What does Trump deserve for his behaviour on January 6, 2021?

[SCrider]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

But as I stated, the riot actually ruined the plan to try and follow the Constitution and rules of Congress for certifying electors, which could have legally allowed him to remain President had they not been interrupted. There is no way in hell that he wanted any such riot to occur, despite all the garbled politically deceptive efforts to paint it that way.

This has to be the dumbest excuse yet.
Trumps people planned on getting Pence out of the capital thinking somehow they could not get the count that day. They thought they could create a constitutional crisis if the election was not certified that day, hence the need to cause chaos, which his supporters did.

 

[Ambig]

Homosexual attraction is an attraction...nothing more. there are people that are attracted to pork and beans. That is how unimportant attraction is. the decision to act on it...that is a choice...

So God gave some people an attraction for their own sex, plus an attraction for pork and beans, but God doesn't want them to act on those attractions?

Your God seems most curious to me. Can you say why He gave people an attraction for pork and beans but doesn't want them eating pork and beans?

That sounds almost like meanness. I wouldn't follow a God who seemed mean to me.

and when you throw God into the mix (I did not) 'creation' is as far from possible as abstinence.

Yeah, that sentence doesn't even parse for me. Could you say it in a different way?

Creation is far from abstinence? Really, I can't figure out what you're saying.

You can 'yikes' all you want. What you cant escape is the absolute fact. Since the judicial fiat on gay marriage, leftists have managed to completely infect modern society. Sadly...its only just begun.

Wait. You think that homosexuals are all 'leftists'? That can't be right. I've met plenty of conservative gay people. So again I'm not sure what you're saying.

Plus, I can't see that our society is any more infected now than it was years ago. Actually, except for MAGAism, it seems healthier than ever. So can you say what this infection is?

YOU did that.

I did what?? What the heck are you talking about? Can't you just come out and say clearly whatever you mean?

What do you think I've done? (I also wonder how you know what I've done after only a message exchange or two, but I guess you wouldn't be happy explaining that.)

Sure...a gay couple can join a religion and seek marriage...if that religion supports gay marriage. Why not.

OK. So what's the problem, exactly?

There are no secular benefits of marriage that cannot be realized with civil unions.

So it's the actual word 'marriage' that has you upset?

I don't get it. What's the difference between calling a union 'marriage' vs. calling it 'a secular union'?

 

[VanceMack]

So God gave some people an attraction for their own sex, plus an attraction for pork and beans, but God doesn't want them to act on those attractions?

Your God seems most curious to me. Can you say why He gave people an attraction for pork and beans but doesn't want them eating pork and beans?

That sounds almost like meanness. I wouldn't follow a God who seemed mean to me.

Yeah, that sentence doesn't even parse for me. Could you say it in a different way?

Creation is far from abstinence? Really, I can't figure out what you're saying.

Wait. You think that homosexuals are all 'leftists'? That can't be right. I've met plenty of conservative gay people. So again I'm not sure what you're saying.

Plus, I can't see that our society is any more infected now than it was years ago. Actually, except for MAGAism, it seems healthier than ever. So can you say what this infection is?

I did what?? What the heck are you talking about? Can't you just come out and say clearly whatever you mean?

What do you think I've done? (I also wonder how you know what I've done after only a message exchange or two, but I guess you wouldn't be happy explaining that.)


OK. So what's the problem, exactly?

So it's the actual word 'marriage' that has you upset?

I don't get it. What's the difference between calling a union 'marriage' vs. calling it 'a secular union'?

Attraction is natural...not necessarily 'of God'. There are people that are attracted to violence towards women and children...do you believe they should act on their natural attraction just because they HAVE them?

Yes...obviously you didnt read it correctly. Homosexuality as a form of creation...your words...is as worthless a form of creation as abstinence.

I'm not upset about anything. The question was raised on what the problem is with gay marriage...I have answered it. My position is no different today than it was when the courts forced it on society...okay then....

 

[Ambig]

Attraction is natural...not necessarily 'of God'.

OK, so you don't believe we're created by God. Fair enough. But you still admit that homosexuals were created by nature.

There are people that are attracted to violence towards women and children...do you believe they should act on their natural attraction just because they HAVE them?

No, I'm generally against human-on-human violence. (Not always, but generally.)

What does that have to do with homosexuality? I mean, why does homosexuality bother you? I've known lots of gay men and, other than hitting on me sometimes, they haven't bothered me at all. Why would I care if our society has homosexuals in it? I actually find the male ones more interesting than most straight guys. So why don't you like homosexuality? Can you say a few words about that?

Yes...obviously you didnt read it correctly. Homosexuality as a form of creation...your words...is as worthless a form of creation as abstinence.

Yeah, I still don't get it. Homosexuality as a form of creation? I would say homosexuals are a product of creation.

But what do you mean by "abstinence as a form of creation"? You're saying that God created us to be abstinent?

First, how do you know that?

Second, why? Why would God give us an urge for pork and beans but not want us to eat pork and beans?

I'm not upset about anything. The question was raised on what the problem is with gay marriage...I have answered it. My position is no different today than it was when the courts forced it on society...okay then....

Well, OK. I wish you'd just answer my questions in good faith, but I can't make you.

We can't learn anything if direct questions about our beliefs intimidate us.

 

[jpevans]

Do you know how to tell when someone is totally ****ing clueless about politics? When their arguments are that the other side are nazis, or pedos, or "groomers". If you have to dehumanize those you disagree with in order to have an argument, you have failed, miserably. Neither I, nor pretty much any "leftist" supports pedophilia or sexualizing children, and your claims otherwise are insulting and demeaning, and just generally ****ed up.

Also, since I have the points to spare, you can take your accusations about me and millions of other Americans and shove them up your ****ing ass.

I never call MAGA Nazis, I call them fascists.

 

[jpevans]

a long prison term with Pelosi as cellmate

Nancy would knock him out!

 

[VanceMack]

OK, so you don't believe we're created by God. Fair enough. But you still admit that homosexuals were created by nature.

No, I'm generally against human-on-human violence. (Not always, but generally.)

What does that have to do with homosexuality? I mean, why does homosexuality bother you? I've known lots of gay men and, other than hitting on me sometimes, they haven't bothered me at all. Why would I care if our society has homosexuals in it? I actually find the male ones more interesting than most straight guys. So why don't you like homosexuality? Can you say a few words about that?

Yeah, I still don't get it. Homosexuality as a form of creation? I would say homosexuals are a product of creation.

But what do you mean by "abstinence as a form of creation"? You're saying that God created us to be abstinent?

First, how do you know that?

Second, why? Why would God give us an urge for pork and beans but not want us to eat pork and beans?


Well, OK. I wish you'd just answer my questions in good faith, but I can't make you.

We can't learn anything if direct questions about our beliefs intimidate us.

No...I said attraction is natural..and not necessarily explainable. And as you clearly demonstrate...just because people experience attraction there is no obligation to act on attraction.

For the rest...your words are tedious. If you arent smart enough to understand a very straightforward concept, then further communication is really useless.

 

[PeacefulWarrior]

I never call MAGA Nazis, I call them fascists.

I disagree.
If Hitler were here today strutting around in his jackboots, they'd be smooching his bawls.

These folks are DANGEROUSLY stoopid IMO, just look at how they cheer anything that idiot trump does. If trump ordered the executions of immigrants somehow, they'd be shrieking in wide eyed and VERY righteous approval. These folks are dangerous. Make no mistake about it. This is pitchfork and torch type fervency.

 

[jpevans]

I disagree.
If Hitler were here today strutting around in his jackboots, they'd be smooching his bawls.

These folks are DANGEROUSLY stoopid IMO, just look at how they cheer anything that idiot trump does. If trump ordered the executions of immigrants somehow, they'd be shrieking in wide eyed and VERY righteous approval. These folks are dangerous. Make no mistake about it. This is pitchfork and torch type fervency.

Yeah , Fascists.

 

[The Mark]

A Trial.

A ban from ever holding federal office again.

Both of these.

Although the second one is dependent on the first, I am fairly sure?

 

[Ethel2]

Whatever the courts decide he deserves. To me the evidence I have seen is overwhelming for many alleged crimes but I have reasonable faith in the criminal justice system.

 

[Ethel2]

Attraction is natural...not necessarily 'of God'. There are people that are attracted to violence towards women and children...do you believe they should act on their natural attraction just because they HAVE them?

Yes...obviously you didnt read it correctly. Homosexuality as a form of creation...your words...is as worthless a form of creation as abstinence.

I'm not upset about anything. The question was raised on what the problem is with gay marriage...I have answered it. My position is no different today than it was when the courts forced it on society...okay then....

Denying homosexuals the same rights as heterosexuals -including marriage-is blatant bigotry.

 

[choiceone]

Attraction is natural...not necessarily 'of God'. There are people that are attracted to violence towards women and children...do you believe they should act on their natural attraction just because they HAVE them?

Yes...obviously you didnt read it correctly. Homosexuality as a form of creation...your words...is as worthless a form of creation as abstinence.

I'm not upset about anything. The question was raised on what the problem is with gay marriage...I have answered it. My position is no different today than it was when the courts forced it on society...okay then....

I don't understand this because of the following.

First, nothing in the Bible suggests that heterosexual married people absolutely have to have sex, and if they don't, they won't reproduce.

Second, it is clear in the NT that people don't have to get married and abstinence is not dissed:
- I'm thinking of "Those who marry and are given in marriage are not worthy of that world and the resurrection of the dead. But when they rise from the dead, they neither marry nor are given in marriage."
- I'm also thinking of Paul saying, "The man who giveth his daughter in marriage doeth well. The man who doth not give his daughter in marriage doeth better."

Third, there's nothing especially creative about heterosexual sex, because some heterosexual couples who get married can produce kids, but other such couples can't.

At the same time, marriages can be creative in other ways - e.g. married couples can produce research-based books together. But to do that, it wouldn't be necessary for the marriage to be heterosexual.

So I just don't get it.

 

[Ambig]

No...I said attraction is natural..and not necessarily explainable. And as you clearly demonstrate...just because people experience attraction there is no obligation to act on attraction.

For the rest...your words are tedious. If you arent smart enough to understand a very straightforward concept, then further communication is really useless.

So you won't say why gays indulging their attractions are different than pork-and-beaners indulging their attractions.

If we have beliefs we can't talk about, it probably means that there's something wrong with those beliefs. That's my observation.

Me, I don't want to have any wrong beliefs, not if I can fix them by honestly answering any question I'm asked about them.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

But as I stated, the riot actually ruined the plan to try and follow the Constitution and rules of Congress for certifying electors, which could have legally allowed him to remain President had they not been interrupted.

There was no legal plan for Trump to stay in office. Inventing powers the VP has never had is not legal.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Accepting a loss is fine. Accepting an election fraud loss is not.

There was no election fraud in the 2020 election that would altered the outcome of it.

 

[Captain Adverse]

There was no legal plan for Trump to stay in office. Inventing powers the VP has never had is not legal.

My post had nothing to do with what you've asserted.

It had everything to do with the Electoral College and Congressional Rules for certifying electors.

What did you think the Democrats were doing when several of them "objected" to elector delegations when Trump's count was going on?

There is a process to both challenge Electors and then determine who should get those successfully challenged electoral votes.

THAT is what I am talking about.

 

[Jredbaron96]

My post had nothing to do with what you've asserted.

It had everything to do with the Electoral College and Congressional Rules for certifying electors.

All the states had already been certified. Some Congressional Republicans proclaimed their desire to object, but it would not have altered the outcome.

 

[Captain Adverse]

All the states had already been certified. Some Congressional Republicans proclaimed their desire to object, but it would not have altered the outcome.

If you don't know what I am talking about, why do you insist on responding with non-sequiturs?

Please educate yourself on the process to challenge electors as it existed at the time both Democrats tried to challenge Trump electors in Congress in 2016, and subsequently the Republicans were seeking to do in 2020. In the latter case they had barely started the process with Arizona's electors when the "riot" occurred outside causing Congress to an emergency recess.

 

[Jredbaron96]

If you don't know what I am talking about, why do you insist on responding with non-sequiturs?

Please educate yourself on the process to challenge electors as it existed at the time both Democrats tried to challenge Trump electors in Congress in 2016, and subsequently the Republicans were seeking to do in 2020. In the latter case they had barely started the process with Arizona's electors when the "riot" occurred outside causing Congress to an emergency recess.

This is not an argument, because the challenges Congressional Republicans intended to mount were never going to be enough to overturn the electors. Everyone knew this, it was just grandstanding for the base.

 

[Captain Adverse]

This is not an argument, because the challenges Congressional Republicans intended to mount were never going to be enough to overturn the electors. Everyone knew this, it was just grandstanding for the base.

Since the process was halted and then tainted by the riot, your point is just assumption bias as far as I am concerned.

In any case, my point stands. Trump would never have "plotted to attack Congress" when the plan was to try the Challenge process.

End of story.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Since the process was halted and then tainted by the riot, your point is just assumption bias as far as I am concerned.

In any case, my point stands. Trump would never have "plotted to attack Congress" when the plan was to try the Challenge process.

No it doesn't, because it was widely known that the Trump supporters in Congress did not have the numbers to successfully challenge the process, which was evident when McConnell accepted Biden's victory.

Sorry, your excuse is as useless as a degree from Trump university.

 

[forn]

I intensely dislike Trump's behavior over losing the election. That said, I don't believe he incited violence or committed crimes over it, as much as the Jan. 6 committee wants to make it so. I say he should be denied the Republican nomination for the presidency in 2024, by Republicans.

 

[Nickyjo]

The holes in the J 6 committee is it's not bipartisan and nobody believes it to be. Two Trump haters who have no career in politics with the republican party is hardly bipartisan.
Then you have the failure to actually prove a crime was committed. No trial where a jury of 12 men and women would agree that Trump sent the rioters to invade the capital. It's all partisan politics because the democrats are so afraid he will run and he will win again.
Democracy, well the democrats don't believe in it. They like to stack the deck, make up facts, lie to the courts and all because they don't really trust the voters to agree with them.

The purpose of the Jan 6 committee was not to prosecute anyone, but to find out what happened and who did what. They succeeded. I don’t think that based on what we know now, that Trump was criminally liable, but knowingly firing up a crowd, let people avoid a metal detector because “they’re not here to hurt me” demonstrates extraordinary irresponsibility, leaving aside his subsequent failure to act and praise of the rioters.

What facts did the republicans who testified make up? When did the democrats lie to the courts? I don’t know about the other republicanon the committee, but Liz Cheney was a solid supporter of Trump’s policies. Too bad for Donald she has some sense of honor.

 

[Patriotic Voter]

The death penalty - electric chair style, not an overdose of the euthanasia drug.

Actually because he bragged about shooting someone on Fifth Avenue, what I really want is someone to shoot him on Fifth Avenue -multiple times in the head and chest. I was afraid to post this for years because of forum rules, but nothing would be better now.