kurtster wrote:
Kurt, I take you very seriously.

You are a serious threat to yourself, me, and the rest of America.  

As usual, you respond to a question/statement about Trump with a deflection (you take Nancy seriously) to avoid addressing the overwhelming information that Trump supports Putin.  Just in case that doesn't work, you throw in an "I've said this before", "nobody listens",  "Everyone is against me", and/or "I'm out".   

Yes, you're really that transparent.  But still a threat.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:

Gabba gabba we accept you. One of us. One of us. 

 kurtster wrote:

This is not about Pelosi. She was just a convenient example from today's news. No, Kurtster, the charge is much more serious than any kind of party-political feuding. It WAY SURPASSES the normal political feuding which is an essential element of a healthy democracy. 

Here, I will spell it out for you:


"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

Argument:
By holding up aid for Ukraine, Trump is adhering to the goals and objectives of Russia. He is also giving them aid and comfort by facilitating their illegal annexation of a democratic regime and their attempt to destabilise other European democracies in an attempt to reassert Russian hegemony over Eastern Europe.

(as a side note: If Russia succeeds at its goals this will necessarily diminish the U.S. sphere of influence in the world, destabilise other regions where dictatorships perceive U.S. weakness and greatly damage U.S. standing in the world)

Exhibits
Putin's geopolitical objectives
The FSB playbook for destabilising and infiltrating other countries and regimes
The invasion of Ukraine
Russia's complete disregard for the rules of war and relentless attacks on civilians
The fact that Russia is a dictatorship with sham elections and a ruler for life
(none of the above is consistent with the ideals of the U.S. i.e. there is no overlap or wiggle room where you could argue that by supporting Russia, one could also be supporting U.S. interests. There is none. They are mutually incompatible.)
Conclusion: Russia is demonstrably an enemy of U.S. interests and ideals.

Trump's statements on Russia
Trump's proclamation to turn his back on NATO
Trump's use of FSB material for his own political gain
Trump's obvious disregard for due procedure and election results
Congress withholding military aid to Ukraine due to the speaker not bringing the matter to a vote (at Trump's instruction/threat of vacating the seat)
Conclusion: Trump is adhering to an Enemy of the U.S., and giving it Aid and Comfort

Witness statements:
Statements by top US military personnel and ex US ambassadors to Russia
Statements by the FBI that Russia is attacking the US already today (see FSB playbook)
Indictments brought against Trump in U.S. courts
Statements by Republican Party members incriminating Trump

etc. etc.

Need any more?

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote: 
Based on this it is obvious to me that you really don't take me seriously on much of anything I have to say anymore.  Not that anyone else does either so you're in good company.

That you take Pelosi seriously on much of anything impedes my taking you seriously in discussions like this going forward.  Actually there is no way to have a discussion on this stuff anymore, at all.  Everyone's mind is already made up.  It's Joe (Kamala) or the Cheetos Bandito.  Nothing left to do but wait.

Oh well.  :popcorn:

I am so done with Trump. 

It is now more than glaringly obvious that he is a puppet of Moscow. 
The time for reconciliation and reaching across the aisle and making concessions to Trumpists is over. 
I am going to call it for what it is. 
Treason. 

Pure and simple.

 steeler wrote:

crystal

 rgio wrote:
Yes, there are obvious reasons why attempted criminal offenses are prosecutable.

Putting aside, for the moment, the criminal context, let’s just look at what these “patriots” were trying to do.  They were trying to stop the certification of the electoral votes for Biden. They were doing so in an  attempt to have Trump declared the winner of the 2020 election. Trump was doing the same, urging Mike Pence not to accept the certifications and seeking to present alternate slates of electors in an attempt to throw the determination of the outcome of the election to the House.

As a matter of logic and common sense, this really is not that hard of a case. It is rather clear.

 steeler wrote:
It's like the sham case in Georgia.  He didn't GET the 11,800 votes... so what crime did he commit?

or NY...show me specifically who was harmed by getting mortgages at lower rates because he lied?

or the Mar-a-lago documents.  So what if he lied... they got them all back.

 VV wrote:
Who requested that they come to DC on January 6, promising it will be “wild?”

Why January 6?

Who at the end of his rally speech directed the crowd to go to the Capitol, promising that he would be “right there with you?”

What was the purpose of this rally and why was the crowd directed to go to the Capitol?

Was not the intent of the crowd to “stop the steal?” If not, what was the intent?

Why would anyone entering the Capitol through a broken window think it was open for a tourist visit?

Why would anyone viewing the pitched battles between police and the Trump supporters and those Trump supporters coursing through the Capitol looking for members of Congress and Mike Pence think this was not an attempt at an insurrection?

 kurtster wrote:
Who cares about a concession speech? 🤣😂🤣😂🤣
 
Well since that is key to the peaceful transfer of power from one administration to another, I would say... everyone who has a brain should. We saw how Trump's failure to concede the election and his incessant lies helped fuel his failed insurrection. Yes, it was an insurrection... just because it didn't go according to Trump's plan and wasn't successful doesn't make it anything less so. Trump tried to pull on every string to illegally remain in power... of that there is no question. It's just that the MAGA faithful would prefer to ignore these inconvenient truths.

Oh, and all you did was repost the same link above where she made her â€œillegitimate president” statement. Just wondering where are all of the other instances that you claim she did this. Or is this a Trump "Many people..." type of claim? 🥱

 Steely_D wrote:
And why were they there...upset...attempting to stop the electoral college process?

Because Trump said then, and says now, without a shred of evidence, that the election was stolen.

It's convenient for Kurt and the MAGA world to downplay what it was, but his rallying the mob and doing nothing for 3 hours will not age well.  People avoid the Nazi comparisons for a lot of reasons, but people will someday look back on MAGA with the same level of disbelief.  How could so many be fooled or coerced?  Resentment and anger at an "elite" class of educated and professional society they feel set rules that favor everyone else,  and who want to set more rules to limit their freedoms (see: guns, masks, vaccines).  No self-reflection on their own limitations, just anger and blame.

We know how the Nazi's came to an end.  We're still writing the MAGA story, but the sooner it ends, the better.

 kurtster wrote:
Ignoring the topic of “did Trump suggest to his followers that it should happen” we can at least see the reality of “was it an insurrection” - They intended to interfere with the function of Congress, and brought a gallows, and shouted to hang the Vice President of the United States for not doing what they want.

 VV wrote:

 kurtster wrote:

for someone who is so scared of being fooled, you are incredibly gullible. 

Let's give Trump the benefit of the doubt. Let's say he didn't want an insurrection. Let's say he thought the "people" had a right to express their views by demonstrating, which is after all what they did. 

As the incumbent president he had a duty to protect the government, the constitution and basically be a good caretaker of the machinery of state. That is HIS JOB. It has nothing to do with his political views.

At the very latest when the "demonstration" turned violent, when people started storming the Capitol, he DID NOTHING to stop it. And you are happy to whitewash this?  

Loopy.  

But of course, none of this seems to matter, because Trump-supporters evidently think a Soviet-style government run by mafia mobsters and corrupt oligarchs putting on the garb of Christianity is just about the best form of government out there to emulate. 

Far out, whatever happened to rock&roll and the land of the free and the land of the brave?

Double loopy 

  

 VV wrote: 
The greatest false equivalency I see flying around is that January 6 was an insurrection.  A riot, no doubt, but an actual insurrection ?  Hardly.

And then you all pronounce Trump guilty of insurrection without a trial and conviction.  That an accusation is the equivalent of a conviction.

Fail, in the first degree with an equally epic denial of reality.

 rgio wrote: 
So she made a concession speech.  And years later she said this and many times before and since this interview :

Hillary Clinton: Trump is an ‘illegitimate president’

By Colby Itkowitz
September 26, 2019 at 5:03 p.m. EDT

Hillary Clinton dismissed President Trump as an “illegitimate president” and suggested that “he knows” that he stole the 2016 presidential election in a CBS News interview to be aired Sunday.

Who cares about a concession speech that was obviously only lip service or simply going through the motions at best as she clearly did not believe it then or later as illustrated above.

I guess all of you do.  The concession speech allows her to get a pass from you all for everything she does later based upon the reasoning put forth.

 VV wrote:
So look at the concession speeches.

The morning after the election, Hillary's first statement:

Last night, I congratulated Donald Trump and offered to work with him on behalf of our country. I hope that he will be a successful president for all Americans. This is not the outcome we wanted or we worked so hard for and I’m sorry that we did not win this election for the values we share and the vision we hold for our country.

Contrast that with Trump, who on January 7, 2021, after being convinced by his "advisors" that he might be impeached, finally recorded a message where he said:

Now Congress has certified the results. A new administration will be inaugurated on January 20th.

If you want to see a guy who's changed his tune... enjoy the irony.  His condemnation of the now "prisoners" is inspiring.

 VV wrote:

 black321 wrote:

I'd say it's okay for either. But they better follow it up with some solid evidence or STFU. 

 kurtster wrote:
No, sorry False Equivalence King, it is not widespread on the Democratic side of the fence. 

You may have had people saying that when Trump was first elected and they were stinging from the defeat. Did Clinton try (and fail) to contest the results in court? Is Clinton still running around doing interviews or speaking at functions crying that the election was stolen from her? Clinton conceded her loss (while Trump never has) and Trump continues to lie that the election was stolen from him to this day. Unlike Republicans the Democrats did recognize Trump as the duly elected President. Ask most current Republicans in the Senate and Congress today whether Biden is the duly elected president and a good majority of them will either say "No" or duck the question entirely.

I know that you would love for both sides to be equally broken? f*cked up? dysfunctional? But there is only one side that is holding that title right now and it's not even close.