Could CNN Exonerate President Donald Trump?
It seems that the speech of President Donald Trump may not have been the cause for the protest at the Capital. Of all places, CNN broke a story that is was actually planned BEFORE the speech took place. Could CNN have accidentally committed an act of journalism?
"Investigators pursuing signs US Capitol riot was planned
(CNN)Evidence uncovered so far, including weapons and tactics seen on surveillance video, suggests a level of planning that has led investigators to believe the attack on the US Capitol was not just a protest that spiraled out of control, a federal law enforcement official says.
Among the evidence the FBI is examining are indications that some participants at the Trump rally at the Ellipse, outside the White House, left the event early, perhaps to retrieve items to be used in the assault on the Capitol."
https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/13/politics … index.htmlNo. Nothing can, for his guilt was decided ever before any evidence was found, before any investigation, before anyone even made a claim. It is necessary that Trump be impeached and thus guilt is pre-ordained.
Yes. I saw the videos and evidence. Even a press release was sent out about the "attack" on the capital before it actually happened. Thus, it shows the whole incident was planned. This is so evil and hard to confront.
Pelosi and her minions are so quick to impeach the president before even doing a formal investigation. What a waste of our time and money.That was the point. Impeach fast, before the facts come out.
Now you people on the left DON'T believe CNN.
I think THAT is too funny.I do believe CNN in this case. I just don't think these facts exonerate your idol from his role in creating and promoting a false conspiracy theory that some of his supporters now use as justification for their criminal actions.
1. You agree with the story in CNN about the violence at the Capital being planned
THEN
2. You believe it was not a result of a speech given by President Donald Trump.
So, therefore, you then must agree his impeachment, based on these facts, is bogus.Lol, nice. You've resorted to telling me want I said even though my words are here for all to see.
Your desperation to clear your idol is touching.You can have it one way or the other.
If you believe the CNN story, then you can't believe the speech by President Donald Trump caused the violence. If you believe the speech caused the violence in the Capital, then you can't believe the CNN story. It's simply one or the other.If you say so, Mike. You've been so right about so much....
Just don't ask him what state the Capitol is located in or about zip ties.
Can't deal with the topic of the thread...eh? Didn't think so.
Bottom line, the FBI an the Capital police knew about the attacks prior to the speech. It's looking more and more like a set up.
That means the speech given by President Donald Trump had nothing to do with the attacks. This in turn proves his impeachment was bogus.
Why impeach him? Simple, it had nothing to do with what happened at the capital. President Donald Trump is the common enemy that holds the different factions of the Democrat party together.
With him gone, the Democrats are going to turn on one another in a big way.
Looking forward to it.
They cherry pick words and phrases from a truthful source they choose to ignore to make it sound good to them.
The fact is - YES, this was planned - by Trump. He spent months agitating his army, feeding them lies, riling them up and then calling them to Washington on Jan 6 to ultimately attack the Capitol and cause an insurrection.
Of course the the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and others planned their insurrection in advance; they had to in order to carry out Trump's directive to stop the certification of the vote - which they did for a while. And in the process the thousand or so armed, violent, insurrectionists caused $30 million in damage, injured and some cases maimed and in other cases caused the death of well over 100 police who they called traitors.
Here is some more proof that the FBI knew there would be violence at the capital before it happened.
It was NOT based on a speech by President Donald Trump.
“Report: FBI Reverses What It Told America, Confirms Agency Knew People Were Coming to Capitol 'Ready to Fight' and Cause Trouble
The FBI warning was reportedly contained in an “internal document” that was issued out the day before the Capitol incursion.
“As of 5 January 2021, FBI Norfolk received information indicating calls for violence in response to ‘unlawful lockdowns’ to begin on 6 January 2021 in Washington, D.C.,” the document allegedly said.
According to The Post, the internal memo reported an online thread that discussed violence at the Capitol building."
https://www.westernjournal.com/fbi-reve … e-trouble/The FBI did know about the threats for weeks... They even stop[ed some that were threatening from traveling to Washington. So why the hell was there not troops in place to deture rioters? This was a very clear indication the ball was dropped by the FBI, Homeland security, and the Capitol police. It would seem that a huge smokescreen has been raised. "let's just point the finger at Trump for inciting a riot... Let's not even consider this all could have been stopped before it had a chance to happen. What a crock!
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/01/12 … riot-trump
"Steven D’Antuono, the head of the F.B.I.’s Washington field office, defended the agency at the news conference after reports that F.B.I. officials in Virginia had warned about a threat of violence the day before the riots. The Washington Post had reported that the warning had mentioned people sharing a map of tunnels and an online thread in which people said people should be “ready for war.”
Mr. D’Antuono indicated that the information had quickly been shared with other law enforcement agencies and he said other intelligence had led the authorities to disrupt the travel of several people who had planned to attend the rally. He also noted that Enrique Tarrio, the leader of the Proud Boys group known for brawling at protests, had been arrested shortly after arriving in Washington for the event."When you add that to the fact that the Capital police removed the barriers and let in the protesters. The Capital police actually took selfies with the protesters. Then, the Capital police opened a door and let the protesters out.
The whole things stinks like a set up. The truth will come out."So why the hell was there not troops in place to deture rioters? " - AND THAT is the $64 million question which the Jan 6th commission [/i]would have [/i] found out if the RINOs weren't so chicken but the Select Committee will find out.
I am all for the FBI and DOJ continuing their separate investigations. They have the resources to convene a Grand Jury, and subpoena witnesses, as well as the DOJ, have subpoena power to question people, and the power to charge persons if they find a crime. While Congress can investigate conduct that may be criminal, Congress itself lacks the authority to bring criminal charges or otherwise initiate a criminal prosecution.
I prefer law enforcement to do their job and a bunch of congressional representatives. Just my preference. I consider these committees useless and most done for political reasons. Let these representatives get their 15 minutes on MSNBC or CNN.
I don't think there is much to find out other than why the Capitol police and DC police did not get the support they called for early on in the riot, and why the FBI when knowing there was a threat days before the riot did little to warn anyone that the threat was serious and more police would be needed to guard the Capitol.Then why didn't the DOJ investigate Benghazi instead of the Republican Select Committee do it? Why didn't the FBI investigate 9/11 instead of the Congressional 9/11 committee?
If you think both of those investigations were OK, then why not the insurrection at the Capitol?
Also, there is PLENTY to find out like what was Trump's involvement? Why are all of those terrorists saying they were doing the bidding of Trump. Was there a more insidious reason why the Capitol police weren't allowed to be prepared? What involvement did some Representatives and Senators have in the insurrection happening. As I say, lots of questions.The 9/11 was one of the biggest investigations the FBI ever conducted ---
"Our ensuing investigation of the attacks of 9/11—code-named “PENTTBOM”—was our largest investigation ever. At the peak of the case, more than half our agents worked to identify the hijackers and their sponsors and, with other agencies, to head off any possible future attacks. We followed more than half a million investigative leads, including several hundred thousand tips from the public. The attack and crash sites also represented the largest crime scenes in FBI history."
Not sure where you got the idea that the FBI did not investigate the 9/11 attack?
The DOJ certainly did investigate 9/11
https://www.justice.gov/archive/911/protect.html
I don't think the Benghazi attack should've been handled by the Select committee. In the end, it was a waste of taxpayer's money and was very much political. AND again the FBI did investigate the Benghazi attack. The investigation was headed up by Mueller... https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- … V220130117
There is no evidence that indicates Trump has any involvement in planning the Jan 6th attack.
I must ask you to give a source to your claim "terrorists saying they were doing the bidding of Trump." --- That is an accusation that warrants a source.
I have no idea why the Capitol police did not prepare for the attack, there is proof that they were told by the FBI of chatter that there would be trouble, so was the DC police.
"What involvement did some Representatives and Senators have in the insurrection happening." This is purely your conspiracy rhetoric.
IT seems that once again you are looking not at a crime or crimes due to factual evidence, but charging crimes and then looking for evidence. This is just not how our legal system works. This is a very serious problem that many have come to adopt... It's called a witch-hunt."Not sure where you got the idea that the FBI did not investigate the 9/11 attack?" - SO, does that mean you think the 9/11 commission should not have happened?
"The DOJ certainly did investigate 9/11" - Same question, because the DOJ did a partial investigation, the 9/11 commission should not have happened?
"I don't think the Benghazi attack should've been handled by the Select committee. " - based on this comment (with which I agree ) I am guessing you would have opposed the 9/11 commission had you been given the choice.
To ask a much broader question, do you agree with Trump in his assertion that the Constitution DOESN'T give Congress the power/requirement to investigate the Executive Branch?"There is no evidence that indicates Trump has any involvement in planning the Jan 6th attack." - Oh, come on! There is plenty of evidence that he was. You have months of video and written evidence. One major point that is unquestioned is Trump calling on his minions to come to Washington on Jan 6th to stop the certification. That is one of the critical elements that DOJ will need to prove in their indictment of him and Trump handed it to them on a silver platter.
"I must ask you to give a source to your claim "terrorists saying they were doing the bidding of Trump." - it has been all over the mainstream news for months although your right-wing sources probably hid it from you.
'One man reportedly told the FBI that he and his cousin had marched towards the Capitol because "President Trump said to do so" while one man who threw a fire extinguisher at police officers told agents he had been {b] "instructed" to go to the Capitol by the president."[/b] (The "reportedly" is from the Washington Post which I included here as well)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics … story.html
"Another video clip cited by the Post shows a man among a crowd of angry protesters outside the Capitol shouting at police officers: "We were invited here! We were invited by the president of the United States!"
https://twitter.com/drewharwell/status/ … 04928?s=20
https://www.businessinsider.com/capitol … ton-2021-1
""I believed I was following the instructions of former President Trump," said Garret Miller in a statement released through his lawyer. "I also left Washington and started back to Texas immediately after President Trump asked us to go home."
Miller, who admitted to entering the Capitol in his statement, also threatened to "assassinate" Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez that same day, which he apologized for."
https://abcnews.go.com/US/president-tru … d=75757601
MORE evidence the violence at the Capital was planned and NOT a result of the speech by President Donald Trump.
"The paper said the situational report "painted a dire portrait of dangerous plans, including individuals sharing a map of the complex's tunnels, and possible rally points for would-be conspirators to meet up in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts and South Carolina and head in groups to Washington."
The FBI Norfolk said an "online thread discussed specific calls for violence to include stating 'Be ready to fight. Congress needs to hear glass breaking, doors being kicked in, and blood from their BLM and antifa slave soldiers being spilled. Get violent. Stop calling this a march, or rally, or a protest. Go there ready for war. We get our President or we die. NOTHING else will achieve this goal."
https://www.wnd.com/2021/01/4884607/Yeah right. Everything is a setup or a conspiracy in the mind of the Trump loving non-critical thinker who fails to factcheck the drivel they expound in their non-fact checked posts. After all, it all dates back to the wealthy pedophile elite cannibal democrats whose secret lair was the Comet Pizza Parlor in Washington D.C. Snopes factcheck services rate this bull-malarkey as "FALSE". (and another period for emphasis). Trump sycophants' continue to support over 23000 false or misleading statements (otherwise known as lies) beginning with the first "Trumps inauguration crowd was larger than Obamas", easily disproved by aerial photographs comparing crowd size. And ending with "I won the election by a landslide" with 59 out of 60 lawsuits filed and rejected by "TRUMP JUDGES", many in Republican controlled states and rejected by Trump/McConnell judicial selections.
Oh, and all 50 states confirmed the electoral votes to be moved forward to Congress for certification after every "election fraud" avenue having been disproven by a multitude of Trump demanded recounts.
Of course I don't expect the likes of Trump supporters to ever believe anything outside of their wheelhouse which basically consists of One America News, Newsmax, Fox News, Blaze, The Federalist and the recently socially banned Parler. After all, who in their right minds would ever want to argue with the likes of Rush Limpbaugh, Sean Insanity or Tucker "the ****** " Carlson. Bastions all of honest journalism.
So, carry on my wayward son, in your participation of the destruction of the Great American Experiment while you wander, aimlessly, in the Superstition Mountains of Conspiracy Theories fruitlessly searching for the Lost Dutchman Goldmine of facts and try to remember that no man ever found it and most disappeared in their quest to locate something that has never been found and never will be. Just like proof of Trumps accusations of voter fraud.
In closing, I will quote to you what a very good high school friend said to me after returning from the failed war in Vietnam after having lost both legs in a landmine incident. "Jimmi" he said "I'd like to tell you the truth but I don't have a leg to stand on."
And neither do you.
Sincerely,
The Masked Marauder.Maybe time to move on... We will soon have a new president, why not write a long wonderful comment about Biden. Trump's old news. But, you get an A+ I don't think you missed much. Oh yes, you did --- Don Jr. meeting with Russian in Trump tower...
Trump is definitely not old news. He is still the clear and present danger to democracy he has always been. Keep in mind, he has come very close now to destroying American democracy - and is still trying to.
WE will need to disagree in regard the Trump. I feel he did a good job while in office. I have every hope someone with his strong common sense and American first agenda will run in 2024. I respected his policies and appreciated his hard work.
Even if you think his policies were good, how can you overlook every bad thing about him, especially continuing to push the BIG LIE, How can you honestly think his continuing to push this lie isn't destroying American democracy?
BTW, other presidents worked hard, he played golf.I have never overlooked any of his faults or his job performance. As I said I feel he did a very good job while president. One of the best problem solvers I have witnessed in my lifetime.
As far as playing golf... At least he was visible, not hidden away, and pulled out when needed told to put on his little blazer, and told its go time Joe. He can barely walk or string together two sentences that make sense."As far as playing golf... At least he was visible, not hidden away," - Actually, that is not true either. He often went to great lengths to hide his golfing.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/da … ot-to-golf
https://people.com/politics/president-t … ram-photo/
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald … es-n753366
https://deadline.com/2017/12/cnn-donald … 202233430/
Let me ask this, going back to my Hitler comparison (only because Hitler is such a reviled person only White Supremist think he is good and that the two have similar personal characteristics). Knowing what you know about Hitler and assuming you agreed with most of his policies that got Germany back to financial health, would you be as kind to him as you are with Trump?
Would you say about Hitler "I have never overlooked any of his faults or his job performance. As I said I feel he did a very good job while chancellor. One of the best problem solvers I have witnessed in my lifetime."
If you wouldn't, why not (setting aside the extermination of the Jews for the moment)? After all, Hitler was a very effective leader and made Germany Great Again (for awhile).Hitler was a socialist, he promised many socila programs, and did not deliver. he raised taxes and then were born the Nazis... Sound like anybody you know? I am going to make college free, and childcare as well. I am going to provide money to black farmers but not white farmers... Sound like someone you know. Hitler prayed on the weak-minded and raveled in his art of propaganda and how he could mesmerize the unintelligent as he put it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_lie
Conservatives despise socialism and don't as a rule buy into the propaganda. https://www.newsweek.com/austerity-tax- … zis-750338
https://mises.org/wire/nazis-were-not-m … socialists
I would say you would have loved Hitler in his glory days.Hitler was a socialist? No, he was a fascist. Just because the word Socialist in the name doesn't mean they were socialist. Hitler gassed socialists.
In any case, after that false start and the other false statements you made, try answering the question.
"Conservatives despise socialism and don't as a rule buy into the propaganda." - LOL, then tell me why they are buying into much of it today, like Qanon and Trump?
Also, explain to me why the people just to the Right of Conservatives, the White Supremists love Hitler and worship him? You know, the same people that Trump praises as patriots.Explain to me why those on the left follow the same ideologies as Hitler in his heydays? Socialism, propaganda, and so much more. Make an attempt to silence anyone that disagrees. CRT, turn one race against another... Get the picture?
I can't explain it because they don't. It is the Right that has a tendency to follow Hitler's ideology. Just look at how your kissing cousins the white supremist adore him.
Democrats don't believe in socialism - to say that they do, means you have no idea what socialism really is. You only know that which is filtered through your right-wing propaganda outlets.
It is Conservatives who try to silence people (including their right to vote).
It is Conservatives who want to hide America's past and not learn from its many mistakes.
It is Conservatives who enslaved people and when they couldn't do that, took away their Civil Rights.
It is Conservatives who tried to stop YOU, a female, from voting.
It is Conservatives who tell YOU, you do not have the right to make decisions about your own body.
It is Conservatives who don't believe people have a natural right to health care.
And the list goes on and on.If you have a "natural" right to health care then let "nature" provide for it. No need to force other people to do so.
Using that ridiculous logic, then "nature" should provide for Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as well shouldn't it? Those are things Conservatives claim as "natural" rights.
The question is where do you stop with "natural" rights afforded every human being...as the vast majority do not have those same rights at all. Cheaper to supply a small yacht to every person rather than unlimited health care, or perhaps we all have a "natural right" to a waterfront mansion and servants to care for it.
Claiming that the "rights" you wish everyone to have is "natural" somehow is silly, for the only "natural" rights afforded are to take whatever you are strong enough to take and to die at one point.
(I might add that your "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" rights were not provided by nature, but by an extra universal entity some call "God". There is nothing in nature that guarantees such rights and certainly nothing that says those rights exist.)Well, personally, I limit to those things the person who Jefferson, Adams, et al looked to for guidance - John Locke. He had four "natural" rights - Life, Health, Liberty, and Property. Jefferson took Property and combined it with Aristotle's concept of Happiness to come up with the Pursuit of Happiness.
Sighhh, I must educate you again -
1. "Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws, customs, or beliefs of any particular culture or government, and are therefore universal and inalienable (i.e., rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws). Natural rights are closely related to the concept of natural law (or laws)."
2. Natural Law - "According to natural law theory, all people have inherent rights, conferred not by act of legislation but by "God, nature, or reason."[3] "
So you think John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Aristotle, etc were "silly"?
That was one righteous, and entertaining, rant. Applauded and chuckled the whole way through. Bravo!
That's is what is wonderful about this forum, you never know when someone will surface that shares your views.
Yeah, I guess it is a laugh riot just even picturing a person that has no legs... Ha Ha. Maybe we could "cast" the legless to the fringe of society with those that supported the idea of an investigation into voter fraud.
Wow, you just don't want to let this go. My sympathies.
You should have whine about your right to have an opinion and write an, at least a 400 character response. Then, spin every reply with another 400 character justification. That seems to work... In the mind of some people.
I fully intend to point out anything I find so perverse. Did you find his joke funny or did you not?
I hope you realize you've got over 70 million people who disagree with you. That is larger than the population of Canada, the Ukraine and others.
Why not have an investigation into the allegations of fraudulent elections? By your own admission, 59 out of 60 courts have refused to hear the evidence. Why is the left so afraid to hear the evidence? If there is no fear, then why not have a full-fledged federal investigation with testimony before congress and a final report of the evidence and hearings? The Russian hoax had such an investigation.
If not, I have to ask why such an investigation scares those on the left.
After the destruction of the cities such as Minneapolis, Portland, Seattle, Chicago, etc. You can hardly blame the right for anything. The left's destruction caused billions of dollars worth of damage.
We do have a new president. A fraudulently elected new president. If you want to change my mind and the minds of millions of United States citizens, then lets have that federal investigation.You claim that 59 of 60 courts refused to hear the evidence, but that's a bald-faced lie. The 'evidence' was often not credible, hence why Trump's lawyers, when pressed, asserted they were not alleging fraud.
And many of those cases pertaining to process issues were already litigated at the state level and a few were upheld by the Supreme Court.
So your argument is that the country should have an investigation because Trump supporters refuse to accept the decisions of the judiciary, the decisions of state elections officials, the FBI, and the DOJ? If you refuse to accept all those entities, it's pretty obvious you won't accept the same decisions made by a Democratic controlled Congress. So why should anyone waste time trying to show you something you will absolutely refuse to accept? You're so far gone that no amount of investigation will convince you of anything other than what Trump tells you.
81 million people will back Biden, the 70 million that believe fraud took place in an election where states made it safer to cast a vote during a pandemic can continue living in their delusions and conspiracy theories. There are plenty of crazy people in the United States, the red hats will make you easier to spot.Hey, I got the 59 out of 60 from the MM. Don't like those facts, take it up with him.
I hold the reason the left does not support an investigation into voter fraud is the fear of what it will find. There is much, much more evidence than the Russian Hoax/Collusion Delusion investigation.
Let the investigation be bi-partisan. Equal number of Republicans and Democrats headed by a bi-partisan commission.
I don't see it happening because of the fear of the truth.
It's just that simple.Hey, you didn't get that from MM - as you tend to do, you add words that the original poster never said to make their post into something they never intended. In this case, you added - 'By your own admission, 59 out of 60 courts have refused to hear the evidence.' That lie is all your own, don't go pawning that off on anyone else. And why it deserves to be called out.
And I'll stand by the even simpler truth that you and the rest of Trump's deluded base will only accept Trump's claims since much of those claims have already been debunked and you just refuse to accept those results.Get your facts straight this is from the MM post, "And ending with "I won the election by a landslide" with 59 out of 60 lawsuits filed and rejected by "TRUMP JUDGES", many in Republican controlled states and rejected by Trump/McConnell judicial selections."
I'll stand by THE truth and that is that the Democrats and the left are terrified of such an investigation because exposure of the truth would be earth shattering.
If they are debunked...should be a short and cheap investigation. So, what's the problem. I say...afraid of the truth.Right, and you made the claim THAT EVIDENCE WAS NOT HEARD, as I quoted you directly. MM never made the claim that evidence was not heard, you did. Maybe the capitals will help you understand what I noted was your lie.
And you clearly don't understand the word truth since what you gave is an opinion. And so many of Trump's claims of evidence have already been debunked, so we Democrats don't need to waste time rehashing what has already been disproven when there's an economy to rebuild and a pandemic to fight. Not to mention, a seditious and dangerous former president to convict.Not to mention, it would be irresponsible to further validate a conspiracy theory that is fueling violence by right-wing extremists.
"we Democrats don't need to waste time rehashing what has already been disproven when there's an economy to rebuild and a pandemic to fight. Not to mention, a seditious and dangerous former president to convict."
The fear of Democrats on display once again. Fear of discovering the truth is causing you guys to be oh, so, upset. It'll be a cheaper investigation that the Russian hoax/Collusion Delusion...if you're right. But we won't know until we have an investigation...will we?Yes, it would appear the Dem's are not willing to do the right thing. Most likely because voter fraud will be proven, and the need to arrest many Dem's that committed that fraud. They are very fearful of any form of fraud coming out.
So you do still believe the election was stolen....
Not sure how many times I have to repeat this --- I never made claim or felt the election was stolen. Do you still think Trump supporters need to be "cast to the fringes of society"? Please find a quote to prove your allegation. https://hubpages.com/politics/forum/350 … ost4170142
"Most likely because voter fraud will be proven, and the need to arrest many Dem's that committed that fraud. "
Maybe I am misinterpreting this.Silly --- context matters
So you do still believe the election was stolen... "Never said the election was stolen. "
Clearly stated ---- "Most likely because voter fraud will be proven, and the need to arrest many Dem's that committed that fraud.
All about Dems being fearful of what might be found, and that there might be arrests. Never ever claimed the election was stolen. In fact, I have repeated frequently it was my view there would not be enough fraud to overturn the electionAmerican Thinker and contributors Andrea Widburg, R.D. Wedge, Brian Tomlinson, and Peggy Ryan have published pieces on www.AmericanThinker.com that falsely accuse US Dominion Inc., Dominion Voting Systems, Inc., and Dominion Voting Systems Corporation (collectively “Dominion”) of conspiring to steal the November 2020 election from Donald Trump. These pieces rely on discredited sources who have peddled debunked theories about Dominion’s supposed ties to Venezuela, fraud on Dominion’s machines that resulted in massive vote switching or weighted votes, and other claims falsely stating that there is credible evidence that Dominion acted fraudulently.
These statements are completely false and have no basis in fact.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 … CAkd4OdNuU
Well, I dont think they are that fearful.
"These statements are completely false and have no basis in fact."
....and your proof?
We just seem to always be at the cross-road, smacking at one another. I have tried every which way to figure you put, and to get along. No success doing that... I think so differently it is impossible to hit it off. I am standing down, hopefully, we can avoid smacking each other silly.
I do not interpret disagreement as "smacking." I honestly do not recall insulting you, so I don't know what you mean by "smacking. " I challenge all Trumpers, not just you, but you seem to end up getting upset. I know I am direct and don't mince words but I do take pains to not personally insult anyone. So, may I respectfully ask you to provide an example of me "smacking" you?
Thank you.I was using the word "smacking" as hyperboly.
Do you feel I was one of the American's that hoped to see a special counsel investigate voter fraud? I made it clear I thought it a good idea. Are you aware I voted for Trump, twice? I made that pretty clear. So I would think I would fit well into the group you feel would be better cast to the fringes of society? I would think I am in that group.
not only to me but who the heck knows how many citizens?
So, have the right to consider your thought an insult? Maybe, maybe not.
I will admit it was not upsetting but unsettling. I would consider it a bit of a slap when someone dictates or directs with great affirmation that I as well as a massive group of others belong to outcasts on the fringe of society.
If it makes, you feel better I can say with assurance. you are not alone in regard to your sentiment. I just would never want to be a part of that Ilk.
I think at this point I will just back off, and let you win. There is no purpose to this conversation any longer. I am not willing to continue to explain why I found your statement unsettling. You have a right to your opinion in the end and so do I.
Okay, here is my second response. Maybe what you are looking for is some recognition from me that I see you as an individual. I do, Sharlee. I think you are a nice person and I bet we would probably like each other if we met in person.
I grew up in a household of raucous debators. We talked and disagreed about everything but always in a spirit of intense but fun competition. I was the only girl amidst three loud boys so I had to be tough. Don't take me so seriously. I'm not important.
And, yeah, I'm hard on you Trumpers. No doubt about it. Don't expect that to change any time soon. ;-)And I have always felt you have something about you that I really liked. Enough so that I have tried very hard to keep communications open. You stick strongly to what you believe, I like that, I respect that. I know I am very self-righteous, and often get too serious about just about everything. I just know we most likely have many things in common. Politic's aside.
I really appreciate you shared a bit about yourself, your childhood... I now will or would find it hard to slap you around ... LOL
I learned a bit today, and you helped me learn not only a bit about you but something about me.You never know, maybe we will meet sometime. I think you said you live in Mexico part of the year? We are planning a trip there once this pandemic is under control. Hubby plans all.our trips so I have no idea what part of Mexico he's looking at. :-)
Yes, you never know... We have a Condo in Puerto Vallarta. I know you would love Puerto Vallarta. It is a wonderful city, fronted by the bay, and backed by mountains. The people are wonderful, as is the weather. This winter will be the first winter we will miss in 15 years.
A previously unknown fault line has been discovered running directly beneath DC. Possibility of earth quakes within the next century are factors at about 1 million to 1.
Congress,in a joint session, has unanimously agreed to name it Trump's Fault."Some say the riots were caused by Antifa," House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., said on the House floor Wednesday. "There's absolutely no evidence of that, and conservatives should be the first to say so."
Sharlee01 For the record, that wasn't a joke. My friend returned from Vietnam with no legs from the knees down and was confined to a wheelchair when I visited him after his return. We attended junior and senior high school together and played little league baseball. Myself at second base and he at shortstop. He was two years ahead of me and lived in my childhood neighborhood. When I asked him to explain the experience of fighting in a lost cause war that was Vietnam those were his exact words to me. He always has a great sense of humor. I say "had" because after the incident and all the morphine and pain killers he later succumbed to depression and addiction and died of a heroin overdose.
Perhaps you would better understand if you were to listen to "Sam Stone" by John Prine. The following is the opening stanza.
"Sam Stone came home to his wife and family
After serving in that conflict overseas
And the time that he served had shattered all his nerves
And left a little shrapnel in his knee
But the morphine eased the pain
And the grass grew round his brain
And gave him all the confidence he lacked
With a purple heart and a monkey on his back"
Perhaps it would be better not to jump to the conclusion that I am the type of human being that would tell a joke about a legless veteran. After all, my father was on Guadalcanal, my uncle at Iwo Jima and another uncle at the Battle of the Bulge. All of them returned home whole.
Steve just wasn't that lucky.
I did add the "neither do you" and it is obvious the Readmikenow doesn't. So that's no joke.PrettyPanther. It's hard to tell who's posting to who on this board. If your question was to me, my comment is a emphatic NO!
But even if there is/was an investigation and it turned out to show no fraud, the poor, poor pitiful me Trump supporters would whine that the investigation was fraudulent and then want an investigation of the fraudulent investigation and......well, you get the idea.
Eventually the worst of the deluded conspiratorial theorists would "find" a suitcase full of Trump ballots in poor Comet Pizza and have another investigation and when that investigation didn't fit their fiddle they'd hire Rudy Giuliani to argue the case in the Supreme Court (after all, he needs the money now that his good buddy Trump is stiffing him on his fees) where he would show up drunk and bleeding sweaty hair dye and rage about more conspiracy theories of fraud while the SCOTUS Justices would laugh their robes off.
Because, after all, judges base their decisions on the rule of law and evidence of which there is none. Just like there wasn't in the other 59 of 60 cases that were rejected.
Sincerely,
The Masked MarauderI personally did not take it as a joke. My comment was to another poster that claimed it was funny. I found it very sad. My husband and many of my childhood friends severed in Vietnam. My brother died there, so did my brother-in-law. Very touchy subject with me. We all have a right to an opinion. Thanks for clarifying.
Sharlee01. I'm as sorry about your losses as I am my own. While I recognize you as a conservatives and possibly a Trump supporter I highly respect that fact that you are civil and intelligent and never seem to bear any ill will towards other people's political stances. You are clear, concise and pleasant and I appreciate that in any conversation.
I compliment you on all these attributes.
I always feel that people everywhere deserve to be complimented. It doesn't cost anything.
Of course it's like I always say: "Compliments are cheap and so am I."Thank you for the compliment. I can be pissy at times. But I try to look at everyone's point of view. And yes I go back and forth and bite if cornered. I also do try to get to know who I am conversing with and hope some take the time to get to know me. We don't have to agree but in the end, we can agree to disagree.
Related Discussions
- 40
Congressional Resolution Declares No Insurrection by Donald Trump
by Readmikenow 6 weeks ago
Gaetz, Stefanik offer resolution declaring Trump ‘did not engage in insurrection’Reps. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) and Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.) unveiled a resolution Tuesday that declares former President Trump “did not engage in insurrection or rebellion against the United States.”The resolution — which...
- 50
President Donald Trump's poll number remain steady.
by Readmikenow 9 months ago
Even after being indicted, President Donald Trump's poll numbers remain solid. Could be a result of people losing faith in the legal institutions such as the FBI an DOJ? Is it possible the blatant use of them against a political opponent is obvious to more and more people?"Donald...
- 90
President Donald Trump Again?
by Miebakagh Fiberesima 8 months ago
Despite all the socio-political questions hanging about, how would you picture former president Donald Trump, as a potential candidate in the 2024 piesidentialrace? Can he make it again? Will the GOP give him a second chance?
- 29
Has President Donald Trump Been Compromised by Russia?
by Allen Donald 5 years ago
How else do you explain his behavior over the past few days and in Helsinki? Why does he refuse to hold Putin and Russia responsible for interfering in our election? Why, whenever he's given the chance, does he describe Putin as a strong leader and criticize America?Here are a couple of links. The...
- 118
Shouldn't the Impeachment of a President Be Open and Transparent?
by The Minstrel 4 years ago
With something so serious, you would think that Pelosi and the rest of her conspirators would bring a level of respectability to their so-called impeachment inquiry by following a strict adherence to the Constitution and rules. No, they have chosen to use their majority to run a kangaroo court....
- 24
President Donald Trump as Presidential Candidate or President ...
by Kathryn L Hill 20 months ago
If Trump had a crystal ball which showed he might (somehow) start a civil war here in the good ol' USA, would/should he decide not to run? - wondering.