Oath Keeper Leader - Guilty of Seditious Conspiracy

Not in this case. It's the same prize a spelling cop on debate forums get. No respect.

 

Nope. You claimed he made an exact statement he did not make. Poor choice by you.

 

Ahh, so you speak for Trump? YOU are the authority on what his words "meant"?
If you can actually read minds then I suggest you go test out that ability in Vegas or Atlantic City.
You people crack me up

 

If you are not defending the oath keepers then I apologize.
Then what is the purpose of posting in this thread? Your posts are not supporting the jury's decision as far as I can tell.

 

So double down on self reflection and miss the context of the OP headline?

 

A double standard is not an argument that the jury is right or wrong in their decision.
This is a thread about the oath keeper leader convicted about seditious conspriacy. Not whether some anonymou poster has double standards. That is off topic postig.

 

What's the prize for making strawman statements? Pretty much the same as going for low hanging fruit.

 

That's what Trump meant. Wasn't it obvious?

 

My very first post in this thread supported the jury's decision with the word "Great!". Do I have to express that support in every single post? No? Didn't think so.

My purpose in this thread is exposing the double standard being exposed by Democrats by not wanting their own side investigated and/or charged to the same degree that they are doing to their political opponents. IE: I'm providing debate (the over arching theme of this forum) based on the topic of the thread. I'm doing that by using examples. Or as you are calling it "whataboutism".

So, do you support charging the leaders of Chaz/Chop with seditious conspiracy? Everything that they did falls with in the law of seditious conspiracy as defined in the OP and in post# 11.

 

Don't need to read minds when one has context. Do you deny that Trump said the things that @Trixare4kids said he said in that post you quoted of his?

 

I think your numbers are a little off

Yeah, whatever.

 

I don't deny that he said PEACEFUL AND PATRIOTICALLY (you can pretend that he didn't though if it helps you stay in your safe space)
Also, "fight like hell" is a metaphor. Do you really want to make metaphors illegal? If so, there will be alot of democrats going to jail

or is it more rules for me but not for thee? I'm sure its probably that

YOU FAIL

 

At the speech given about a mile away on January 6.

Nope. Many of those "stormers" were actually let in by Capitol Police, BTW.

 

Rhodes can't be trusted at all. He should not be trusted ever again. That's a fact

 

I think you just argued against yourself here. You do realize that both @Trixare4kids and I said (<--not directly) that Trump said those things and meant...as @Trixare4kids said in post 147 "fight like hell by using their voices patriotically and peacefully up at the Capitol" given the context.

 

Which again, to me is comical. It's clear that this trial was only to destroy the lack of a conspiracy angle. Okay, fine, as far as that's been accomplished there will be those, myself included who won't recognize it. The government was not under threat during those 3 hours. Some people feel otherwise, some of those people were even put on a jury. Such as it is. But it makes a mockery of the judiciary in my view.

 

Think they would have the same problem with Adam Schiff?

https://www.newsweek.com/adam-schif...-whistleblower-complaint-ukraine-call-1461579

 

The government itself was not under threat. Some people in government were under threat. But many won't see or recognize the difference.

 

LOL... talk about "fool me twice, shame on me"

 

Some MAGA statements just cannot be reasonably responded to. Implying Trump was the "law and order" candidate (at least in 2020) is just laughably ridiculous. I could have led with that, but my way was more fun....

 

It's small things that make life meaningful. Glad you found something to make you giggle.

 

That's 85% of why I stay on here... it's certainly not for the interesting political discussions I was hoping to find in 2017 when I joined, although I maintain a few steady contacts for those as well...

 

I'm known for enjoying idle chitchat (right @Trixare4kids ), and at the risk of being reported for going off topic I've got to ask. Didn't you bother looking before diving in or has PF changed that much since you joined. Out of interest I'll read your response, but won't respond to it.

 

This thread isn't about trump, He gave an inspiring speech to fight and take the country back, some took it literally.
It's about 2 oath keepers conviction for not following the law.

 

Which is why I had to tell you 3 times it was in the hundreds. It was something I already knew.
So why did I have to keep repeating it?