- Joined
- Sep 10, 2010
- Messages
- 40,682
- Reaction score
- 18,010
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
I would say that would likely serve the obvious purpose just fine.
I would say that would likely serve the obvious purpose just fine.Thank you. Strictly symbolic. Crudely made, loosely nailed to the top of a ladder. There were no means to hang anything, let alone a person. And in my opinion a really stupid thing to do.
View attachment 67570542
The FBI assets who did this should be charged along with LO who allowed Pelosi's prop to be placed.
It they don’t succeed, which by your metric means they don’t actually want to kill him.Wow. That sure is a really dumb straw-man.
No, your straw-man argument is really dumb. You obviously didn't think it through. And by the way, there HAVE been assassination on Trump's life.
It they don’t succeed, which by your metric means they don’t actually want to kill him.
Actually the shot was dead on. In the second he took to fire, at the same time Trump dropped his left shoulder and simultaneously turned his head to the right to look a jumbotron behind him. It was that move that saved his life.Just a poorly trained sniper.
It's an excellent strategy. I clearly explained the rationale for concluding that there was no call to violence against Mike Pence. Any more than James Comey's 8647 stunt was a call to violence against 47.Continuing to claim there wasn't a call to violence on J6 because you say so is a terrible debating strategy that has yet to yield any results.
But I'm right. You're the one who cannot admit that you're wrong.Thankfully, most people are smarter than this and they have not fallen for the cheap sophistry you regularly use to weasel yourself out of admitting you are wrong.
You keep bringing up a Grok. I don't know what the Grok is, and I don't care. I presume that a Grok must be part of the LWL circular logic vortex, so it's also meaningless.Again, if you need me to check with Grok to help you find some consistency in your approach to arguments, I can do so.
Saved by his vanity.Actually the shot was dead on. In the second he took to fire, at the same time Trump dropped his left shoulder and simultaneously turned his head to the right to look a jumbotron behind him. It was that move that saved his life.
What vanity is there in a person turning to look at what was written on the screen? much less perverse?Saved by his vanity.
There’s something profound in that. Or perverse.
If the shot was "dead on" Trump would no longer be in the conversation.Actually the shot was dead on. In the second he took to fire, at the same time Trump dropped his left shoulder and simultaneously turned his head to the right to look a jumbotron behind him. It was that move that saved his life.
Hmm. . . you're still stuck in your logic loop. That's expected. The same circular-logic nonsense - around, and around, and around. It's a vicious vortex of BS and nonsense.
Again, you're still in fantasy land. Good.
I am too. Not surprisingly, most of the forum are on same intellectual level as you, so its natural that they would share the same flawed position that you do.
No, I've already done that. And so have a couple of other posters in this thread. The calls to hang Mike Pence and the silly makeshift "gallows" was simply a political stunt. You and the other LWLs cannot understand that. Which is good, actually.
You and I both know he just wanted a to see himself on a big screen. I suspect he had a confidence monitor as well as the teleprompter.What vanity is there in a person turning to look at what was written on the screen? much less perverse?
That would be a fact, if Trump has not turned his head as the same instance.If the sshot was "dead on" Trump would no longer be in the conversation.
It's an excellent strategy. I clearly explained the rationale for concluding that there was no call to violence against Mike Pence. Any more than James Comey's 8647 stunt was a call to violence against 47.
Naturally, James Comey is butthurt about being fired by Trump, and he wants payback. But forming sea shells in the shape of 8647 is not calling for violence. And by the same token, protesters constructing that silly J-6 gallows - that was not a call for violence. Had it been a REAL functioning gallows - - that would be different, obviously. But it was symbolic - - just like Comey's tiny sea shells.
But I'm right. You're the one who cannot admit that you're wrong.
You keep bringing up a Grok. I don't what the Grok is, and I don't care. I presume that a Grok must be part of the LWL circular logic vortex, so it's also meaningless.
So an experienced sniper would have compensated and went for center of mass which, in light of Trump's girth, would have been substantial.That would be a fact, if Trump has not turned his head as the same instance.
No, I know no such thing. I suppose you can show proof that it was Trump on the screen at that time. Let me help you, he turned his head at the last moment to glance at the illegal immigration statistics displayed on the large Jumbotron.You and I both know he just wanted a to see himself on a big screen. I suspect he had a confidence monitor as well as the teleprompter.
Don’t know what a confidence monitor is?
Yes, if Trump had been facing towards the sniper when he lined up his shot, but Trump was facing forward with his right side turned towards the sniper, that is why he chose a head shot instead. There was no center mass shot available from his position to the side of Trump.So an experienced sniper would have compensated and went for center of mass which, in light of Trump's girth, would have been substantial.
I wasn't there with the sniper. How do you know there was no center mass option?Yes, if Trump had been facing towards the sniper when he lined up his shot, but Trump was facing forward with his right side turned towards the sniper, that is why he chose a head shot instead. There was no center mass shot available from his position to the side of Trump.
Please note that YOU were the one who mentioned James Comey's 8647 stunt in the OP.Please note that the topic is not James Comey even though this thread's question was definitely inspired by the current faux outrage over his words.
I never said (or even implied) that it was a call to violence. In fact, I said that it was NOT a call to violence.However, even if we were to use his example, as with Trump, and Pence, and per your argument, give that there was no success, it cannot be classified as a call to violence.
Your (flawed) arguments are based on Straw-Men, logical fallacies, Circular logic, profound ignorance, and even a few fantasies sprinkled in. All of your posts are utter nonsense.Your argument always leads to the same dead end and writing very long posts does not change this. If you need help from Grok, I can definitely ask it some questions to help you refine your argument to improve consistency.
Your doltish Straw-Man is almost as dumb as that other guy's phalanx of straw-men.It they don’t succeed, which by your metric means they don’t actually want to kill him.
Please note that YOU were the one who mentioned James Comey's 8647 stunt in the OP.
That was YOU who posted that reference to Comey.
I never said (or even implied) that it was a call to violence. In fact, I said that it was NOT a call to violence.
You're STILL using Straw-Man bullshit to support your flawed position even after I pointed out how Straw-Man arguments weaken the user's position.
Your (flawed) arguments are based on Straw-Men, logical fallacies, Circular logic, profound ignorance, and even a few fantasies sprinkled in. All of your posts are utter nonsense.
Your doltish Straw-Man is almost as dumb as that other guy's phalanx of straw-men.
Almost.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?