MovieChat Forums > Politics > Jan. 6 rioters the far right claimed wer...

Jan. 6 rioters the far right claimed were antifa keep getting unmasked as Trump supporters

posted 6 months ago by robocat893 (14356)
201 replies | jump to latest

In nearly three years since a mob of Donald Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in an effort to overturn the 2020 presidential election, far-right figures have made a claim that flies in the face of reality: That the Jan. 6 attack was actually driven by far-left antifa activists dressed up like Trump supporters, or by federal agents dressed up like Trump supporters, or by some combination thereof.

The only trouble with the conspiracy? The feds keep arresting these supposedly far-left agitators, and the rioters' own social media posts and FBI affidavits show they're just Trump supporters.

🤣

https://www.yahoo.com/news/jan-6-rioters-far-claimed-130000704.html

reply

[–] TrentnQuarantino (8959) 6 months ago

The American Right has used this ploy for ages. It is like the public version of a false flag operation, as are all the fake far-right trolls online.

I just hope with all this pro-Palestinian BS we are seeing that it is fake as well, but they can seem to draw crowds of real people. Stupid, but real.

reply

[–] MEWsHusband (60) 6 months ago

How is pro-Palestine stuff BS? Enlighten me, please.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

Entrapment or agitators would NOT mean that the majority of hte rioters were not pissed off Trump supporters.

Only a retard would be confused about that. Only a liar would pretend to be cconfused about that.

reply

[–] robocat893 (14356) 6 months ago

Then you must be very confused! 🤣

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

The right conspiracy theory about jan 6 is that government or antifa agitators infiltrated the peaceful protest and AGITATED and then led a small group of pissed off Trump supporters to enter the capitol building.

That the writer of the article, or the op presents the presence of Trump supporters in the capitol as evidence that the theory is false,

is both of them being either retarded, or asshole liars.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

So the conspiracy theory here is that the Trump supporters are easily-led dumbasses able to be tricked into committing crimes.

Great stuff

reply

[–] robocat893 (14356) 6 months ago

Pretty much!

https://i.postimg.cc/PqqTX7Dg/conspiracy.jpg

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

NOpe. THe conspiracy theory is that the 1/6 riot was the result of a planned entrapment and agitation operation.

That you want to avoid the point and just spam some shittalk is you being a pussy.

Have you always been a pussy? Go fuck yourself.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

>NOpe. THe conspiracy theory is that the 1/6 riot was the result of a planned entrapment and agitation operation.

Which would require the Trump supporters at the capitol to be easily-led dumbasses.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

That is your spin on the situation and irrelevant. Also, you would not say that to my face, in real life, so that makes you a pussy for saying it here.

HOw old are you?

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

Were you at the capitol yourself? I said if your theory is right it makes the Trump supporters there easily-led dumbasses. Don't be such a little baby.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

You said that. It is irrelevant to the topic. it is just you spamming shittalk about people you hate.

AND, you would not do that to my face. That makes you a pussy.

Other than 1/6, how many right leaning riots were there in hte last... 10 years?

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

>You said that. It is irrelevant to the topic. it is just you spamming shittalk about people you hate.

Yes I did say that. But you took it to me somehow meaning ALL Trump supporters rather than, specifically, the Trump supporters AT THE CAPITOL that day being dumbasses (under the conditions of January the 6th being some sort of trap).

>AND, you would not do that to my face. That makes you a pussy.

I'm sure AmeriGirl is a likely pussy for probably being unwilling to go up and insult random black people, but your logic too. Although I'm not sure when I specifically insulted you anyway. I have actually on here in the past said negative things directly to you anyway.

>Other than 1/6, how many right leaning riots were there in hte last... 10 years?

No idea. Not sure what the relevance is to January the 6th.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

1. It was shit talk. you ae a shit talker. ANd da pussy.

2. She doesn't spam her negative opinion like a fucking asshole, ie you. So there's that big difference.

3. If a crime such as a riot is UNUSUAL, that makes it more likely that it is a result of something from OUTSIDE the individual or group. Conservatives are generally good, law abiding people. This makes is more reasonable to consider entrapment as a cause of the riot.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

1. I was making the point that one of the conspiracy theories here relies upon the assumption that the trump supporters there were morons.

2. That's some comedic reasoning. I would add that Trump through his rhetoric had been laying the groundwork for his supporters to do something like this for half a year. He was claiming the election was going to be fraudulent prior to November in the first place.

In addition there have been lots of incidents of Trump-esque, or far-right vigilantism against drag events, far-right terrorist incidents etc.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

1. That is just you spamming shit talk. fuck you.

2. There is a big difference between voicing a negative opinon about a group or its behavior and constnatly spamming someone over and over again, with retarded shit talk like you do. You are a far worsee person that americagirl. INdeed, that is not strong enough. She could be a good person, while are clearly a fuckignn asshole.

3. So, I make a point about how rare right leaning riots are, and you instead of responsing on point, immediately try to expand the subject to include... as much as you could. That is basically an admission from you that republicans generally DON'T riot.

Let's fast forward here, asshole. YOu really are not prepared to have a real discussion about the possibility of entrapment. You hate republicans and you are just here to spam shit talk and be as much of an asshoel as you can, right? You are not prepared to discuss anything seriously, What say you?

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

1. No, it's my genuine position if someone holds to it.

2. When AmericaGirl or someone else says something obnoxious, I'll respond to it. Simple as that. This is a public forum.

3. I noted that your logic simply doesn't follow. It wouldn't somehow change the events of January the 6th. I'm glad you're at least conceding that it was a riot rather than nothing at all.

3a. I am only interested in actual evidence of "entrapment".

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

1. YOu ignored the point to just spam your neg opinon of people. So you aer just being an asshole. Go fuck yourself.

2. ANd you ignored the point. What a shocker. Go fuck yourself.

3. Interesing. YOu make a claim that my logic doesnt follow. And then you DONT address my logic at all. You just move on to making other points. If entrapment is true, the point is not to "change the events".

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

1. My point stands. It relies upon the assumption that the Trump supporters in the capitol are easily led by others.

3. I continue to await for actual evidence of entrapment. You have not demonstrated that it is.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

1. And again you ignore the point to just spam neg shit talk. What a fag you are.

3. So, you dropped all your previous points to demand evidence of a secret and illegal FBI operation? THat's interesting. First of all, it shows that all your prevsious points were just shit talk, that you just sort of shitted out there to see if they would stick. You didnt really think them, they were just... shit you posted to go though the motions of a discussion, so you could continue with your trolling. Second of all, you aren't really open to any evidence that I post anyways. Anything short of a signed confession, you would shit talk.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

1. I'm making the point that one of the major Trump talking points paints their own side as idiots.

2. I continue to wait for that evidence too.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

1. AND still, nothign but shit talk spam from you. What a fucking asshole you are.

3. hOLD YOUR BREATH.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

If you won't provide any evidence, I have nothing to say to you on this topic.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

Thanks for finally dropping the shit talk. What an asshole you were to keep doing it as long as you did though.

Just saying.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

Thanks for finally dropping the shit talk. What an asshole you were to keep doing it as long as you did though.

Just saying.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

I still regard the potential explanation of Trump supporters being tricked into rioting as suggesting they're stupid.

And it's ironic to see you getting so snowflakey and offended over such an assessment when you're apparently completely indifferent about any and all other generalisations against political groupings.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

i made a real point and you did not address it other than to just to spamm shit talk about people you hate.

I get it. You hate us. That you want to keep getting in my face and spamming yoru shit talk, is you being a fucking asshole.

IN real life, you wouldn;t do this. THat makes you a pussy.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

>i made a real point and you did not address it other than to just to spamm shit talk about people you hate.

I asked for evidence. Still waiting.

I don't "hate" anyone. My point was to say that Trump supporters themselves are characterising themselves as stupid.

>IN real life, you wouldn;t do this. THat makes you a pussy.

Yeah and I'm sure you'd go up to a big group of pro-Palestine protesters and insult them tough guy. Way to miss my original point anyway.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

1. And again, you do not address the issue, but you DO spam your hate.

2. I have spoken to people in real life much the way I do here. I DON'T spam people like you do. I would not just ignore a real point to keep spamming, my hate like you are doing in point 1. BIG DIFFERENCE, and that makes you a pussy and me not.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

"Spamming" = replying to people in forum posts, apparently.

And with all due respect, you don't know anything about me.

I continue to await for evidence for the claim of entrapment, or any other conspiracy claims regarding January the 6th.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

I would thank you for dropping the spamming of your hate, but hte last time I did that, you resumed your spamming of your hate.

SO, have a go fuck yourself for the road instead.

IF entrapment and agitation was done, the people that did it, need to be asked who ordered it.

And that person needs arrested.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

>IF entrapment and agitation was done, the people that did it, need to be asked who ordered it.

Big emphasis on "IF" here, of course. You have to demonstrate "IF" in the first place.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

Agreed. We need a massive investigation of the fbi and everyone involved on the LEFT.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

You have yet to demonstrate in the first place that there was anyone involved from the left or the FBI.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

So you want the evidence of the illegal fbi operation before we have an investigation?

That's great.

I wish that you leftards had the brain poiwer to understand how absurd you are.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

The point is that you are literally grasping at straws, projecting foul play based on nothing but your own prejudice.

We could have investigations on the left and the right for anything by this logic.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

You don't know WHAT I am basing this on, becuase you immediately dismissed EVERYTHIGN and demanded EVIDENCE of a sort that would require an investigation.

Which is just the way that you show, that you don't care if it was entrapment and outside agitators, because you would support the use of such illegal tactics since you hate those that are targetted.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

And I can't know what you're basing it on until you provide some evidence. If you have none, then you have none and your claims that January the 6th was orchestrated by the FBI is baseless twaddle.

>Which is just the way that you show, that you don't care if it was entrapment and outside agitators, because you would support the use of such illegal tactics since you hate those that are targetted.

Provide evidence of me supporting any such a thing please.

Also show me where I said I "hate" anyone here, please.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

I explained how your behavior demonstrats your support for the plausible entrapment.

And it does. you clearly support it. Y ou don't admit that it happened, you don't give a FUCKING INCH, but if it was proved, you would come up with some way of defending it.

It might be COMPLETE AND UTTER RETARDED BULLSHIT, but you would present it and stonewall on it, till the cows come home. And leave, and come back and indeed livev a full life and die of old age.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

>I explained how your behavior demonstrats your support for the plausible entrapment.

No you haven't. You've claimed it.

No, I do not. I am me. You are not. I decide what I think. You do not.

I would not support entrapment. That I think it didn't happen doesn't mean I would support it if it did. What kind of idiotic logic is that?

Still waiting for evidence that I "hate" anyone.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

I will be the grownup. I have made my point(s) and you have played retared. So, repost our last retards shit post and that can be the end of it.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

It's "grownup" apparently to hurl unfounded allegations at people without any evidence, is it?

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

It's funny how someone, a few threads back who claimed to express so much concern for what you presume is my "autism" or mental health lobs out baseless slanderous accusations at me - and not for the first time.

This is why I think you're a dishonest piece of shit. You hurl baseless accusations at people you know nothing about and then profess to be so concerned about them, and interact as if you are their shrink.

You are a vile, manpulative asshole.

reply

[–] Information-Police (4426) 6 months ago

Right- leaning groups instigated most of the violence at BLM protests since George Floyd.

Trump regularly incited violence against media by his supporters and anyone protesting him at his rallies. He even promised to pay legal costs if his supporters were arrested for violence.

reply

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2026) 6 months ago

Right- leaning groups instigated most of the violence at BLM protests since George Floyd.

What's your source for that?

reply

[–] Information-Police (4426) 6 months ago

Lots of real news reporting that you won't look at.

reply

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2026) 6 months ago

How do you know I won't look at it? You don't know anything about me. Can you please point me to something specific that I could find on the Internet?

reply

[–] Information-Police (4426) 6 months ago

If you haven't read that by now, you never will.

reply

[–] RustyShacklefurd (2026) 6 months ago

Your refusal to provide a source makes it sound like you just made up that claim out of thin air. Please provide a source for it. I would genuinely like to see the statistics on this issue.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

Yeah, that's complete shit talk. Utter nonsence. You calling violent commie race riots "most peaceful" doesn't actually make them peaceful.

It just makes you a liar.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (15551) 6 months ago

Trump Supporters are...

A: Easily-led dumbasses

B: A formidable, dominate force capable of overtaking an entire country unarmed.

It can't be both.

Do you chose A or B?

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

That they wanted to cancel the election doesn't mean that they had the ability to do so.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (15551) 6 months ago

A or B

Cancelling an election(which they still couldn't do) is not an "insurrection"...stop trying to move the goal post.

Please choose.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

>Cancelling an election(which they still couldn't do) is not an "insurrection"...stop trying to move the goal post.

It was a very poorly thought attempt to stop Biden from being certified as the election winner.

You can go fuck yourself. I'm not bound by your stupid false choices.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (15551) 6 months ago

Gotcha.

reply

[–] tvfan (9957) 6 months ago

hahaha

reply

[–] moviechatterer (14160) 6 months ago

you in no way gotchad him when

C: Bunch of easily led rednecks trying and failing to overtake an entire country unarmed.

was missing from your options
They were easily led by DJT , not CIA

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

The better then lefttard the closer they can have conflcting ideas.

I seen leftards panic monger about how dangerous the Right is, IN THE SAME SENTENCE that they dismiss any concerns about blow back for their viocious behavior.

Those are the master class leftards. Most leftards at least need to put the contradictory ideas into seperate sentences.

reply

[–] tvfan (9957) 6 months ago

[–] Skavau (4921) 37 minutes ago
so concerned about them, and interact as if you are their shrink.

Hello, Welcome to the Psychiatric Hotline

If you are obsessive-compulsive, please press 1 repeatedly.

If you are co-dependent, please ask someone to press 2.

If you have multiple personalities, please press 3, 4, 5 and 6.

If you are paranoid-delusional, we know who you are and what you want.

If you are schizophrenic, listen carefully and a little voice will tell you which number to press.

If you are manic-depressive, it doesn't matter which number you press. No one will answer.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

I see you continue to respond like a little child as usual.

reply

[–] [deleted] 6 months ago

🤣

reply

[–] tvfan (9957) 6 months ago

The OP is a complete imbecile. Of course they are not going to arrest the disguised antifa and feds. That is what happens when their mouth is stuck to the rectum of the MSM instead of watching the oversight committees and reading their transcribed documents.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

The bit where he makes an ASSumption, such that only stupid people could be "entraped" assigns HIS assumption to me, and then builds on top of that to make a strawman argument....

What a complete fucktard he is. Complete and utter asshole ness and retardness and fag ness all mixed together to make him.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

I don't know who you're referring to, but I never called you stupid. I said that the argument that all the protesters on January the 6th were tricked by the feds, if true, implies they were idiots.

reply

[–] tvfan (9957) 6 months ago

There was no “tricking”

The capitol police fired rubber ammunition and gas grenades to incite the crowd. The feds/antifa pushed back.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

>The capitol police fired rubber ammunition and gas grenades to incite the crowd. The feds/antifa pushed back.

Evidence please.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

1. I did not claim that you called me stupid. So, wtf are you even talking about?'

2. It does not imply that. ONly a fucking asshole would claim it does imply that.

3. The point has been made. The theory of entrapment and agitation is completetly plausible. Those that are pretending otherwise, are assholes using very dishonest tactics to defend an oppression they are pretending to not believe.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

1. I thought you were referring to me, although you got offended by me criticising the argument for January the 6th being an FBI inside job as suggesting that the Trump supporters at the capitol were morons for being easily led if that were so.

2. Disagree. And you're being snowflakey again.

3. It's completely and utterly unevidenced.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

1. I was referring to you, and I did NOT claim that you called me stupid. I will say that your confusion on that point was STUPID of you.

2. Well, even if you disagree, we are discussion MY intention by making the post. So YOUR assumption about how entrapment works, is YOUR opinion, not mine. So, when you say that I said it, or implied it, you are projection YOUR beliefs on to me, even though I have repeatedly and expressed told you I do not share them.

STOP BEING A FUCKING ASSHOLE.

3.iF there was evidence, you have already dismissed it and buried it under completely mindless and asshole attacks.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

1. Then why did you get so upset and say "you wouldn't say that to my face" repeatedly.

2. Of course it's my opinion. I said it. It's not bound by your self-righteous disapproval. And it's rich from you to complain about me somehow impressing my beliefs on you when right now, in another chain, you're doing exactly the same to me.

3. But there isn't any evidence. You've admitted there's fuck all evidence.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

1. Different discussion you moron.

2. You are avoiding my point by claiming that I am making a point based on YOUR opinion of what entrapment means. That is a strawman. My point stands. The theory of entrapment is completely plausible.

3. You wouldn't know if there was. You knee jerk support of the Deep State was such that you instantly rejected all information you didn't like.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

1. You still seemed to get highly offended and upset. I did preface this chain by saying: "I don't know who you're referring to, but I never called you stupid."

2. It's possible but it does suggest something about the intelligence of the rioters if true. As I said.

3. But there isn't. As I said, you have admitted there isn't. You haven't provided any information.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

1. And you have completedly avoided the point. What a fuckign asshole you are.

2. And again, you avoid dealing with the issue, but get in your slander. What a fucking asshole you are. Also, you are lying. There is nothing about entrapment thaat suggests that one has to be stupid to fall for it. You are a lying cowardly asshole.

3. I have? That's interesting. Are you sure, or is this more shit talk from you?

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

1. What point is this?

2. I'm slandering by referring to my opinion of a hypothetical? Lying about what? Dude, anyone who charges the Capitol building because some dumbass tells them to is an iidot.

3. Provide me this information then.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

1. The way that you used YOUR assumption to assign a strawman to me. The type of thing that only a complete asshole would do.

2. Oh, you "forgetting" what your slander is? What a pussy you are. You make an insult over and over again, and when called on it, you're not sure what it was? What a pussy you are.

3. Why?So you can dismiss it immediately and then insult me? Go fuck yourself.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

1. Why were you so offended and why did you respond as if I had insulted you?

2. I'm slandering my opinion of a group based on a hypothetical event, apparently. An opinion on whether or not someone is an idiot. By your logic any insult to anyone ever is "slander".

3. So no evidence then. What you assert without evidence I can dismiss without evidence.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

1. Because you were being a fucking asshole.

2. I made a valid point, you respond by calling people idiots. That is you being an asshole and a piece of shit and a coward. What part of this is confusing to you? Dumbass.

3. I tried to talk to you. All you did was spam insults. NOW, you want to pretend like you are open to serious discussion? Go fuck yourself.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

1. That's not an argument.

2. I'm not inclined to be lectured on "slandering" from a manipulative piece of shit such as yourself, who has levelled many baseless allegations about what I think in multiple threads. Your most recent one being that I wouldn't care if there were agents doing entrapment. You hypocritical shitstain.

Now *that* was an insult.

3. I didn't insult you. I gave my opinion on people stupid enough to be goaded into raiding the capitol building by others, if indeed that was what happened.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

1. No, it's an answer to your question. Fucktard.

2. Fuck you.

3. You spammed insults. That bit where you move the goal post to "insult YOU"? That is you dodging like the coward pussy you are. And that's why I can't talk to you. You are utterly dishonest. Even if I presented you with evidence that you realized was proof, you would LIE like you have been doing. What a piece of shit coward you are.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

Still waiting for evidence. Don't care about your stonewalling posturing and fake crybaby indignation.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

And you double down on your dishonesty.

If you don't want to discuss anything, why are you here?

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

Still waiting for evidence. Don't care about your stonewalling posturing and fake crybaby indignation.

reply

[–] Lige (313) 6 months ago

Why do you waste your time on these Trumpbillies?

They are mindless sheep that have no critical thinking skills and cannot accept anything that contradicts the neocon hard-line ideology.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

I like the racism of your opening line.

Now, demonstrate that you are the mindless one, by denying it.

reply

[–] Lige (313) 6 months ago

Glad you like it!

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

You are not asking for evidence, you are asking for proof. You are a n ass.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

Still waiting for evidence. Don't care about your stonewalling posturing and fake crybaby indignation.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

At first all you cared about was trying to put yoru opinion of what entrapment implies, on me.

Why did you drop that? Did it finally sink in that you were being an ass? Or did it just finally sink is that that line of attack was a failure, so you just dropped it, because it was shit talk from teh start?

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

Still waiting for evidence. Don't care about your stonewalling posturing and fake crybaby indignation.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

Want to talk about circumstantial evidence?

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

Still waiting for evidence of any kind.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

So, you are willing to discuss circumstantial evidence?

See, you said, "of any kind". That implies that you will discuss circumstantail evidence.

This is different than when you decided that "entrapment" implied that those being entraped were stupid. See, you just made that up. AND then you accused me of saying something that only existed in your head.

I, on the other hand, am telling the truth, YOU saying ANY EVIDENCE, does strongly imply that you are willing to discuss circumstantial evidence. Actually, it clearly states it. BUT, I know that you are lying. SO, I asked for additional clarification before hand, so that when you dismiss circumstantial evidence, you look even more dishonest than you already do.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

Too long, didn't read. Don't care. Stop crying.

Still waiting for evidence. Don't care about your stonewalling posturing and fake crybaby indignation.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

First point.

How many other right leaning riots were there during the trump years?

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

Not interested. Provide evidence or fuck off

Still waiting for evidence. Don't care about your stonewalling posturing and fake crybaby indignation.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

The lack of right leaning riots, during a period of rioting, and then there is ONE outlier, is circumstantial evidence, especially when taken in context.

As I predicted, you are LYING. You are not asking for evidence, you are asking for PROOF.

BOO-YAY.

We can just quit here and say I won and you are a loser, or we can make the same point over and over for a few weeks until it sinks into your brain, how bad you are looking.

Your call.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

It's not evidence, it's a shitty attempt at logic. And it doesn't discount the many people, convicted, who were there trying to smash their way into the capitol building, vandalising shit and fucking around in congress. They chose to do this. They were done for it. That's on them.

You have no evidence. There's no evidence of any operatives who were plants, sent there to somehow 'trick' the rioters into storming the building.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

But there were hundreds of protests by angry right leaning Trump supporters before that. Why did NONE of them turn into riots?

What was different about ths one protest that caused it to go differently?

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

>What was different about ths one protest that caused it to go differently?

Trump had been fueling the anger and casting doubt on the election long-before it had happened, and riled up his fanbase into anger over it.

I continue to wait for evidence. There's no evidence of any operatives who were plants, sent there to somehow 'trick' the rioters into storming the building.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

Correct. Long before, so why THIS one goes violent, when some many did not?

That is very strange. Gives a lot of credibility to the idea that there were professional agitators there, to make sure there was violence, maybe even a crisis of some sort.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

>Correct. Long before, so why THIS one goes violent, when some many did not?

Because they wanted to stop Bidens victory being certified.

>That is very strange. Gives a lot of credibility to the idea that there were professional agitators there, to make sure there was violence, maybe even a crisis of some sort.

No, it doesn't. The ex-president (lame duck president at this point) openly calling on people to protest had more to do with it.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

Calling for people to protest led them to riot?

That makes no sense. As an explanation that is an utter fail.

Second question. Why did the government not release the full video till after several trials where done? That is very suspicious and a violation of their rights.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

>Calling for people to protest led them to riot?

They went there with intent. Why did they storm the building?

https://www.npr.org/2021/03/19/977879589/yes-capitol-rioters-were-armed-here-are-the-weapons-prosecutors-say-they-used

You claim they were goaded into it, which if true, would make them pretty fucking stupid (I am not changing my position on this).

I continue to wait for empirical evidence of the whole thing being set up from you.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

The fbi disagreed. Even the leftard tainted fbi had to admit that there was no intent of an insurrecgtion. So, that is you talking shit.

Also, you are walking back your stated intent to discuss ANY EVIDENCE.

Like I said, You are demading PROOF before the investigation. What a piece of shit you are.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

>The fbi disagreed. Even the leftard tainted fbi had to admit that there was no intent of an insurrecgtion. So, that is you talking shit.

Can I see some sources here please?

>Also, you are walking back your stated intent to discuss ANY EVIDENCE.
You haven't provided any evidence. You're using "evidence" as a stand-in for "logic" (or your attempt at it)

Going to address the article I showed you?

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/fbi-confirms-there-was-no-insurrection-on-january-6

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

So it was poorly organised, and individuals and small groups amongst them had plans to break into the capitol with little plans of what to do next. It was a highly incompetent affair, but they still did break in and they still did do what they did.

What do you think would have happened if Congress had not evacuated?

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

So, you accept the link that the FBI agreed, no intent of insurrection.

Good. So drop the stupid shit talk about an insurrection then.

The primary purpose of that is to justify the tryannical overreaction of the Biden assholes to arrest people and over charge them for political reasons and violate their civil rights.

Very divisive.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

>So, you accept the link that the FBI agreed, no intent of insurrection.

No /collective/ goal of insurrection (many individuals seemed to have violent intent), as the riots contained many different indirectly and unaffiliated groups with only one thing in common: Pro-Trump.

But they still stormed the building.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

BUT, you will make the claim again. Becuase you have to. To justify the hysterical panic mongering of the left, you NEED to claim insurrection.

BUt for now, you have admitted to it Good.

So, no intent of insurrection.

Thus, why was THIS protest different than all the rest?

Circumstantial evidence of some other factor. Such as possibly agitators.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

>Thus, why was THIS protest different than all the rest?

You tell me why they chose to storm the building and piss on the walls, and leave notes, vandalise equipment and cause congress to flee.

>Circumstantial evidence of some other factor. Such as possibly agitators.

This isn't evidence. This is baseless speculation. And makes you again depict them as fucking brainless morons unable to make decisions for themselves.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

My guess? THe theory of professional fbi and/or leftard agitators makes a LOT of sense. The fbi has been doign that, A LOT, over the last few years, and has shown itself to be completetly politized by the leftards.

Also, the Leftards had a HUGE motive, in the need to distract from the 4 years of murderous riots by leftards who were "RESIST"ING Trump.

Nothing like a good false flag operation to distract from the real crimes of your side.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

So it's just a guess. Zero evidence, and the notion that they could somehow conceal "leftist agitators" into doing this and keep it covered up with zero evidence is honestly laughable.

>Also, the Leftards had a HUGE motive, in the need to distract from the 4 years of murderous riots by leftards who were "RESIST"ING Trump.

That wasn't going to harm Bidens election chances. It wasn't even major news during that period.

Perhaps if Trump didn't keep crying fraud before and after the election, he wouldn't have set himself up for such a scenario (if it had happened). His own behaviour would've made a false flag operation even more successful.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

1. Oh, sorry, I was just answering your question. I am happy to continue discussion additional evidence. You accept the circumstantial evidence no other republcian riots.

2. Polls show that it would have harmed Biden's election changes.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/feb/25/elise-stefanik/poll-on-voters-opinion-of-biden-laptop-story-needs/

3. Good point. Trump's complaints must have been a huge sign of a possible avenue of attack, making a false flag operation more saleable by the lefty media and big tech which was happy to work withe the FBI and cia to lie to the American people.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

1. Yes, it was an answer. But it is not evidence. It is you speculating. That's it. And it would require dozens, if not hundreds of people. The idea it could be done and not leak that it was a false flag (although it would've still required the co-operation of all the Trumpians there anyway) is absurd.

2. I'm referring to the riots. You suggested the riots that occured between 2016-20 was hurting people's opinion of Biden. In any case, the election had already happened and Biden had already won. Why did they need January the 6th?

Also your politifact literally says "FALSE". Did you actually read it?

3. *If it happened*. Which you've failed to demonstrate, and as I noted in (1) - seems absurd on its face.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

1. Correct, my answer about what I thought happened was not part of my answer about the evidence.

2. Oh, for moving forward. Somehow the riots of hte Trump years, did not make the votes disgusted with what violent animals you lefties are.

BUT, in the absence of constant threat of violence, imo, it is likely that over time, the facts of your side's murderous violence would have slowly sunk into the perception of your side. As well it should have.

BUT, a big showy story, created and constantly supported, could be used to rewrite recent history, to create a false narrative of an attempt insurrection, and incredibly paint the RIGHT as the bad guys, despite the massive evidence that you leftards are blood thirsty monsters.

The meme, of the fucking idiot reporter talking about "mostly peaceful" while the city burns behind him? That should be a poster in every high school, showing the kids what stupid pieces of shit you people are.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

1. So where's your evidence?

2. But everyone knew about BLM riots during November 2020. Biden still won.

>BUT, a big showy story, created and constantly supported, could be used to rewrite recent history, to create a false narrative of an attempt insurrection, and incredibly paint the RIGHT as the bad guys, despite the massive evidence that you leftards are blood thirsty monsters.

Again: It would require dozens, if not hundreds of people. The idea it could be done and not leak that it was a false flag (although it would've still required the co-operation of all the Trumpians there anyway) is absurd.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

1/ Circumstantial evidence so far. We also discussed motivation. YOU raised a very good point that Trump's behavior provided the left with an excellent opening.

2. Sorry. You leftards have proven youelf to be VERY good at lying. Remember when you all pretended to believe that it was wacist to think that covid might have been from a chinese lab? You guys all pushed that narative like champs, while all knowing it was a lie.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

1. It's not even circumstantial. It's just you speculating about motive. You don't seem to know what 'evidence' means.

2. And yet that still came out (your characterisation of the history aside). So the idea that such a huge false-flag operation could be successfully done by the state here with no-one noticing, and no evidence for it happening is utterly absurd.

And again, the Trump supporters there STILL STORMED THE CAPITOL BUILDING. Regardless of how few brain cells they had to be coerced into doing so, they still did it.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

1. You are unable to remember the circumstantial evidence because we also discussed motive? Wow. You are being silly. Drop the stupid shit.

2. Took over a year before it came out. Till then, it was MILLIONS of people, who just reflexively knew to go along with an obvious lie. That is the type fo behavior that totalitarian societies encourage and eventually get.

3. Oh, don't get even more stupid. Yes, entrapment does not mean that the event did not happen. It is retarded of you to postt shit that anyone who understands the definition of the word knows. YOU might not know it, but everyone else does, so drop the shit.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

1. That's not circumstantial either. "They didn't riot before (although there were plenty of violent far-right incidents in the 2016-20 period) so they couldn't have done so organically this time".

2. It's coming up on 3 years now for this particular event. And no, the COVID origin stuff had always been an issue of interest and debate.

3. And they're still guilty, and also dumbasses (if true). Although storming the US capitol building itself is dumbassery anyway regardless of being "tricked" or not.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

1. No, it's not. I wasn't claiming it was. THe circumstantial evidence was the circumstantial evidence.

2. And at teh time and for a long time, MILLIONS of you leftads stonewalled like a hive mind that had the personality of a crack whore.

3. I'm pretty sure that it is not ununsual for entraped suspected to be found not guilty or at least have lighter sentences. At the very least, it woudl help reduce the division caused in our society by the vile panic mongering of biden and you leftards.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

1. No that's you trying to connect dots.

2. I never did any such thing. Whether or not it came from a lab or a wet food market doesn't make much difference.

3. Not all of the sentences are uniformly heavy.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

1. No, you asked for evidence. Evidence is just me presenting the DOTS. THe purpose of a real investigation would be to connect the dots and find the proof.

2. You didn't support the narrative that it was a natural disease and that those talking about escaped from a chinese lab were wacists? Well, if so, GOOD FOR YOU, but the point stands. As a group, leftards DID lie as a group, and maintain the stonewall IN THE TENS OF MILLIONS.
You people have gotten very good at lying.

3. Oh, so the massive injustice is not a perfect blanket crushing all it's intended victims? Well then, that's fine then right?

WRONG.

4. AND, even more to the point, it reduces the hate and division coming from teh leftard panic mongering. YOU people are really doing all you can to gin up more division and violence between Americans.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

1. And you didn't provide. You "connecting the dots" is not evidence. It's speculation. "Well there were no pro-Trump riots during 2016-20 so therefore this particular riot must have been caused by entrapment".

2. No, I had no opinion on it. I didn't know if it did or didn't.

3. What injustice? What are some wrong sentences?

4. So you think people should have been let off from crimes just because it would've 'reduced the hate and division'?

Party of Law and order in action again.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

1. I provided circumstantial evidence. To start with. Admit that, and we can move on. Stonewall and you reveal that you are just a troll boi.

2. Irrelevant. My point was that the left can lie very well. Thus YOUR point that a lie such as entrapment would require a lot of people to lie and hold the lie, thus impossible or unlikely is disproven. Again, you act retarded to "forget" what the point of our discussion is. You do shit like this constantly. You are either brain damaged or a dishonest asshole.

3. No, I think that people who are shown to have been entrapped should all be given the same consideration, AND that as a bonus, that would reduce the hate and division.

I was clear on that. That is why I Broke it into two points. But, since you hold to being retarded, you managed to oh so conviently miss my primary point and then present my bonus point as a strawman. What a fucking ass you are.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

1. No. And I am not here to jump at your commands. You can go fuck yourself. You did not provide "circumstantial evidence". You speculated.

2, Provide evidence that the "left" as presented as an amorphous bloc specifically *lied*, as in deliberately provided false information.

3. And they haven't been shown to have been "entrapped". There's no evidence for this.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

1. And thus you prove my point. YOur request for "evidence" was actually a demand for "proof". Which is quite a dick move on your part.

2. No, can't be bothered. If you missed it, i don't care. If you are just shit talking, which is more likely, go fuck yourself.

3. Mmm, if you really believe that, then why did you just play your stupid little evasion game? You could have led with that. BUT, you know it is completely plausible that it was entrapment, so you have to make a full court press of throwing out shit, to try to defend it.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

1. You don't know what "evidence" means. Add it to the list of things you don't know. "Circumstantial evidence" is if you could show a paper trail of some kind, or show some dodgy background dealings, or note some odd individuals present at January the 6th.

2. Then go and fuck yourself then.

3. See (1). You don't know what evidence means.

And no, it's not plausible at all. The government could not pull that off at all without very quickly being caught.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

1. Patterns of behavior are also circumstantial evidence. your denail shows you to be a stonwalling asshole.

2. I'm not the one being an asshole here. Such talk from you is uncalled for.

3. Said the man pretending to not remember the time period when the left pretended that the "chinese lab" theory was racist.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

1. No, it's not. I am not here to follow your orders. We can also use Trumps own rantings and fuelling of fraud before and after the election to claim he riled up much of his basis, and primed them for violent opposition to the prospect of Biden winning. Is that "circumstantial evidence" of a kind to you?

2. I'll talk to you how I like. I don't really care what you think about anything.

3. It was always contested (and still is now).

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

1. Yes, it is. YOu are a lying whore.

2. So you are doubling down on your asshole behavior, got it.

3. Irrelevant to my point. Again you play retard to avoid dealing with my point. WHAT A COMPLETE CUNT YOU ARE.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

1. So what makes my analysis here somehow worse than yours?

2. I continue to wait for evidence or, indeed, "proof".

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

1, Dude. YOU ARE STONEWALLNG. Y OU ARE DISMISSING ANY INFORMATION YOU DONT LIKE.

2. That's another point. THis one is about your idiotic clalm that the lie of entrapment would be too big to hide. It is you talking shit to defend oppression and injustice.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

1. Are you not "dismissing" my "circumstantial evidence" with equal veracity?

2. It would require too many agents and hired activists to remain silent, and not get caught. I don't believe it would be possible. It's often the reason why most conspiracy theories utterly fail at the first hurdle.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

1. No, I didn't. I didn't address it, because you shut the discussion down.

2. Professional agents and undercover agents are teh BEST people to expect to keep a secret and we have seen that you leftardsd are GREAT at holding to absurd lies. So, stop the shit talk.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

1. I fail to see why my "circumstantial evidence" is less valid than yours.

2. And do we have any examples of this, right now? Of conspiracies where no-one blabbed?

And I'll say whatever I like, and without your permission on anything.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

1. YOU are the one backtracking and claiming that circumantial evidence is not evidence, not me.

2. Examples of undercover agents keeping their mouths shut? Seriously? LOL.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

1. No, I'm simply using your argument against you.

2. No, I'm asking you for an example of a conspiracy on a comparable scale to January the 6th that went completely unevidence or "proven" for many years. That would've required a lot of people to remain in on it.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

Your post is small and stupid.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (15551) 6 months ago

From the Book of Yahoo 23:27 And then the Cabal said to the cultists... We have looked into the matter, and determined that our agents of chaos have done nothing wrong.

I love Internet Scripture™

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

These people were demonstrated to clearly not be undercover antifa provocateurs based entirely on their own social media history.

You clearly did not read the article.

reply

[–] B1cKsurN (15551) 6 months ago

Yahoo isn't real news.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

You think Yahoo is the only source carrying this?

And Yahoo is mostly an aggregate than a new source. It literally links to external sources in the article.

reply

[–] tvfan (9957) 6 months ago

Yahoo is mostly an aggregate than a new source.

An aggregate for other sources regurgitating the same lies and propaganda.

Those external sources originate from the same place that is owned/controlled by the establishment that orchestrated the J6 fedsurrection. Of course they are going to lie.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

Again, and on what are these sources lying about here? How do you know? On what evidence?

>Those external sources originate from the same place that is owned/controlled by the establishment that orchestrated the J6 fedsurrection. Of course they are going to lie.

Provide evidence for this claim please.

reply

[–] robocat893 (14356) 6 months ago

"I don't understand it" = Fake News!
"I don't like it" = Fake News!
"It hurt my feelings" = Fake news!
"It's mean to Orange Master" = Fake News!
"It's truth and/or facts" = Fake News!

reply

[–] robocat893 (14356) 6 months ago

That's a little funny...

reply

[–] BasementBidenFan (83) 6 months ago

🤣

Were you crying cause you realised you have no life outside of Trump? (And the lies you make up about them)

reply

[–] robocat893 (14356) 6 months ago

The way you spelled "realized" shows that you are stupid or not American. I'm guessing both.

reply

[–] ultravioletx (10222) 6 months ago

Trumpanzees now say they are Feds. Yet nobody on the internet can identify any of them as federal agents. Every time one of those fools gets unmasked, for some reason it's never a Fed. It's just so weird.

reply

[–] robocat893 (14356) 6 months ago

Trump said that if reelected he will pardon Jan. 6 insurrectionists. If the rioters were Feds and Antifa as Trump and his acolytes claim then why would he do that?

reply

[–] Bloodworth79 (5609) 6 months ago

Why is the former BLM member who taped the even John Sullivan not locked up like others?
Him and his accomplice jade sacker are out free.

At one point when they enter the Capitol she tells him, you were right , you were right.

He replies , I know, I just couldn't talk about it.

The she replies back, wait are you recording this?
He says dont worry I will edit it out later.

Democrats cry over ever cop involved shooting.
And now they celebrate when a black man shoots and kills and unarmed white woman.

How many cops do the left say committed suicide over the event? 4 ha ha ha ha ha

Yes these cops were so distrusted about what happened that day they killed themselves. Ha ha ha ha

The left silenced them and made examples out of them as a warning to anyone who dares to tell the truth

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

>The left silenced them and made examples out of them as a warning to anyone who dares to tell the truth

Who are you calling the "left" here?

And are you alleging "the left" is executing policemen?

reply

[–] Bloodworth79 (5609) 6 months ago

The extremely powerful Democrat party are the left.

They control 95% of the media.
They control 95% of the FBI
They can order the FBI to go to places like Facebook and tell them not to run hunter laptop stories.
They have packed the courts
They control 95% of hollyweird

They control 95% of college academia

They are going around suing, cancelling and bankrupting anyone who questions Bidens win.

For 4 years Democrats literally say trump did not win legitimately,
Now if anyone questions the election they are attacked by the left.
It shows their guilt even more.

It's an huge anomaly having 4 police commit suicide over the event.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

So according to you, the Democratic Party murdered those policemen to shut them up but apparently do nothing about Fox News and The Daily Wire?

Why hasn't Matt Walsh and Charlie Kirk been "shut up"? Why haven't you been shut up?

reply

[–] tvfan (9957) 6 months ago

They don’t need to since they can discredit them with bullshit lying fact-checkers, MSM-propaganda, cancel them, use third party organizations to censor them, etc.

They know that a direct approach in the open would be a complete and total violation of the 1st-Amendment.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

>They don’t need to since they can discredit them with bullshit lying fact-checkers, MSM-propaganda, cancel them, use third party organizations to censor them, etc.

So the state only needs to use "bullshit lying fact-checkers" (and I also await evidence that those news outlets are controlled by the state) and "MSM-propaganda" but they apparently need to kill 4 policemen? And apparently they need to only kill 4 of those policemen, and apparently no-one else that day?

>They know that a direct approach in the open would be a complete and total violation of the 1st-Amendment.

And yet the state executing members of the police wouldn't, in your mind, constitute a blatant violation of the constitution?

reply

[–] tvfan (9957) 6 months ago

What are you ranting on about policemen? don't conflate my reply from your argument with someone else.
My reply was in regards to media platforms.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

Right, and I was asking the other guy who claimed the state had executed those capitol police officers. If they're willing to do that, why haven't they done other things like shut down right-wing media outlets?

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

The suppression of the hunter biden laptop story is a massive in the open... mutiny? treason? What do you even call it when a political faction exercises illegal control of law enforcement and national intelligence agencies in order to run a political operation AGAINST THE NATION AS A WHOLE?

A coup?

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

>The suppression of the hunter biden laptop story is a massive in the open... mutiny? treason?

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/07/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-twitter-and-hunter-bidens-laptop/

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/

I have nothing else to say to you regarding this topic. You know I have nothing else to say to you about it. Respond to these articles.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

Fuck the articles. Someone was in charge of the joint CIA-FBI operation to suppress the TRUTH in order to remove the sitting President and replace him with one of their chosing.

That is beyond mutiny. That is beyond Treason. IF we did this against another nation, it would be considered an ACT OF WAR.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

>Fuck the articles. Someone was in charge of the joint CIA-FBI operation to suppress the TRUTH in order to remove the sitting President and replace him with one of their chosing.

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/07/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-twitter-and-hunter-bidens-laptop/

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/

The hunter-biden shit was being openly reported by the media in the run-up to the 2020 election.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

A story does not have to be completely blacked out, to be successfully suppressed.

IN the presidential debate, Trump confronted Biden with the Laptop issue.

Biden's response USED THE LIES OF HTE COVERUP TO DEFEND HIMSELF.

"Biden responded by claiming, “There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plan. They have said this is, has all the — four, five former heads of the CIA, both parties say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it except him and his good friend Rudy Giuliani.”

That was a great lie. A reasonable person watchign would have to consdier that weight of testimony from experts and authorities to have weight and to be credible.

BUT, it was a lie. Those 50 spies, were all lying. Thse former heads of cia, were lying. THe laptop was not russian disinformation, but a true story and Biden was able to use manufactured lies to misinform the voters, so that they would make their votes based on FALSE INFORMATION fed to them by rogue cia and fbi agents.

That is a serious threat to democracy. THe FBI and the CIA were not in control of hte elected President. They were listening to someone else. Someone NOT elected.

The government is not answering to the American people any more. It is answering to someone else.

That is not democracy. That is a democracy that has already fallen.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

>BUT, it was a lie. Those 50 spies, were all lying. Thse former heads of cia, were lying. THe laptop was not russian disinformation, but a true story and Biden was able to use manufactured lies to misinform the voters, so that they would make their votes based on FALSE INFORMATION fed to them by rogue cia and fbi agents.

If Presidents lying (and you haven't demonstrated this here really specifically) devalues the upcoming election, then every election that has ever been is automatically discredited and "stolen".

I continue to wait for a response to one of these:

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/07/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-twitter-and-hunter-bidens-laptop/

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

My point was clearl not about a "President lying".

The fact that you ignored the bit that the top law enforcement agency and the top intelligence agaency were taking orders NOT from the elected President but from someone else, to run a massive operation AGAINST THE NATION AS A WHOLE,

is shocking beyond belief.

The implication is that you support such treason, if it benefits your leftard agenda.

You are treasonous.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

>The fact that you ignored the bit that the top law enforcement agency and the top intelligence agaency were taking orders NOT from the elected President but from someone else, to run a massive operation AGAINST THE NATION AS A WHOLE,

And who were they taking orders from? Got any specific evidence?

>The implication is that you support such treason, if it benefits your leftard agenda.

This may well be the fifth time you've slandered me after professing in the past to be concerned about. You continue to be a repulsive manipulator.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

I am assuming that TRUMP himself did NOT order them to launch a massive operation to benefit the candidacy of his enemy Biden.

So, someone else had to. So, who was it?

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

>I am assuming that TRUMP himself did NOT order them to launch a massive operation to benefit the candidacy of his enemy Biden.

You've accused 50 former members of the national intelligence, including former CIA heads of lying about the accusations against Biden being a Russian plan. You haven't provided any evidence for this whatsoever.

So your question here is essentially a loaded question. "When did you stop beating your wife?"

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

NO, it's not.

Their story was not that they though it was likely a russian story but that it was CERTAINLY a russian story thus, you don't need to pay any attention to that laptop.

BUT, the laptop was Hunters. Their supposedly sure judgement was completely wrongg.

it is not credible that some many spies would be that confidently wrong AND just happen to get together to publically be wrong in time to swing the election.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

>Their story was not that they though it was likely a russian story but that it was CERTAINLY a russian story thus, you don't need to pay any attention to that laptop.

Okay. So where is your evidence they did this on behalf of someone else? Where is the evidence they were lying?

>BUT, the laptop was Hunters. Their supposedly sure judgement was completely wrongg.

The point was that the attempt to twist it to *Joe Biden* was the foreign state interference. Hunter is, by all accounts, an idiot and seems to be independently being charged himself anyway.

>it is not credible that some many spies would be that confidently wrong AND just happen to get together to publically be wrong in time to swing the election.

Also, how do you even know they were wrong?

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

There are two possibilities. Either Trump ordered it, or someone else did it.

If it was not Trump, then it was illegal on a scale this nation has not seen since the Civil War.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

>There are two possibilities. Either Trump ordered it, or someone else did it.

Ordered *what*? The CIA-FBI "operation" to "suppress the laptop"? Again:

I continue to wait for a response to one of these:

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/07/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-twitter-and-hunter-bidens-laptop/

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

Correct. The operation to suppress the lap top story.

I gave your first link another try. Stil nothing of value there. I went to the 4th or 5th paragraph, just twaddle. I don't see what or how you think that link is relevant to this.

Who ordered the operation?

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

>I gave your first link another try. Stil nothing of value there. I went to the 4th or 5th paragraph, just twaddle. I don't see what or how you think that link is relevant to this.

We are done until you address those articles.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

ok.

Final point stands.

IN the presidential debate, Trump confronted Biden with the Laptop issue.

Biden's response USED THE LIES OF HTE COVERUP TO DEFEND HIMSELF.

"Biden responded by claiming, “There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plan. They have said this is, has all the — four, five former heads of the CIA, both parties say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it except him and his good friend Rudy Giuliani.”

That was a great lie. A reasonable person watchign would have to consdier that weight of testimony from experts and authorities to have weight and to be credible.

BUT, it was a lie. Those 50 spies, were all lying. Thse former heads of cia, were lying. THe laptop was not russian disinformation, but a true story and Biden was able to use manufactured lies to misinform the voters, so that they would make their votes based on FALSE INFORMATION fed to them by rogue cia and fbi agents.

That is a serious threat to democracy. THe FBI and the CIA were not in control of hte elected President. They were listening to someone else. Someone NOT elected.

The government is not answering to the American people any more. It is answering to someone else.

That is not democracy. That is a democracy that has already fallen.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/07/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-twitter-and-hunter-bidens-laptop/

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

ok.

Final point stands.

IN the presidential debate, Trump confronted Biden with the Laptop issue.

Biden's response USED THE LIES OF HTE COVERUP TO DEFEND HIMSELF.

"Biden responded by claiming, “There are 50 former national intelligence folks who said that what he’s accusing me of is a Russian plan. They have said this is, has all the — four, five former heads of the CIA, both parties say what he’s saying is a bunch of garbage. Nobody believes it except him and his good friend Rudy Giuliani.”

That was a great lie. A reasonable person watchign would have to consdier that weight of testimony from experts and authorities to have weight and to be credible.

BUT, it was a lie. Those 50 spies, were all lying. Thse former heads of cia, were lying. THe laptop was not russian disinformation, but a true story and Biden was able to use manufactured lies to misinform the voters, so that they would make their votes based on FALSE INFORMATION fed to them by rogue cia and fbi agents.

That is a serious threat to democracy. THe FBI and the CIA were not in control of hte elected President. They were listening to someone else. Someone NOT elected.

The government is not answering to the American people any more. It is answering to someone else.

That is not democracy. That is a democracy that has already fallen.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/07/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-twitter-and-hunter-bidens-laptop/

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

I tried again. I see nothing that is any more reasonable or less retarded or less asshole than the shit you have been spouting from your face hole.

If there is a point buried in there i cannot find it.

My point stands.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/07/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-twitter-and-hunter-bidens-laptop/

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

Dude. It seems to be nothing but an asshole spouting his opinion about this, that is not doing ANYTHING except asserting the same old shit, that has already been debunked by congressional testimony AND does not answer who gave the order to do this, against the campaing of the sitting PRESIDENT OF THE UNITIED STATES.

If there is anyhting of value int here, you need to at least cut and paste any actual point, or stop being a stonewalling pussy boi.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

Start from here:

"1. If you said Twitter’s decision to block links to the NY Post was election interference…"

It's too much to copy and paste.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

They did so at the behest of the fbi AND they were not alone, and in doing so, they were part of a widespread operation to suppress the truth from reaching the US voters.

Biden used that, to lie to the American people during the debates. Twitter was part of hte same operation as the 4 or 5 former heads of hte cia that were also defending the lie that this was a russian lie, instead of the truth.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

Again, no. This just didn't happen:

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/07/hello-youve-been-referred-here-because-youre-wrong-about-twitter-and-hunter-bidens-laptop/

https://www.techdirt.com/2022/12/20/no-the-fbi-is-not-paying-twitter-to-censor/

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

Sure. They just happened to be in constant communicatin with the fbi, and they just happened to do what the fbi wanted. The threateneing tone of some of the fbi messages had no impact. And I could beleive that, because big tech is dominated by leftard sheep who would be happy to support such oppression and tryanny.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

You haven't read the articles. I have nothing to say until you actually address the articles.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

My impression is based on the testimony I have seen from twitter employees and federal agents in congress.

They have been stonewalling like organized crime figures. Which they are.

But, even teh shit they admit, becuase they have to, make it clear that the fbi and big tech was working together to suppress the Truth going into the election.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

And you've still not read the articles.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

You haven't watched the testimony from the people that did the crimes.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

I asked you for a transcript, and you've still not provided anything.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

Ooops forgot. You know, CHRISTMAS.

What specifically did you want?

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

I asked this weeks ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AY1tDd2w24M

This. You linked this at the time.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

Cool. If you open up the vid at the bottom there is an option to turn on the transcript so you can read along.

I note that at 1:13"01 the twit states that a story that the feds wanted down did NOT violate their rules, but then that the upper managament decided that it did. SO it was taken down.

And that's why rules enforced by liberals are not rules. Because everyone involved is either willing to lie, or go along with the lie.

That was censorship adn election interference.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

>Cool. If you open up the vid at the bottom there is an option to turn on the transcript so you can read along.

It's autogenerated, and relies upon me reading it with the feed. I'm not watching hours of this hearing dude, it's very tedious.

>I note that at 1:13"01 the twit states that a story that the feds wanted down did NOT violate their rules, but then that the upper managament decided that it did. SO it was taken down.

The excerpt I jumped to there doesn't say that the FBI forced Twitter to do anything.

They made a decision which the individual from Twitter thought was wrong.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

Why whine like a fag about reading along, when I provided the time stamp?

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

Because it's not a text dump. It's also autogenerated by youtube, so it's not the actual transcript.

And the excerpt doesn't say what you're claiming.

reply

[–] Corbell (9634) 6 months ago

i DIDN'T SAY IT SAID IT, I SAID IT WHOSHOWS IT, YOU DISHONEST FUCKTARD.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

What? You mangled your sentence.

reply

[–] tvfan (9957) 6 months ago

I also addressed that the information from techdirt is nothing but a leftist ranting about his own opinions but he keeps citing it because it suits his biased narrative.

reply

[–] Skavau (11261) 6 months ago

It's much more than that. There's plenty of sourcing in the article.

reply