Capitol Insurrection / rebellion thread

[PhaelixWW]

Its literally what you did.

Lol. Hardly. I stated my points. You just called them "dumb" and refused to engage with anything resembling intelligent thought.

Yet, the President gets the person the job and is the only person that can directly fire the AG. That's power over the position. You are literally arguing that if an AG gets the job and does literally nothing, the POTUS shouldn't be allowed to remove that person even though they can.

No, lol, that's not what I'm "literally arguing", sorry. Nice strawman, though. An AG doing literally nothing, ever, is not the same as the situation about which you're talking. Don't try to make your point with false equivalences. Damn sure don't attempt to strawman mine with them, either.

Think about your argument.

The irony of you making shit up about "my" argument, then telling me I should think about it more.

Perhaps the reason I haven't thought about it that way is simply because it's not "my" argument, eh?

Go back to kiddy insults, man, at least those were mildly entertaining.

[cubby]

answering in red

#1. You can talk to me, you know.
But you stopped listening pages ago - what's the point?

#2. The articles in question didn't in anyway disprove a single thing I said. Nothing. All they said was that Biden says he won't interfere. I said two things:
You said the articles you read disagreed with your position - you said it, not me or the articles I posted. You literally said you'd read things that disagreed with your original position, but discarded then in favor of your [*feels*].

A) If there's sufficient evidence to prosecute and the AG doesn't, it will be because Biden told him not too.
Wrong
OR
B) If there's sufficient evidence to prosecute and the AG doesn't, it will be because Biden doesn't interfere and force him too.
Wrong

Please, Counselor, in detail explain how any article you're carrying on about proves 1 or 2 wrong.
As usual, you miss the point entirely. Again, you said you read articles. I'm not referring to my cites, but your mentions.

Not only do your articles not contradict A or B, but also, since when is a person saying they won't do something proof they won't do that thing? For fuck's sake, if a person saying he won't do something is proof they won't do that thing, why the fuck do we have courts, lawyers, etc?
Because we can only go off what people say in this case. Your entire hypothesis was based on a future assumed action. Myself and others (and you) have posted evidence saying that Garland won't allow POTUS to interfere with DoJ criminal inquiries and prosecutions.
Your answer to all this is to repeat your *feels*.

#3. Garland is not untouchable politically. Having a job waiting for him in the private sector, doesn'tmake someone untouchable politically. That's an incredibly wrongheaded take.
That's literally what it means to be untouchable politically. If anything goes sideways on him, he can leave. He doesn't nee the job nor the future, he's already set.

#4. If you think you've said or provided a single thing that disproves my argument then, I've either given you waaaaayyyyyyyyy too much credit in the past or you just flat out don't even know what my argument is and are just reacting because its me saying something unflattering about Biden. The only way to show which is true is for you to tell me what you think my point is.
You mean you already forgot your original point? Holy fuck, take about getting way too much credit for just being able to hold a days-long conversation on a forum.

I can't wait for you to misread what I'm saying and launch into another one of your blithering diatribes. I have to say, while they are mildly irritating, they are at least entertaining.

Here, let's refresh your memory - here is your original "point":

Simply put, if the evidence is there, the DoJ should go after him/them. If they don't go after him/them and the evidence is there, it will be because Biden is either stopping them from doing it or not pushing them to do it.

All evidence points to you being wrong, including your own statements, like this:

And our favorite, here's you dismissing evidence for your *feels*:

Secondly, I have read articles. They sound great. But if you think it isn't different behind closed doors, especially over something this massive, you're lying to yourself.

Talk about naive.

[Edge-]

Yet, the President gets the person the job and is the only person that can directly fire the AG.

Except there's a political mechanism for the Legislature to impeach and remove an AG.

You are literally arguing that if an AG gets the job and does literally nothing, the POTUS shouldn't be allowed to remove that person even though they can.

None of us are. You're arguing that Biden needs to pressure the AG. We're arguing that he shouldn't.

[Bodakane]

Lol. Hardly. I stated my points. You just called them "dumb" and refused to engage with anything resembling intelligent thought.



No, lol, that's not what I'm "literally arguing", sorry. Nice strawman, though. An AG doing literally nothing, ever, is not the same as the situation about which you're talking. Don't try to make your point with false equivalences. Damn sure don't attempt to strawman mine with them, either.



The irony of you making shit up about "my" argument, then telling me I should think about it more.

Perhaps the reason I haven't thought about it that way is simply because it's not "my" argument, eh?

Go back to kiddy insults, man, at least those were mildly entertaining.

Your point was dumb. You were trying to compare something illegal to something that wasn't, in a weak attempt to say they are both wrong. There's nothing wrong with a POTUS making an AG do his job. There is something wrong with a POTUS trying to make an AG break the law like Trump did.

Its the logical through point of your argument anyway. You are telling me the POTUS shouldn't;t interfere with the AG......until a apparently a certain benchmark is met, I guess. How long of not doing his job should the AG get before the POTUS interferes, exactly?

- - - Updated - - -

answering in red


I can't wait for you to misread what I'm saying and launch into another one of your blithering diatribes. I have to say, while they are mildly irritating, they are at least entertaining.

Here, let's refresh your memory - here is your original "point":

All evidence points to you being wrong, including your own statements, like this:

And our favorite, here's you dismissing evidence for your *feels*:


Talk about naive.

And still, you've made no actual point.

I know what my original point is, and it hasn't changed. All you've done is say its not true because Biden said he wouldn't interfere. That's literally all you've done, besides run around acting like you got an internet hole in one for making this non-point.

Again, explain how your articles/citations disprove my point. Judging by the incredulity with which you've been brandishing your stance, it shouldn't be so fucking difficult for someone of your caliber to explain why my point is disproved....and yet... here we are with you still not doing it......hmmmmm

- - - Updated - - -

Except there's a political mechanism for the Legislature to impeach and remove an AG.



None of us are. You're arguing that Biden needs to pressure the AG. We're arguing that he shouldn't.

Surely you understand there's a difference between firing someone and impeaching them, no?

I'm arguing that Biden needs to pressure the AG in a very specific scenario. Are you saying there';s no scenario in which a POTUS should pressure or fire an AG?

[PhaelixWW]

I stated my points. You just called them "dumb" and refused to engage with anything resembling intelligent thought.

Go back to kiddy insults, man, at least those were mildly entertaining.

Your point was dumb.

I asked, and I received, I guess, lol.

You were trying to compare something illegal to something that wasn't

And yet that was a valid comparison, because their legality had nothing to do with the fact that both things were wrong and thus the actual comparison being made.

I also later added another example of non-illegal activity, but you conveniently ignored with just a child-like "That's dumb!"

There's nothing wrong with a POTUS making an AG do his job.

And yet, there is something wrong when the POTUS pressures the AG to force him to a desired outcome in a specific case.

There is something wrong with a POTUS trying to make an AG break the law like Trump did.

That is also wrong. But that doesn't make what you're talking about not wrong by comparison.

Its the logical through point of your argument anyway. You are telling me the POTUS shouldn't;t interfere with the AG......until a apparently a certain benchmark is met, I guess. How long of not doing his job should the AG get before the POTUS interferes, exactly?

Deciding 'no' to bringing charges is just as much a part of the AG's job as deciding 'yes' to bringing charges. And there's a lot more to the AG's job than bringing or not bringing charges. Regardless, one case is not enough to warrant such action, and even if it were, that doesn't excuse pressure being put to bear on him prior to actually making a decision. He's allowed to make a decision. POTUS is allowed to fire him. That dynamic doesn't extend to POTUS pressuring the AG with the threat of said firing in order to force him to make the decision that POTUS wants.

This is, like, not a hard concept, really.

- - - Updated - - -

Are you saying there';s no scenario in which a POTUS should pressure or fire an AG?

If the AG is doing something illegal, sure.

Are you suggesting that that's what's happening?

[Bodakane]

I asked, and I received, I guess, lol.



And yet that was a valid comparison, because their legality had nothing to do with the fact that both things were wrong and thus the actual comparison being made.

I also later added another example of non-illegal activity, but you conveniently ignored with just a child-like "That's dumb!"

Its not a valid comparison. You're just claiming it is wrong. You're not giving a reason it is wrong. Since you aren't giving a reason it is wrong, comparing it to something that is objectively wrong, even though there's no similarities, makes it a dumb comparison.

And yet, there is something wrong when the POTUS pressures the AG to force him to a desired outcome in a specific case.

So which is it.....can a POTUS p[ressure an AG to do his actual job or not...you are flip flopping.

That is also wrong. But that doesn't make what you're talking about not wrong by comparison.

That wasn't;t my goal by saying that. My goal by saying that was pointing out how what Trump did is different than what I'm suggesting, because your comparison was so dumb, i figured that must be why you were making it. Essentially, in case you were thinking, "Trump yelled at Sessions for not obstructing justice, then Biden yelling at Garland for being a bitch, is same so also bad.", I wanted to clarify.

Deciding 'no' to bringing charges is just as much a part of the AG's job as deciding 'yes' to bringing charges. And there's a lot more to the AG's job than bringing or not bringing charges. Regardless, one case is not enough to warrant such action, and even if it were, that doesn't excuse pressure being put to bear on him prior to actually making a decision. He's allowed to make a decision. POTUS is allowed to fire him. That dynamic doesn't extend to POTUS pressuring the AG with the threat of said firing in order to force him to make the decision that POTUS wants.

This is, like, not a hard concept, really.

Sigh. Ok, so if the AG decides to not bring charges, because he just doesn't;t want to for no good reason....POTUS shouldn't step in? I'll ask you again, what is the benchmark for when a POTUS should step in? Earlier you said if keeps not doing his job? So how many balls must he drop before action should be taken?

- - - Updated - - -

If the AG is doing something illegal, sure.

Are you suggesting that that's what's happening?

Nope. Never said nor implied it. Shit, you're the one that brought up the AG doing something illegal or not, so unless you think I have power over your mind, not sure why'd you think that was what I was suggesting.....or....am I sure???!?!?!?!?

- - - Updated - - -

@Bodakane there’s no situation in which a President should be pressuring the AG to either prosecute or not. The only time an AG should be fired is when they commit a fireable offense and refuse to resign.

What constitutes a fireable offense?

[PhaelixWW]

Its not a valid comparison. You're just claiming it is wrong. You're not giving a reason it is wrong.

Hrm, I feel like... it's almost as if...

Hey can we roll back the tape?

Once again, explain to me why a POTUS pressuring an AG to uphold the law is wrong.

Because:

Harvard LPR: The Attorney General Should Be Separate

Ohhhhhhh, right. So I did actually give a reason. And now you're just spouting bullshit strawmen, again.

You're bad at this.

So which is it.....can a POTUS p[ressure an AG to do his actual job or not...you are flip flopping.

Nope, sorry, I've been completely consistent. The only inconsistencies arise when you insert your own strawmen and pretend that they're things that I've actually said.

That wasn't;t my goal by saying that. My goal by saying that was pointing out how what Trump did is different than what I'm suggesting, because your comparison was so dumb, i figured that must be why you were making it. Essentially, in case you were thinking, "Trump yelled at Sessions for not obstructing justice, then Biden yelling at Garland for being a bitch, is same so also bad.", I wanted to clarify.

Wait, so now you're getting tripped up because you were anticipating my adoption of your strawman?

That's, like, entirely embarrassing for you but it's not a valid excuse.

Sigh. Ok, so if the AG decides to not bring charges, because he just doesn't;t want to for no good reason....POTUS shouldn't step in? I'll ask you again, what is the benchmark for when a POTUS should step in? Earlier you said if keeps not doing his job? So how many balls must he drop before action should be taken?

Worst case scenario, if the AG decides to, say, give every single person involved in the January 6th insurrection a free pass with a pat on the back and a government apology, then Biden should fire him; one or two cases alone are not sufficient grounds for firing. But firing him after the fact for gross dereliction of duty and pressuring him beforehand to force an outcome are two very fucking separate things.

POTUS directing pressure on the AG to enforce a desired outcome is wrong. End of. POTUS shouldn't even have that power (nor the power to fire him, either), specifically to avoid that imbalance of authority. It's all laid out in that source I linked earlier, about which you apparently forgot.

Nope. Never said nor implied it. Shit, you're the one that brought up the AG doing something illegal or not, so unless you think I have power over your mind, not sure why'd you think that was what I was suggesting.....or....am I sure???!?!?!?!?

See, unlike you, I asked the question rather than trying to put words in your mouth.

And no, I didn't think that's what you were saying, but I thought I'd ask, rather than assume. It's what adults do, you know.

The point is, if you're not claiming that it would be illegal, then what you're suggesting is wrong. (If you were suggesting that it was illegal, then you'd be more mistaken than wrong, which would be a better look for you, but whatever.)

[Bodakane]

Hrm, I feel like... it's almost as if...

Hey can we roll back the tape?



Ohhhhhhh, right. So I did actually give a reason. And now you're just spouting bullshit strawmen, again.

You're bad at this.

Lol, 2 things.

#1. I called your comparison dumb BEFORE you posted that. You haven't recovered from that, so you've basically started every response back to me addressing the fact I called it dumb requiring me to keep explaining why I called it dumb when I did. The above, was another explanation into why I called it dumb when I did. You are still not understanding it or are embarrassed it was dumb. If its the second its ok, we all do dumb stuff on here. Like for example, i thought @cubby could have a logical and reasonable discussion.

#2. Keep rolling back the tape, because after you posted that article you then admitted there are times its ok for a POTUS to interfere with the AG and I've since been trying o get you to define what that benchmark is. Thus far, your two benchmarks have been if he does something illegal and if he doesn't;t do his job for undetermined amount of time.

Nope, sorry, I've been completely consistent. The only inconsistencies arise when you insert your own strawmen and pretend that they're things that I've actually said.

Bull and shit. You started telling me that its never ok for a POTUS to interfere with an AG. Then you admitted he/she could interfere if the AG didn't do his job or indeterminate amount of time. Then you you said he should also interfere if the AG was breaking the law. That is, as we say, in Logic Town, not consistent.

Wait, so now you're getting tripped up because you were anticipating my adoption of your strawman?

That's, like, entirely embarrassing for you but it's not a valid excuse.

Where was I tripped up? I was spitballing for a reason that you'd make such a stupid argument. I didn't;t accuse you of it, I was just throwing it out there in case.

Worst case scenario, if the AG decides to, say, give every single person involved in the January 6th insurrection a free pass with a pat on the back and a government apology, then Biden should fire him; one or two cases alone are not sufficient grounds for firing. But firing him after the fact for gross dereliction of duty and pressuring him beforehand to force an outcome are two very fucking separate things.

POTUS directing pressure on the AG to enforce a desired outcome is wrong. End of. POTUS shouldn't even have that power (nor the power to fire him, either), specifically to avoid that imbalance of authority. It's all laid out in that source I linked earlier, about which you apparently forgot.

It is really hard to follow your consistency.....no interference period to interfere if they don't do their job for indeterminate amount of time to interfere if AG broke law to interfere if all the suspects in one event are let off......

So at least, after all your dumb points that change left and right, it looks like we are left with....we both agree the POTUS can, in fact, after all, interfere with the AG and in reality, we just disagree with at what point that is OK.

I think: Its ok for the POTUS to interfere if the AG chooses not to prosecute politicians who took part in fomenting a violent insurrection when there's sufficient evidence against them.

You think: Never, except sometimes, but not specifically, unless its a bunch of people form one event, maybe.

See, unlike you, I asked the question rather than trying to put words in your mouth.

And no, I didn't think that's what you were saying, but I thought I'd ask, rather than assume. It's what adults do, you know.

The point is, if you're not claiming that it would be illegal, then what you're suggesting is wrong. (If you were suggesting that it was illegal, then you'd be more mistaken than wrong, which would be a better look for you, but whatever.)

Wait a minute.....what's this.....are you saying....no.....it can't be....are you saying......I shouldn't;t compare something illegal to something legal to illustrate the legal thing is wrong or not??!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? I need a minute, the vapors have me.......

- - - Updated - - -

@Bodakane the usual stuff. Using his discretion as afforded by the position doesn’t qualify usually. I get you’re super emotional about this, but his job is to dispassionately make a decision. Add on top it’s a stupid hypothetical and let’s just move on from this pointless discussion.

Its not a stupid hypothetical. There's a solid chance it could happen.

All of you are basically following the same logic train that lead to the Mueller Report being pointless even though it showed Trump and his team obstructing justice and committing conspiracy in that you're all placing procedural pomp and circumstance above justice. I believe that's wrong.

Should the POTUS have the power to hire and fire the AG? No. But since he does, if Biden choses procedure over justice, then I believe that reflects poorly on him.

[Bodakane]

@Bodakane it’s stupid because unless it happens all you’re doing is getting worked up over nothing. And even if it does happen, what do you think will happen if they prosecute and lose? Think it might give Trump more ammo for 2024?

I dunno, I haven't seen anything to indicate in all my years that it wouldn't happen.

If we don't prosecute, he has ammo and we've allowed yet one more atrocity to go unchallenged which normalizes it. At some point, doing the right thing should matter.

[Xarkan]

@Bodakane it’s stupid because unless it happens all you’re doing is getting worked up over nothing. And even if it does happen, what do you think will happen if they prosecute and lose? Think it might give Trump more ammo for 2024?

If the US prosecutes and wins he will still spin it as him winning and the base will believe him..

[Bodakane]

There’s the issue, you’re viewing your hypothetical as a certainty. It’s possible it happens, but even then it’s not Biden’s place to put pressure on Garland, who should be sitting on SCOTUS. If he decides prosecution isn’t highly likely to succeed I trust his judgement over both Biden and you.

Prosecuting a former president isn’t something you can just swing and miss on.

Again, i disagree.

1. I don't think its a certainty. I think its likely.
2. I do think its his place to put pressure on him if the evidence is there.
3. You're assuming the only reason he wouldn't prosecute is if he didn't think he'd win. What if he doesn't prosecute because he thinks the country should just move on? Why would that opinion, for example, carry so much weight as to be unquestioned?
4. He was impeached twice. Its time to show the country that you can't do bad things without consequences.

In the end, virtually all of us have complained at one point or another about corrupt politicians doing bad things and never getting caught....yet in a hypothetical, where justice could, at the very least be attempted, against the people that started a violent insurrection over lies, you guys go...."nah, its fine, its not really worth the bother."

[Bodakane]

@Bodakane good for you. Nobody else agrees with your line of thinking and your arguments have yet to be persuasive. Can we move on to discussing reality instead of hypothetical situations you dreamed up so you could get angry?

lol. You can do whatever the fuck you want. I've made a very persuasive argument. Its just not enough to convince people who are fine potentially letting Trump off again, due to procedure and politics, because....reasons.

Then again, if you're applying the same logic to your argument that you applied to continuing a discussion you want to stop, then...I guess the best I could say is....the deck was stacked against reason from the get go.

[PhaelixWW]

I called your comparison dumb BEFORE you posted that.

You called it dumb because you didn't understand it. Simple as that. The later posts were just explaining your lack of critical thinking.

You haven't recovered from that

You're right, I sure haven't recovered from your inability to grasp basic concepts.

you've basically started every response back to me addressing the fact I called it dumb requiring me to keep explaining why I called it dumb when I did.

When your response is simply "This is dumb!" then you're going to get called out on it. Then your "explanations" were still just wrong, so...

after you posted that article you then admitted there are times its ok for a POTUS to interfere with the AG and I've since been trying o get you to define what that benchmark is.

RRRRRrrrrrrr! Full stop. Wrong. I never said it was okay for POTUS to pressure the AG. I said that in limited situations, it was okay for POTUS to fire the AG after the fact, and I very specifically delineated that distinction for you. I can't say that I'm surprised, however, that you're making shit up about my argument again.

Bull and shit. You started telling me that its never ok for a POTUS to interfere with an AG. Then you admitted he/she could interfere if the AG didn't do his job or indeterminate amount of time. Then you you said he should also interfere if the AG was breaking the law. That is, as we say, in Logic Town, not consistent.

Except that it is, and you just can't read. I think I already said it quite succinctly:

But firing him after the fact for gross dereliction of duty and pressuring him beforehand to force an outcome are two very fucking separate things.

Maybe you'll bother to read it and actually comprehend the distinction this time. Not holding my breath, though.

It is really hard to follow your consistency...

*rambling, incoherent snip*

Yes, we know. You continue to struggle to grasp the difference between "firing after" and "pressure during". It should be embarrassing to you that you keep bringing up your ignorance.

are you saying......I shouldn't;t compare something illegal to something legal to illustrate the legal thing is wrong or not??!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

Except, and I can't believe I have to even say this, but there was no comparison made in what I said. I was describing two very different, separate scenarios. And let's be clear, here. There's nothing wrong with making a comparison between things that are different in some ways, as long as the comparison is made in regards to other similar aspects and the differences don't come into play. I, like, literally don't understand what you think your "gotcha" is supposed to be, here.

And really, in both situations, you'd be wrong, so there are still some definite similarities to be found. I was just trying to find a way for your wrongness to be more forgivable.

- - - Updated - - -

lol. You can do whatever the fuck you want. I've made a very persuasive argument.

I mean, it's hilarious that you think that when nobody here has posted in support of your argument and some 6-8 people have posted against it.

Doesn't really make the case for the argument being very persuasive, in point of fact.

This whole argument is honestly a waste of time at this point. Feel free to continue being wrong.

[cubby]

lol. You can do whatever the fuck you want. I've made a very persuasive argument. Its just not enough to convince people who are fine potentially letting Trump off again, due to procedure and politics, because....reasons.

Your illogical leaps are adorable. I love that you think the first thing I've underlined is linked to the second thing. You literally just make shit up in your head, and then double down when confronted, because you are completely incapable of every admitting when you're wrong.

Like you are now.

Several people have pointed out your illogical conclusions, and provided literal evidence of you being as wrong as possible when guessing about future acts, and you're just doing your usual head-in-the-sand never wrong routine. Which, as always, is entertaining.

[beanman12345]

I think there has to be consequences for Trump, the shit that happened just yesterday with the DoJ alone, like this shit can't just be let go with nothing. I don't know why Biden somehow has to be involved though, like it's some requirement, because he doesn't.

edit - now that I think of it, it doesn't even matter if Biden is involved or not, there won't be any way to prove or disprove it, and also Trump will just claim Biden is involved anyways. So, getting upset about this, is fruitless.

[Shadowferal]

lol. You can do whatever the fuck you want. I've made a very persuasive argument. Its just not enough to convince people who are fine potentially letting Trump off again, due to procedure and politics, because....reasons. .

Congrats to you for knowing something that the DoJ doesn't. Maybe you should let them know. I guarantee you'll be famous for being so much smarter than them...and everybody else. And when Trump and co. go to prison we'll all say we were wrong and bask in the glow of your earlier posts.

[Bodakane]

My argument is that if Garland doesn’t pursue a case he’s got a damn good reason not to. And since we’re no where near what your hypothetical is bringing up why even bring it up?

My argument is that if there's sufficient evidence to prosecute, then there's no good reason not to. Politics > Justice, is a major, major, major problem in this country.

As far as this still being a discussion, I made a one off about it. @cubby, lost his shit, like he tends to do when a person isn't actively felating Biden. So it just snowballed from there with people, like you, jumping in and continuing the argument.

[Bodakane]

You called it dumb because you didn't understand it. Simple as that. The later posts were just explaining your lack of critical thinking.



You're right, I sure haven't recovered from your inability to grasp basic concepts.



When your response is simply "This is dumb!" then you're going to get called out on it. Then your "explanations" were still just wrong, so...

Ok, I've been trying to make this argument fun to read, but now you're annoying the piss out of me. So now I'm going to be serious and boring. This is your fault:

Your comparison was dumb, because you were trying to make a point about the ends not justifying the means. I agree the ends don't justify the means. But for that comparison to work (or not be dumb, as it were) is if both parties in the discussion agree that the action being taken would be wrong normally. Planting evidence, is wrong for many reasons like it being a lie, damages the case, etc. POTUS using his given and legal power to pressure his AG to prosecute a case he already has sufficient evidence to, is not, in anyway, like planting evidence. Again, I wasn't arguing that Biden should force Garland to prosecute without evidence or to break any laws. If Garland has sufficient evidence to prosecute and he chooses not, it will be because of political reasons. Politics should never be more important than justice, especially in a case of this magnitude.

RRRRRrrrrrrr! Full stop. Wrong. I never said it was okay for POTUS to pressure the AG. I said that in limited situations, it was okay for POTUS to fire the AG after the fact, and I very specifically delineated that distinction for you. I can't say that I'm surprised, however, that you're making shit up about my argument again.



Maybe you'll bother to read it and actually comprehend the distinction this time. Not holding my breath, though.



Yes, we know. You continue to struggle to grasp the difference between "firing after" and "pressure during". It should be embarrassing to you that you keep bringing up your ignorance.

So, if I understand your "consistent" argument now, paraphrasing an example you did earlier.....

If the AG, starts letting the insurrectionists off (let's say there were exactly a 100 of them), in spite of sufficient evidence, Biden should wait until all 100 are let off, instead of after, I dunno, the twentieth one, saying, "Hey do your job or you're fired". That's what you're arguing? That's the hill you're choosing to die on?

Except, and I can't believe I have to even say this, butthere was no comparison made in what I said. I was describing two very different, separate scenarios. And let's be clear, here. There's nothing wrong with making a comparison between things that are different in some ways, as long as the comparison is made in regards to other similar aspects and the differences don't come into play. I, like, literally don't understand what you think your "gotcha" is supposed to be, here.

And really, in both situations, you'd be wrong, so there are still some definite similarities to be found. I was just trying to find a way for your wrongness to be more forgivable.

The blue contradicts the red.

I mean, it's hilarious that you think that when nobody here has posted in support of your argument and some 6-8 people have posted against it.

Doesn't really make the case for the argument being very persuasive, in point of fact.

This whole argument is honestly a waste of time at this point. Feel free to continue being wrong.

So now a point is only valid if 6-8 people on a message board agree?

- - - Updated - - -

Your illogical leaps are adorable. I love that you think the first thing I've underlined is linked to the second thing. You literally just make shit up in your head, and then double down when confronted, because you are completely incapable of every admitting when you're wrong.

Like you are now.

Several people have pointed out your illogical conclusions, and provided literal evidence of you being as wrong as possible when guessing about future acts, and you're just doing your usual head-in-the-sand never wrong routine. Which, as always, is entertaining.

I didn't make anything up.
You haven't proven anything wrong.
You don't even understand my argument.
No evidence has been provided by anyone.

- - - Updated - - -

Congrats to you for knowing something that the DoJ doesn't. Maybe you should let them know. I guarantee you'll be famous for being so much smarter than them...and everybody else. And when Trump and co. go to prison we'll all say we were wrong and bask in the glow of your earlier posts.

I never implied anything of the sort.

If Garland does go after Trump, conviction or not, I'll gladly say my hypothetical didn't come true.

I wonder though, if we go through a repeat of the Mueller Investigation, in which real evidence was uncovered of real crime, and all we get is something toothless as the Mueller Report which lead to precisely zero justice being served, will all of you come back here and say you were wrong? Will all you complain again that political procedural bullshit hampered justice with Trump yet again?

- - - Updated - - -

I know what you’re saying and it’s very naive. As has been pointed out by multiple people. So, got anything real to discuss or do you wanna keep working on your fanfic?

lol, me saying that politics are likely going to prevent justice, is being naive?

One more time, you cannot keep bitching about this argument continuing while participating in continuing this argument, without coming across poorly.

[Bodakane]

You inventing a scenario in which they do and then claiming it’s a certainty, which you’re currently doing, is naive. Claiming prosecution is justice is naive. Thinking there’s going to be definitive evidence of Trump’s guilt is naive. Thinking that IF that evidence comes to light it’ll be ignored is pure speculation. Asking for politics to influence this imaginary situation is hypocritical. Now, I’m gonna ignore you because your fanfic isn’t entertaining.

I didn't claim it was certainty. I said it was likely.

I didn't claim prosecution is justice. I said justice is more important than politics. In the case being discussed, you can't have justice without trying to prosecute, and in that hypothetical, if you don't prosecute it will because of politics.

I never said nor implied there was definitive evidence of Trump's guilt. I said if there is definitive guilt. I've literally repeatedly qualified that this is a "if situation"/hypothetical. Your inability to pay attention to the conversation doesn't make me naive.

Based on your bullshit recollection of what I've been saying, it seems you've been ignoring me the whole time anyway.

[cubby]

The hallmark of a shitty forum poster is one who cannot remember their own point.

I didn't claim it was certainty. I said it was likely.

Except...

I'm telling you that the WH will interfere whether you want them to or not. And since they will, that means if the evidence is there but they do nothing it will be because of Biden.

Whoops....
So now you're not only a walking hilarity, but you're a fucking liar, too.

- - - Updated - - -

My argument is that if there's sufficient evidence to prosecute, then there's no good reason not to. Politics > Justice, is a major, major, major problem in this country.

As far as this still being a discussion, I made a one off about it. @cubby, lost his shit, like he tends to do when a person isn't actively felating Biden. So it just snowballed from there with people, like you, jumping in and continuing the argument.

OMG you are just adorable. We all love your abandonment of reality when you're proven to be wrong over and over and over again - and now a documented liar. You never link any cites or evidence, you lie all the time, you move or outright ignore goalposts. You didn't even know what your original point was until I reminded you. You call people names and insult them like the child you are, and when faced with your own contradictory words, you abandon all reality and change the story. Several people, actually everyone who still enjoys the hilarity of "debating" you in this thread, have pointed out over and over and over and over again how wrong you've been since the beginning of your ridiculous diatribe into your *feels* position, and you just truck along, ignoring reality and embracing your unfounded and ridiculous opinion.

But please, go on about how I "lost my shit" during this conversation - it's fucking hysterical. Just like all your other asinine posts.