. There is evidence that Antifa was there.

Man admits being a paid ANTIFA member at capitol

The only one I've checked so far as it seemed the most provocative - 10 second search found this:

Fact check: Video shows prankster not Antifa rep saying he was paid to protest at the Capitol
A video has been circulating online which social media users say shows a member of the left-wing anti-fascist movement, Antifa, saying that he was paid to join the protests in the U.S. Capitol. This is false. The man who posted the original video has said the video was intended as a joke.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-antifa-paid-protest/fact-check-video-shows-prankster-not-antifa-rep-saying-he-was-paid-to-protest-at-the-capitol-idUSKBN29D219

Do us all a favor and at least do a little background check before posting something simply because it speaks to your narrative. (You can find links to the video poster's "explanation" in the article.)

He only said he was joking after it was published worldwide and he was receiving flack for it. Too late to claim it was a joke after you are in trouble for it, sorry.

62

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump didn't do it

« on: January 14, 2021, 05:11:34 PM »

Capitol Police did let people through.

Here are the protestors getting past the barricades. The barricades are pulled open for them and the police casually turn their backs to them and walk with the protestors towards the capitol building:



Here the Capitol police let them in the building:

https://twitter.com/GlobalNews77/status/1347616948826288128
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1347615998610911234




Capitol Police investigated for welcoming protestors into the building:

https://www.businessinsider.com/capitol-police-officers-suspended-after-pro-trump-riots-2021-1?international=true&r=US&IR=T

63

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump didn't do it

« on: January 14, 2021, 04:51:58 PM »

Nope. There is evidence that Antifa was there.

NYTimes - Aaron Motovsky, Son of Two Democrat Judges, Arrested for Capitol Hill 'Riots'... Is a Registered Democrat...

CONFIRMED: Activist Interviewed by CNN Who Stormed Capitol Building Is Radical Leftist from Utah Who Threatened on Video to “Rip Trump from White House”

ANTIFA member admits to storming capitol

Secret Chat Reveals BLM Activist’s Violent Intent and Trump Supporter Disguise at Capitol

Man admits being a paid ANTIFA member at capitol

ANTIFA attempting to break CAPITOL glass as thousands of Trumpers tell ANTIFA to stop, you can even hear Alex Jones in the background "STOP THEM STOP THEM STOP THEM"

ANTIFA retrieving weapons. Someone handing out weapons from inside the building

CAPITOL POLICE letting people through gates

CAPITOL POLICE telling ANTIFA where to go

64

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump didn't do it

« on: January 14, 2021, 04:43:56 PM »

Your "what do you expect would happen" isn't enough to convict someone in court for incitement of violence. You are putting forward your personal interpretation of the state of mind of hundreds of people you don't know and Trump's true unstated motivations as fact.

No,  its not a "personal interpretation of the state of mind of hundreds of people"  we have all seen the video of the crowds chanting "hang mike pence" and smashing windows beating people to death.  Supporting Trump's demand to overturn the election.   No personal interpretation required.

What do YOU think the violent mob were doing there?

There might have been some violent people there. But I don't see how you could tell whether they were going to do what they were going to do regardless of what Trump said. Trump did not directly incite violence and instructed them to be peaceful. So why should Trump be impeached and banned from social media?

65

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump didn't do it

« on: January 14, 2021, 12:45:18 PM »

What do you call this?

I call it a failure to show that Trump asked people to incite violence at the Capitol.

Tom, you have to understand the audience that Trump is talking to. 

If you whip up a crowd like this into a frenzy, what else could you possibly expect when you tell them to march to the capitol and fight like hell to take their government back?

Trump literally said to be peaceful and to strongly make your voice be heard at the Capitol.

Your "what do you expect would happen" isn't enough to convict someone in court for incitement of violence. You are putting forward your personal interpretation of the state of mind of hundreds of people you don't know and Trump's true unstated motivations as fact.

66

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Re: The attack on 'free speech'

« on: January 14, 2021, 12:22:58 PM »

What do you call this?

I call it a failure to show that Trump asked people to incite violence at the Capitol.

You appear to be showing random clips from Trump's first presidential campaign where he says that he's going to 'knock the crap out of em' (rhetoric), that he's going to 'punch them in the face' (rhetoric) and for his people to stop someone with force if they are throwing things at him (assault).

67

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Re: The attack on 'free speech'

« on: January 14, 2021, 12:18:37 PM »

It does when he's been routinely calling for violence at his rallies for years.

I haven't heard any calls to commit violence. You guys are leftists. Trump directly said to be peaceful. Since you guys are leftists who hate Trump that makes your opinions and what you "interpret" to be invalid.

68

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump didn't do it

« on: January 14, 2021, 12:14:07 PM »

So Trump didn't directly tell people to commit violence. He said to be peaceful at the Capitol.

But in the interpretation of the leftists Trump meant to be violent. Because he used the words "we fight like hell". Real convincing there. May as well ban and impeach any politician who ever said that we need to fight.

69

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Re: The attack on 'free speech'

« on: January 14, 2021, 10:46:18 AM »

Still waiting for a direct quote from Trump that he incited violence.

Here is the transcript: https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-01-13/transcript-of-trumps-speech-at-rally-before-us-capitol-riot

Trump says in that: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

So again, where did he incite violence? If you can't justify that then you can't justify why he should be banned from social media.

'If you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore'

Saying that to a bunch of blood boiling raging angry far right arseholes, probably more than a few armed. And it probably wasn't unnoticed by Trump that days earlier there was chatter about holding hostage or killing people in the Senate. Their '1776' moment. A revolution, civil war talk etc etc. Then Trump literally puts a bullseye on Mike Pence and tells his millions of followers he's basically failed them and a traitor.

So do you think Trump's speech was calling for peace? You're a loon

"And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore."

I don't see any calls for violence here. Literally every politician says that they are "fighting for you" and that we need to "fight for what's right" or whatever. Fighting doesn't necessitate violence.

70

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Re: The attack on 'free speech'

« on: January 14, 2021, 10:40:28 AM »

Stop fibbing. Trump didn't say anything to incite violence. If he did, those quotes would be played repeatedly on CNN. They are not doing so because they don't exist. Quote him directly.

There was plenty of violent rhetoric in Trump's speech that day.  But it's irrelevant.  What matters is that Trump keeps lying to America and saying the election was fraudulent. 

That is why this happened.  That's the incitement to violence.  That's why things like this are going to continue to happen until he comes out and admits that it wasn't stolen and he was just being selfish and arrogant.

Still waiting for a direct quote from Trump. I linked a direct link to the transcript above. Trump says to be peaceful. Show us where he incites violence. If you cannot do this then you have conceded your position.

71

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Re: The attack on 'free speech'

« on: January 14, 2021, 10:38:39 AM »

Still waiting for a direct quote from Trump that he incited violence.

Here is the transcript: https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2021-01-13/transcript-of-trumps-speech-at-rally-before-us-capitol-riot

Trump says in that: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

So again, where did he incite violence? If you can't justify that then you can't justify why he should be banned from social media.

72

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Re: The attack on 'free speech'

« on: January 14, 2021, 10:25:42 AM »

Stop fibbing. Trump didn't say anything to incite violence. If he did, those quotes would be played repeatedly on CNN. They are not doing so because they don't exist. Quote him directly.

Trump spoke to his followers in front of the WH.
Immediately after they marched to the capital and illegally entered it.  Violently.  You do the math.  And be sure to use your Trump decoder ring on his speech.

Actually, Trump directed people to be peaceful in that speech. So you don't have a quote of where Trump incited violence.

You can't back up the narrative that Trump incited violence. Your Trump decoder ring apparently translates "be peaceful" into "be violent", from which you declare that Trump incited violence. 

73

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Trump didn't do it

« on: January 14, 2021, 10:13:17 AM »

Stop fibbing. Trump didn't say anything to incite violence. If he did, those quotes would be played repeatedly on CNN. They are not doing so because they don't exist. Quote him directly.

74

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who will win the election?

« on: November 12, 2020, 06:17:06 PM »

WH Press Secretary claiming that they have been collecting lots of evidence of fraud.

So?

Why give weight to anything that lying dumbarse bimbo says? Do you think she's trustworthy? Are you so pussy whipped?

Mate, she is full of shit. Don't pay any attention to her

Tom, do you believe Trump was right to claim victory when and how he did on election night? I mean with hundreds of thousands of votes still to count he literally called dibs on all the swing states lol

Trump's work seems to be convincing some judges so far.

THROW ‘EM OUT: PA judge sides with Trump campaign, orders ballots with no proof of ID be discarded - https://theleoterrell.com/throw-em-out-pennsylvania-judge-sides-with-trump-campaign-orders-ballots-with-no-proof-of-id-be-discarded/

75

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who will win the election?

« on: November 12, 2020, 03:54:36 PM »

WH Press Secretary claiming that they have been collecting lots of evidence of fraud.

https://twitter.com/RealJamesWoods/status/1327009008377466881?s=20

76

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who will win the election?

« on: November 12, 2020, 03:20:04 PM »

Claiming that people working at the election place wouldn't accept it isn't relevant to the claim that the USPS is instigating mail or election fraud. That's a separate claim which relies on the integrity of another group, and does nothing to address the USPS's possible wrongdoing.

77

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who will win the election?

« on: November 12, 2020, 02:28:23 PM »

Well these so called 'whistle blowers' are offered up to 1 million dollars for their 'evidence'. No wonder they say it and then upon realising the consequences of lying to a judge, retract it when it counts

If it's all an effort to lie then the truth will prevail in a full investigation and it will be a destruction of either the Republicans who are enabling and promoting these numerous and serious lies or the Democrats who are committing the crimes alleged.

I want the people committing illegal acts here to face the punishment for it.

78

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who will win the election?

« on: November 12, 2020, 02:17:33 PM »

If you think that the whistleblowers or any enablers are liars, then there should certainly be an investigation into it to put them into jail. Making false claims of criminality is also illegal.

Instead you are just saying "LOL, we shouldn't pay attention to that" and are asking us to ignore it, and are trying to discredit whistleblowers who claim fraud.

79

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who will win the election?

« on: November 12, 2020, 02:00:09 PM »

New irregularities to this election continue to pop up:

https://www.projectveritas.com/news/breaking-new-pennsylvania-usps-whistleblower-supervisor-told-us-the-only/

BREAKING: New Pennsylvania USPS Whistleblower: Supervisor Told Us ‘The Only Political Mail That Will Be Delivered From Now On Will Be That of the ‘Winner,’ In This Case, Joe Biden’ … Trump Bulk-Mail Treated Like ‘Garbage’

Elkins Park, Pa., USPS whistleblower: “The only political mail that will be delivered from now on will be that of the ‘winner,’ in this case, Joe Biden. Other political mail from other sources and senders would be put into the undeliverable bulk business mail bin.”

Elkins Park, Pa., USPS whistleblower: “All political mail for Biden was to be continued to be treated as first-class and delivered the day it was received.”

Elkins Park, Pa., USPS whistleblower: “I think that we're a delivery service and that [playing politics] is not really our place.”

Elkins Park, Pa., USPS whistleblower: “The only thing that's going to prevent a fraudulent election is people having the courage to come forward. I wouldn't want to say that I had the opportunity to do that and didn't do it.”

Whistleblower says Elkins Park, Pa., USPS Supervisor of Customer Services Walter Lee gave the order to 30 postal workers

James O’Keefe: “This is the third Pennsylvania USPS Insider to blow the whistle on election malfeasance in the last week. There is something going on with USPS and we must get to the bottom of it immediately.”

If these people are lying for some reason and making libelous claims against the government, that needs to be investigated and dealt with harshly.

Anyone wanting to just ignore this completely is complicit.

80

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who will win the election?

« on: November 12, 2020, 01:26:23 PM »

You definitely don't go into an audit with the formed opinion that there was fraud committed, as that makes the auditor biased and likely to draw an improper conclusion, not to mention would violate Generally Accepted Auditing Standards and lead to punishments by the AICPA, possibly leading to revocation of their license.

Are you claiming that the IRS never suspects that fraud was committed before conducting audits?

Pretty sure that this is incorrect. It is possible that the investigators don't tell the auditors what they suspect happened to prevent bias, but unless they are constrained on resources, they certainly don't just ignore irregularities and give suspected fraud a free pass.

81

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who will win the election?

« on: November 12, 2020, 01:05:47 PM »

There is a difference between observation and conducting 'audits' and outright calling the entire process rigged and fraudulent

How can one make those accusations before an audit? It makes no sense

Would you like the tax man to rake you over the coals when ever you submit a tax return there is a possibility that you could have cheated?

In your example the IRS does have the power to call for an audit whenever they want. I interpret this as an agreement with me.

The crucial difference is that the IRS doesn't claim that you cheated before they audit you.

Sure they do. They suspect that you cheated, so they audit you. They are claiming that cheating may have occured.

The audit is to get the complete evidence that cheating has occurred.

In this case you want the complete evidence of fraud before an audit is even conducted.

82

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who will win the election?

« on: November 12, 2020, 12:45:54 PM »

There is a difference between observation and conducting 'audits' and outright calling the entire process rigged and fraudulent

How can one make those accusations before an audit? It makes no sense

Would you like the tax man to rake you over the coals when ever you submit a tax return there is a possibility that you could have cheated?

In your example the IRS does have the power to call for an audit whenever they want. I interpret this as an agreement with me.

83

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who will win the election?

« on: November 12, 2020, 12:37:19 PM »

Nope. I said that I did agree with an audit of the 2016 election.

I wouldn't be happy if there were voting irregularities. I did agree with the attempts to audit the election that were being attempted at the time:

After the 2016 election Trump attempted an audit of the election he won because he suspected fraud. The mostly democrat states refused to participate and it was eventually closed.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-dismantles-voter-fraud-commission-heres-what-the-controversial-group-did

States refused to cooperate and participate in an audit of their elections.

The Dems have lost another seat in the house.  Max Rose has just conceded to Republican Nicole Malliotakis.

Would you like to audit that result?   Just to be absolutely sure Rose didn’t win?  Someone might have cheated.

IDC. If you are in a competition and your opponent wants to observe and audit the details of the results to ensure that no cheating has occured that should be obliged.

84

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who will win the election?

« on: November 12, 2020, 12:32:41 PM »

Only someone with something to hide would resist calls for audits of elections when fraud and voting irregularities are suspected.

85

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who will win the election?

« on: November 12, 2020, 12:18:14 PM »

Nope. I said that I did agree with an audit of the 2016 election.

I wouldn't be happy if there were voting irregularities. I did agree with the attempts to audit the election that were being attempted at the time:

After the 2016 election Trump attempted an audit of the election he won because he suspected fraud. The mostly democrat states refused to participate and it was eventually closed.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-dismantles-voter-fraud-commission-heres-what-the-controversial-group-did

States refused to cooperate and participate in an audit of their elections.

86

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who will win the election?

« on: November 12, 2020, 10:59:46 AM »

The quote you posted says one Republican.

From the article:

"'The Democrats, both on and off the commission, made very clear that they were not interested in determining the scope and extent of voter fraud and, indeed, they were trying to stop the commission in its tracks,' Kobach said. 'The Democrats lost their opportunity, lost their seat at the table, by stonewalling.'"

Trump Tweet:

"Many mostly Democrat States refused to hand over data from the 2016 Election to the Commission On Voter Fraud. They fought hard that the Commission not see their records or methods because they know that many people are voting illegally. System is rigged, must go to Voter I.D."

But Republicans stonewalled too. They don't want election fraud to tarnish their state.

87

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who will win the election?

« on: November 12, 2020, 10:43:35 AM »

Care to point to an assassination attempt on Trump?  This is the only time I've heard anything about that.

Possibly because the sources you read don't like to talk about things like that.

Man tries to shoot Trump - http://archive.vn/Pfx77

Fundraiser for Trump-Pence assassination uncovered on Dark Web - https://www.rt.com/viral/369258-trump-pence-assassination-darkweb/

More:

2018 Poison Attempt: https://en-volve.com/2018/10/02/breaking-president-trump-targeted-in-foiled-assassination-attempt/

"Man who entered Trump’s motorcade in North Dakota and planned to ‘flip’ the president’s limo and then kill him is jailed for five years" - https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6454109/Man-entered-Trumps-motorcade-North-Dakota-flip-presidents-limo-kill-jailed.html

Vehicle tries to crash into motorcade - http://www.waff.com/2019/03/08/video-shows-crash-near-president-trumps-motorcade/

Assassiation attempt in Phillipines - https://sputniknews.com/us/201810141068886474-secret-service-trump-assassination/

2020 Poison Attempt: https://news.0censor.com/assassination-attempt-against-president-trump-foiled-by-law-enforcement-report/?fbclid=IwAR2dnX8ZiDerTOO3CKG8RkjDSP-5fL3pvBgg-qa0hoPgqlmRbsbs1ZcmZOk -

Man firing gun and ranting about Trump shot by police inside Trump National Doral resort - https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/doral/article211406689.html

Also, Trump didn't attempt to audit the 2016 election, he put together a commission in order to find fraud that would have given him the popular vote as well as the EC vote.  That commission didn't find anything and was dismantled.

The article I posted provides references that the states stonewalled the voter fraud investigation. That's different than "didn't find anything."

88

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who will win the election?

« on: November 12, 2020, 09:06:08 AM »

Many hated him enough to want him dead.

How many people have tried?  Answer?  0.

Just because your morals are so lose you'll lie and cheat without conscious, doesn't mean most people would.

Wanting politicians put to death is really something I've only seen you suggest on this forum and the tfes.org forum. I don't think that one is really that prevalent.

And there have been assassination attempts against Trump.

How come you happily accepted the 2016 election results without 'audits'?

I wouldn't be happy if there were voting irregularities. I did agree with the attempts to audit the election that were being attempted at the time:

After the 2016 election Trump attempted an audit of the election he won because he suspected fraud. The mostly democrat states refused to participate and it was eventually closed.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-dismantles-voter-fraud-commission-heres-what-the-controversial-group-did

States refused to cooperate and participate in an audit of their elections.

89

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who will win the election?

« on: November 12, 2020, 07:29:22 AM »

"Many people hate Trump enough to commit fraud"

> All nods in agreement

"So they did."

> Nooooooooooo

Pretty redic.

Bringing up how people hated Clinton is just agreement that there needs to be audits.

90

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Who will win the election?

« on: November 12, 2020, 12:06:30 AM »

Well, no one is even denying that many people hate Trump enough to commit fraud.

This isn't speculation if it's the concensus. It's more like established knowledge. Asking "How?" is irrelevant to this established knowledge that people hate Trump enough to commit fraud. Some may work or volunteer for the election places, others are mailmen, ballot harvesters, or are programmers.