Calm down a bitDon't you FUCKING DARE tell me this is all imaginary pixie dust you worm.
Project 2025 - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
And, of course Tstorm is making stuff up. He hasn't even read it
The Defending Joe Biden Mega-Thread
- Thread starter Gergar12
- Start date
And, of course Tstorm is making stuff up. He hasn't even read it
Except in the case of the Floyd/Taylor protests, which was the party to initiate and escalate violence, cops or protesters?
Project 2025 is real. Every single sentence in that statement by Biden is a lie. Every single one. Seriously, every single one. Honestly, it's almost like they did it on purpose.Don't you FUCKING DARE tell me this is all imaginary pixie dust you worm.
Project 2025 - Wikipedia
Like, there are like a dozen verifiable lies Trump told on the debate stage, that you can put his words next to the facts, and Biden goes with 3 accusations of lie that are, in order, meaninglessly vague, categorically untrue, and at best a he said - he said situation. Trump's closest allies wrote Project 2025? The Heritage Foundation is Trump's closest ally now? When Trump says he doesn't know all of what the 900 pages say or who wrote them, do you think that's untrue? Do you think he knows what all 900 pages say and who wrote them? Like, Jesus Christ, they put quotation marks on "revenge", and while I haven't read the whole book, I know how to ctrl+F, and the word "revenge" is featured precisely 0 times in Project 2025. The Supreme Court did not give anyone a blank check to do whatever they want.
Honestly, if you can't make Trump or Project 2025 look bad without lying in every sentence, you've failed to find a reason to think them bad in the first place. You're just drinking the Kool Aid because somebody told you to.
The first initial one was done by protestors. And, unfortunately, that means to some people, like Phoenix, that police can initiate and escalate everytime afterwards. So MOSTLY it was the police.
This is nonsense but then that's always how conservatives think. See also Israel and Hamas. There can be no forgiveness of the intial moment or consideration of the vast majority of people who are innocent, that weren't even present at the first altercation. Both combined lead to a lot of further violence
More than 1 thing can be true.
Are these all cops disguised as ordinary citizens looting?
Stop trying to gaslight me when I was alive in 2020 and saw exactly what happened.
The actual harms done by the BLM riots are massively greater than Jan 6th.
Literally 0 chance of Trump continuing on as President in 2021. If Trump partook in a coup, then why hasn't he been charged with doing as such? Surely, that will be super easy to get him on, right?
If what you say is true, where are the charges for attempted murder? Surely, attempting to murder the vice president will result in said charges, would it not?
Yep, nothing but protesting going on here...
Yes, these people are so virtuous!!!
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com
I really have to question how many feet you've stepped outiside your own fucking house.
Yep, and nothing but selfies going on at Jan. 6.
I'd post a video of it, but you have working eyes and a brain, and if you don't see it for what it was - a violent coup - then you're a fucking imbecile or you agreed with what happened. And I'll lean toward the latter, Mr. totally not conservative, but agrees with pretty much everything conservatives do.
Ah yes, some people did the wrong thing so everyone needs to be targetedYes, these people are so virtuous!!!
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
You are also going to have to point out where I said anything about virtuous.
If you want to ask if BLM is more 'virtuous' than Jan 6. Definitely. No question. BLM brought receipts. Jan 6 brought nothing
As I asked Dirty Hipsters, if all you said is true (people brought gallows and noose to the Capitol, said they are going to kill Mike Pence, they broke into the building and actively searched for him), then how is there not a single charge for that?
If this guy got charged, then surely someone hunting for a vice president in the Capitol would get charged at bare minimum.
New York City man charged with threatening to kill Donald Trump
Thomas Welnicki, 72, is accused of phoning in his threats to the Secret Service.
More than 1 thing can be true. Just because there were instances of violence does not make it a violent coup. If I go to the Capitol in January and break a single window with a rock, I guess I attempted a violent coup then...
If I agree with what conservatives do, then why have I never voted for a republican in my life (maybe one was running unopposed in something but outside of that)?
You said one was worthwhile to riot against. Neither were worthy to riot against. And how is just looting condoned? Majority of the "riots" were just looting.
Gee, I don't know, why don't you go ask the American justice system why some who break the law get charged and others don't.As I asked Dirty Hipsters, if all you said is true (people brought gallows and noose to the Capitol, said they are going to kill Mike Pence, they broke into the building and actively searched for him), then how is there not a single charge for that?
If this guy got charged, then surely someone hunting for a vice president in the Capitol would get charged at bare minimum.
New York City man charged with threatening to kill Donald Trump
Thomas Welnicki, 72, is accused of phoning in his threats to the Secret Service.www.nbcnews.com
Yeah, that's not how 'more than one thing can be true' works. Unless this is your unsurprising attempt to bastardize that too.
You're doing that thing again where you're showing your ass and acting like it's a gotcha.
Guess you have some things to figure out for yourself.
Again, surely people actively hunting down a vice president in the Capitol would get charged for said thing. The fact that this didn't happen demonstrates that this "violent" coup isn't much of a thing.
Nope, just because people broke some windows doesn't mean it was a violent coup.
I can tell you that living in a conservative state (Indiana) is way better than super blue Cook County in Illinois that's a joke. The problem I have with democrats isn't usually their intentions but the actual policy to do it (which tends to make things worse vs better).
Fucking pathetic lies.
cope pasta for lying collaborators..
...
Trump gave the keynote address at the Heritage Foundation’s annual leadership conference on April 21, 2022, just a few months after Roberts took the reins of the organization.
“He’s going to be so incredible,” Trump said of Roberts. “I know that for a fact, because I know what he did and where he came from, and he’s going to be outstanding, and congratulations to his very exciting new role and a very important role.”
....
The Times further reported in its April 20, 2023, article that according to Roberts, “Heritage and its project partners have already briefed Mr. Trump” on the plan.
The next day, Heritage announced that Project 2025 had published Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise, a nearly 900-page book laying out the right’s sprawling, extreme agenda-in-waiting. The framework would roll back civil rights enforcement, dramatically curtail access to abortion, shred environmental protections, and much more.
....
Troye identified various figures – including John McEntee, who was Trump’s director of White House personnel, Stephen Miller, a senior adviser in his first administration, Ben Carson, the housing and urban development secretary in his cabinet, and Ken Cuccinelli, a former deputy secretary of homeland security – as among the project’s leading architects.
Carson has been “out there on the campaign trail” with Trump, she noted.
....
“And how exactly don’t you know that Project 2025 director Paul Dans served as your chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management, and associate director Spencer Chretien served as your special assistant and associate director of presidential personnel?”
...
“All told, of the 38 people responsible for writing and editing Project 2025, 31 were appointed or nominated to positions in the Trump administration and transition,” he wrote. “In other words, while Trump claims he has ‘nothing to do’ with the people who created Project 2025, over 81% had formal roles in his first administration.”
....
One of the central themes of Donald Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign has been the desire for vengeance against those who he believes have done him and the country wrong.
...
While Trump and his allies have decried what they say is the weaponization of the justice system against him, they have also made it clear that if he regains the White House, they absolutely plan to use the presidency and the Department of Justice to retaliate against their enemies — and it won’t just be Joe Biden. And Trump’s ability to do this may have just been bolstered by the U.S. Supreme Court’s new ruling in his immunity case.
Below is a look at whom or what Trump and his advisers have indicated they’ll target for revenge, including threats both explicit and vague.
Who Is on Donald Trump’s Revenge List?
From Biden to Bragg to the staff of the National Archives, here’s everyone Trump may go after if he regains the powers of the presidency.
nymag.com
The Capitol attack wasn't peaceful, but J6 election protests were for precisely the same reason BLM protests were. Basically, if you take every individual "protest event" protesting the election on J6 and then count how many turned violent...
But then that works for nearly any cause, because big event that turns violent can essentially be buried by tiny, uneventful protests and where exactly to draw the lines between "events" is intentionally vague. It's an entirely bullshit metric designed specifically to minimize protest violence.
With the right cutoff date you could probably argue that the KKK has been mostly nonviolent since some year using that metric and that year is probably a lot older than you'd guess. Because that's how bullshit the metric is.
I agree with the first sentence, but you miss how that makes him easily manipulable. Most of Project 2025 is either giving him more power to fire mid-level bureaucrats in order to install loyalists and cronies or is stuff that starts from Congress that he just has to sign off on and that painting it as important and historic or similar feeding of his narcissism will get him to do.
Tell me where I am misunderstanding this. SCOTUS decided that anything that is an explicit duty (or could be directly part of conducting such) of the presidency both cannot be prosecuted and cannot be used as evidence. This to protect Trump from his communications with the DOJ and VP being used as evidence.
As Commander in Chief, communicating with and giving order to the military is such a duty (and thus any communication between Biden and the military cannot be charged with a crime and cannot be used as evidence). Writing pardons is also such a duty. Therefore, if Biden were to instruct the military to do something illegal and then pardon those involved for following the illegal order then no one can be convicted of anything involved (because Biden would have immunity for all his actions in the scheme, and the others involved would be pardoned).
He has several charges relating to interfering with the election, and the recent SCOTUS decision was part of his legal maneuvering to try to get out of them.
I mean he's not wrong that they've generally avoided charging anyone with trying to kill the VP because it would be a harder fight to win than obstructing official proceedings and the like that are easy wins.
Unless it's a bunch of middle-aged overweight whitebreads on meth stroking out in the Capitol rotunda, in which case it's just a handful of bad apples and you shouldn't judge the whole by the actions of a few.
I mean, I'd say that in jest but he unironically just squatted out that turd in, what, the very next post?
Hee hee.
Anyhow, speaking of.
I'm sure in your mind plopped on your tuchus in front of a TV blasting Fox or NewsMax totally counts, but I was there. I'm on record on this forum recounting my experience with it. You ain't the only Hoosier on these forums, boyo.
I'll be fair to you and not even call it a misunderstanding, but rather an assumption without due basis, as the court didn't go ahead and draw concrete lines for absolute, presumed, and non-immunity actions. Commanding the military in their military actions is the duty of the Commander in Chief, so absolute immunity. Communicating and ordering the military are the means of command, so those communications would be presumed immune by the framework in the ruling, but that presumption can be overcome by evidence in the same way people have the presumption of innocence until they are proven guilty. The ruling about presumptive immunity, if I understand correctly, is telling attorneys who might bring cases against the president for actions done as president to presume they can't prosecute that action unless they can prove it is outside the president's explicit duties. In your example, telling the military to break laws would at minimum challenge the question of presumptive immunity, that case would still be brought, on top of the other option which is impeachment and removal from office which is unaffected by this ruling.
Ah, putting words in my mouth
I said one was more virtuous. Because it's not based on a lie.
Just a query. Do you actually believe this? Because it sounds like you're against the Boston Tea Party. Far more damage and looting happened there than in the video you showed. And I would see that a person being murdered in front of you by a government official is more worthy of a riot than taxes and representation. But I'm very willing to call them both willing
I mean, they're both based on lies, but it's interesting to investigate your reasoning further. Do you truly believe that it is more virtuous to go looting because you don't like the truth than it is to break into Congress based on a lie?
I said mostly peaceful because that's what the media used for the BLM riots.
The Georgia case seems like the only important case for that and the dems butt-fumbled that. If a president legit took part in a coup attempt, something would've happened in 4 fucking years by now.
I don't watch Fox or NewsMax. I was living in Illinois in 2020 (I only did move not even 10 miles away though into Indiana). When I see someone say on live TV with a building on fire in the background on camera that the protests are mostly peaceful, I immediately call bullshit on that. It's like trying to gaslight me that Biden is just fine (it's just edited "cheap" fakes making Biden look bad) when I saw with my own eyes that he couldn't even handle a fluff Christmas Q&A. This stuff doesn't pass the basic common sense test.
Most of the people protesting in the BLM riots were not doing it for virtuous reasons. How is breaking into stores and stealing stuff helping the cause? It's the same thing with the Occupy movement (which I agree with the general sentiment). I have friend that was really into it, I don't think she was like an organizer or something but probably at least talked with people high up in the Chicago group. She asked to come to one of them and I asked "so what's basically the plan of attack / what are you guys actually doing to get anything done?" And they literally had no plans of actually doing anything so I didn't go because it was basically pointless.
...except you can't use the content of those orders as evidence that those orders are not immune. Like, this is a key element of the decision meant specifically to protect Trump - you can't use his communications with the VP or DOJ as evidence unless those communications are not immune. You also aren't allowed to look into his motives in that act.
So now you have to prove that the president ordered the military to assassinate his political rivals in a way that is not immune without reference to said orders or his motive, which cannot be used as evidence until you have proven that the orders are not immune. And that's if we accept the argument that ordering the military is not an inherent part of being commander in chief that cannot be severed from it, in which case it's just absolutely immune regardless. Likewise for the pardons - you'd have to prove that writing pardons is not absolutely immune, and then prove that those pardons are not immune without reference to the pardons in question or his motive in writing them.
Hell, assassinating a political rival is an example of something that this decision allows used by one of the dissenting justices in their opinion, not something I pulled out of nowhere.
The word "revenge" within quotation marks doesn't mean that it is a literal quote from the document; it means that Biden is putting air-quotes around the word to indicate that he doesn't really have any cause to seek revenge.
He has already said he considers it virtuous on account of not being based on a lie. Asking a question that assumes that it is a lie is pointless.