Will we have another Jan 6 incident if he "loses" again?
What do you think?
shareLet's ask Ray Epps.
share
MovieChat Forums > Donald Trump Discussion > Will we have another Jan 6 incident if h...
I don't think so. I think most of Trump supporters don't want to go prison and destroy their lives by worshiping Trump like the Jan. 6 insurrectionists did. That's probably one reason why his supporters didn't protest at Trump's trial.
shareWith blatant election interference, if Trump loses then I'd be genuinely worried about the prospects of anarchy.
shareYou mean The Great Mosey, where throngs of Trump supporters strolled through the Capitol building and a few plants did things like bust out windows while some morons did stuff like taking a podium? And a Capitol policeman shot a woman to death and others beat a woman to death? Then the government locked people up for years without trials -- showing what Republicans can do to Democrats if the tables are ever turned? That?
No. If the punishment far outweighs the crime, the deterrent factor is strong. The government should try it with illegals crossing the border, and DAs should try it with all other crimes.
What drugs did you ingest today?
shareAll that weak ass response from you did, was draw attention to the fact that he made a host of good points.
And that you couldn't even PRETEND to try to challenge ANY of them.
He made loony conspiracy laden points for the mentally ill
shareActually everything he said was techinically true and you can find video or articles supporting it online with seconds of searching.
At BEST, your position could be, YES, but there was also actual violence and crimes.
But a blanket denial of recent history that everyone should know?
Like I said, all you are doing is showcasing his good points and your inability to even TRY to refute them.
Yatzo is Italian for idiot.
shareThere will be government organizations that will try and plan something but everyone will be smart enough not to take the bait.
shareNo.
J6 was their final seal to ending a four year soft coup.
Ask the qanon contributors who incited the previous attempt.
shareyou all went there on Trump orders.
Is "qanon" in the room with you right now?
shareIf I had said "Qanon did it", your shitass weasely comment might have been worth a chuckle. But since I referenced "the qanon contributors" who incited Jan6, your post makes no fucking sense and makes you just sound like an ignorant illiterate shit stain.
shareAll that profanity designed to cover up your obvious rage issues. Please don't purchase any firearms and never go around normal human beings. You are obviously mentally ill.
I know you can't resist responding because you're not very intelligent. I'll allow your profanity-laced retort and then I'll consider this matter concluded.
Profanity designed to cover up rage?
That doesn't make sense. Like your last post.
i think you are asking the wrong question.
Now, 1/6 was clearly a result of entrapment and incitement by the authorities.
So, sure, the same authorities are still there, and are clearly willing to abuse their offices in pursuit of the Deep State agenda, whatever that may be.
But a better question is, as the Left keeps escalating, what will the response from the right be.
So far, we have been... very restrained. We are still mostly playing by the old rules. .
For example, right now the conflict is that it has become painfully obvious that the government bureaucracy has been politicized and weaponized against... at best republcians, and at worst, AMERICANS.
The answer from the Right is, to purge the bureacracy leadership if we win the election.
This is a very restrained and limited response.
BUT, if we lose the election, then we will be in a situation where the government is clearly hostile to us and our interests.
And if Trump can't win, can anyone? And what if the margin of victory was "box of ballots found after the cameras went home" or because of the massive populations of illegals in dem states?
That will make the regime illegitimate.
So, what will be the next response from the right as we are attacked and oppressed?
That's teh question you should be asking.
OR, you should be asking, should you vote for Trump to avoid that. Becasue purging the bureacracies of lefty partisans, is a GOOD thing that should be done, it would be GOOD for the government, it would be GOOD for our country.
Even if a lefty doesn't agree on any polices of the Right, continuing down the path of increasing political conflict is a BAD for this country.
The assumption underlying all of this is that the only way that Trump can lose is by fraud, rather than just not getting enough support. It's completely unfalsifiable.
The rest of your post is conspiratorial bollocks.
I clearly used the word "if".
That you ignored that was you following the program.
I made a real post, with points that I truly believe and worry about. I think that the ideas I have, have value and could contribute in a small way to the Civil Discourse and the Search for Truth that is the goal.
I put it out there, in a Good Faith attempt to move the discussion forward, in a healthy way.
YOU? You pissed all over that and posted shit.
My actions and intent, could reasonably be called... arrogant. To think that I am... a real intellectual who's ideas could impact the world in a good way.
That is fair. It does show an incredibly good self image, perhaps unrealisticly so.
What does YOUR actions say about YOUR self image?
>I clearly used the word "if".
Yes. "If" the Republicans or Trump loses the next election you assume it must be down to foul play. You can't conceive of how they could lose otherwise. To you, their victory should be inevitable.
>YOU? You pissed all over that and posted shit.
Oh bore off you sad little man-baby. You are truly the biggest most precious princess that inhabits this board. I was responding to your conspiratorial screed.
>My actions and intent, could reasonably be called... arrogant. To think that I am... a real intellectual who's ideas could impact the world in a good way.
This is hilarious. Genuinely Arnold Rimmer levels of delusion. You are a fantastical narcissist. You are posting in a subforum of a movie forum suggesting that Trump simply can't lose fairly in the next election. You are not posting as part of some academia correspondence. You are not a polemic. You are instead, a sad little man.
>That is fair. It does show an incredibly good self image, perhaps unrealisticly so.
This is honestly the most comical thing you've ever posted. Corbell praises Corbell vibes. Like that edited picture of Obama awarding Obama the presidential medal of freedom.
This is all I read.
"Yes. "If" the Republicans or Trump loses the next election you assume it must be down to foul play."
As I said, false premise, as per the program noted in the other thread.
I clearly was discussing the possibility of dem cheating AS A POSSIBLITY.
Go fuck yourself.
>As I said, false premise, as per the program noted in the other thread.
So it is possible that Trump may lose fairly then? In your mind?
You specifically said: "BUT, if we lose the election, then we will be in a situation where the government is clearly hostile to us and our interests."
No ifs, no buts. If Trump loses then the implication by you is that it must be foul play.
Nothing you cited actually supports your claim.
You presented it as it does, you structured your sentences as though it does,
but, it doesn't.
My point was clear. YOu are avoiding dealing with it, by pretending to be too fucking retarded to understand it.
Such insanely asshole behavior on your part, is why anything you get back, is called for.
My claim is the words you said. If you're retracting it, then fine - but I'll ask again: Is it possible for Trump to lose the next election legitimately?
You didn't otherwise make any point other than incoherent ranting about what-ifs.
Now you are doing that repeating stupid questions thing from the program that was presented in the other thread.
I don't care to play your stupid game. If you have nothing to say relevant to the thread or the topic then shut your stupid pie hole.
If you don't answer my questions, I'll simply repeat them. I don't give a flying fuck that you don't like it. You can shove it up your ass, fuckface.
Is it possible for Trump to lose the next election legitimately?
Well observed Corbell.
In addition to the Straw and Hatchling questions, and endless bullshitting, Skavau will present phoney ‘evidence’ - links that don’t even support his point, quotes that aren’t even relevant.
It’s all show feathers, no substance.
He assumes everyone else on this site is as dumb and credulous as he is.
When he finds out they’re not he becomes enraged, as we can see from his growing hostility in this thread. He’s really losing it now…
Quit sucking Corbell's dick and your life will get better unless you really like the taste of his dick. 🤣
shareDude why are you talking about ‘Corbell’s dick’?
This is a discussion about Donald Trump.
It was about Trump until you started sucking the D. Honestly, it's obvious and gross Melton.
shareI made several posts about the topic. Skavau is the one that derailed it with his bad faith games.
If you want to discuss Trump/the topic, scroll up and respond to my post that your buddy buried under shit talk.
I would be happy to read any thing relevant you have to say in response to MY take on the topic.
post 8604
So you just revealed that you are Melton, well done.
shareDude you flew in here to rescue your butt-boy Skavau and started talking about ‘sucking dick’ 🤷🏻♂️
This isn’t the place for your homoerotic fantasies, take that shit elsewhere.
what happened to the Skavau thread? did the mod 5 nuke it?
shareMod 5 saw straight through their bullshit so they moved on to Mod 4… who nuked it (even though he admits Skavau is a troll)
It was inevitable, that’s how these little-commies operate - nagging daddy relentlessly until he censors/bans their political enemies and people who call out their shit.
The thread did it’s job - Skavau has been exposed, his reputation is in ruins, and there are plenty of people keeping an eye on him should he start his passive-aggressive interrogation gaslighting routine again…
Skavau, make a load of pathetic excuses for your atrocious behaviour - squealing to the Mods to get those who call out your evil shit censored - and showcase what a disgusting crybully looks like…
I never spoke to Mod5 about this. That was Kowalski. It's also curious how you don't consider Mod4 a fascist censor. And you can criticise me all you want. It was due to your sustained campaign of harassment and abuse, and thread bumping - which I believe is against the website rules.
It's so pathetic how seriously you take your mission to apparently discredit me on a movie forum, as if I represent some serious threat of some kind and that only you are capable of compiling the data necessary to discredit me. Nevermind half of the repliers in the thread told you they don't care, or don't agree with you, you only cherrypick all the responders who agree with you (most of whom hated me before and/or had me blocked anyway).
The people who agreed with you in that thread hated me anyway, and many of them had me blocked and had no meaningful context. Nothing has changed.
>Skavau, make a load of pathetic excuses for your atrocious behaviour - squealing to the Mods to get those who call out your evil shit censored - and showcase what a disgusting crybully looks like…
Your pathetic, childish edit is noted. And your continued inability to explain how anything I do is evil because you're such a dumbass unable to back your claims up, nor justify your own hateful conduct.
People like you are a real threat to any attempt at real discussion or god forbid, community.
This is utterly pathetic cartoonish whining. You could just put me on ignore and you'll never see my responses again.
I saw how brilliant your community behaviour was in that thread by Andy relaying an experience his daughter had.
Are you...making a point? Nah, got to be a trick.
I don't recall. What happened wtih his daughter?
It's simple: Don't like me to the point you do - block me. That was my point. No idea why you gnash your teeth so vigorously when its within your power to solve.
He made a thread about his daughter being told that angels aren't white by a scout leader, and to redraw it.
Oh, yeah.
So? What ever I did, I'm sure doesn't compare to YOUR bad behavior.
So why don't you just block me?
You made a fool of yourself to the entire thread, Americasplaining the UK to us. My bad behaviour being something that you are still unable to articulate.
And I've never threatened you with violence. You have implied I should be attacked. I've never suggested you're a pedophile. You have said that's acceptable. You seem to operate a fair game policy. Apparently strawmanning you or giving bad faith arguments has nothing on that nastiness by you.
Wow. Yeah, even if you take YOUR spin as true, that is still NOTHING compared to the pure venom that is your normal behavior.
Dude. If you don't like it, stop being like this.
>Wow. Yeah, even if you take YOUR spin as true, that is still NOTHING compared to the pure venom that is your normal behavior.
What allegations are you denying there?
>Dude. If you don't like it, stop being like this.
What is it I am "being like?" You are of course too stupid and incapable to provide details to this question other than to just say, as you always do, "being an asshole".
I don't negotiate with people who threaten violence upon me, nor those who justify libellous accusations against people as you do. You are the nasty piece of shit, and I won't bow down to hateful scumbags such as yourself.
Is that clear, fuckface?
You equate me asking you to not be such an asshole with "bowing down"?
Man, what a sick view of yourself you have.
>You equate me asking you to not be such an asshole with "bowing down"?
I'm not being an asshole. Your premise is rejected. Your definition of being an asshole is, from what I can see, kissing your ass. Your only objection to me from all of this, from day one, is that I don't acquiesce to you and you got nastier and nastier - to the point where you think I should be physically attacked and censored online.
You don't get to threaten violence on someone and then cry that they're being an asshole. That is basic manipulative crybully tactics.
>Man, what a sick view of yourself you have.
From a guy who describes his drivel on a moviechat forum as being an "real intellectual".
Correct. I have a very positive self image.
You... don't.
That's...kind of sad.
When did I say I have no positive self-image?
I'm not a narcissistic sanctimonious piece of shit like you, to be sure. I don't threaten violence towards other people like you do. I don't justify calling people pedophiles on no evidence just because I don't like them.
That's you. You're the hateful scumbag. I can actually directly point to the nasty things you've said.
I of course, never said you SAID it.
shareSo you just assumed, of course. There's a difference between a positive self-image and the narcissistic outlook you appear to have for yourself.
I repeat though: I don't threaten violence towards other people like you do. I don't justify calling people pedophiles on no evidence just because I don't like them.
No, I didn't assume. I saw it in your behavior. Dumbass.
shareHow can you see in someone's behaviour how they view themselves, exactly? What about my behaviour indicates that?
I repeat though: I don't threaten violence towards other people like you do. I don't justify calling people pedophiles on no evidence just because I don't like them.
Note: Melton may well be an inaccurate narrator of what Mod4 likely said to him. Constantly bumping a thread is informally against the websites rules, which is what he did. The reasons why Melton did so may well have come into it as well (sustained harassment campaign and libellous accusations and insinuations).
I also had no contact with Mod5 about it. That was another user.
It's so pathetic how seriously Melton takes his mission to apparently discredit me on a movie forum, as I represent some serious threat of some kind and that only he is capable of compiling the data necessary to discredit me. Nevermind half of the repliers in the thread told him they don't care, or don't agree with him, he'll only cherrypick all the responders who agreed with him (most of whom hated me before and/or had me blocked anyway).
The people who agreed with Melton in that thread hated me anyway, and many of them had me blocked and had no meaningful context. Nothing has changed.
Nobody buys your BS victim narrative, everyone can see you’re a pathetic crybully who cannot stand having their shitty behaviour called out, so you run to the Mods to have them censored.
Your reputation was already in ruins and now you’ve revealed yourself to be the worst kind of authoritarian shitstain.
Watching you pathetically try to claw back some respect after this is laughable.
Now write a text wall of more pathetic excuses, with some lazy copy-pastes thrown in. Go…
>Nobody buys your BS victim narrative, everyone can see you’re a pathetic crybully who cannot stand having their shitty behaviour called out, so you run to the Mods to have them censored.
You can criticise how I argue all you want. As I've said, and I will continue to say that I will only get the moderators involved when baseless libellous accusations and insinuations are made against me. However bad I am at arguing about topics has nothing to do with that.
You being a hateful piece of shit is not my problem, nor responsibility.
>Your reputation was already in ruins and now you’ve revealed yourself to be the worst kind of authoritarian shitstain.
I seem to recall you wishing to censor the US media. So your hypocrisy on authoritarianism is noted. How come you're not accusing Mod4 of being a fascist for removing the thread?
And as I said: It's so pathetic how seriously you take your mission to apparently discredit me on a movie forum, as if I represent some serious threat of some kind and that only you are capable of compiling the data necessary to discredit me. Nevermind half of the repliers in the thread told you they don't care, or don't agree with you, you only cherrypick all the responders who agree with you (most of whom hated me before and/or had me blocked anyway).
The people who agreed with you in that thread hated me anyway, and many of them had me blocked and had no meaningful context. Nothing has changed.
---
And no doubt, like a pathetic little child you'll edit your post as you always do.
Your failure to respond in a serious manner is noted.
If you have nothing to say, then why are you posting?
I said something relevant to the topic. It seems to bother some of you.
You don't dare ADDRESS it, or explain WHY you don't like it, but you are happy to post moronic shit to bury the post so that the thread dies.
And that's your contribution.
>I made several posts about the topic. Skavau is the one that derailed it with his bad faith games.
"Derailed it" by asking you questions related to the implications embedded in your initial post.
False questions as per the program.
You pretended to be too stupid to read what I wrote, and then build a strawman based on your pretend mistake. then asked/challenged me based on your retardedness.
Naturally I refused. Your strawmen have nothing to do with me.
You are quite the piece of shit.
And thus, yes, you derailed it.
YOu are terrified of people honestly discussing serious topics.
*One* question. I asked you if it was possible that Trump could lost the election legitimately. That he could lose, and no foul play was responsible. You didn't answer but instead, did as you always do and cry like a little bitch when challenged.
>You pretended to be too stupid to read what I wrote, and then build a strawman based on your pretend mistake. then asked/challenged me based on your retardedness.
I didn't build any strawman. I made no claims at all.
>You are quite the piece of shit.
Says the hateful crybully who thinks its morally acceptable to knowingly hurl false accusations at people.
That's you.
Fuckface.
I'm not playing your retarded troll boi games.
No matter how often you post your nonsense.
YOu want to say something real, do so.
Until then all I will do is point out how you are being a troll boi.
I will simply copy and paste myself.
*One* question. I asked you if it was possible that Trump could lost the election legitimately. That he could lose, and no foul play was responsible. You didn't answer but instead, did as you always do and cry like a little bitch when challenged.
>You pretended to be too stupid to read what I wrote, and then build a strawman based on your pretend mistake. then asked/challenged me based on your retardedness.
I didn't build any strawman. I made no claims at all.
>You are quite the piece of shit.
Says the hateful crybully who thinks its morally acceptable to knowingly hurl false accusations at people.
That's you.
Fuckface.
I was very clear in my post.
You pretended to be confused so that you could craft a false premise for your question.
EVERYTHING you have asked, was already addressed in my post that you read.
Thus, you asking the question, is just you playing a troll game.
You have the answer, so move on to your point.
If you even have one, fag.
I will simply copy and paste myself.
*One* question. I asked you if it was possible that Trump could lost the election legitimately. That he could lose, and no foul play was responsible. You didn't answer but instead, did as you always do and cry like a little bitch when challenged.
>You pretended to be too stupid to read what I wrote, and then build a strawman based on your pretend mistake. then asked/challenged me based on your retardedness.
I didn't build any strawman. I made no claims at all.
>You are quite the piece of shit.
Says the hateful crybully who thinks its morally acceptable to knowingly hurl false accusations at people.
That's you.
Fuckface.
This isn't even about evidence. I asked Corbell a basic question about whether he regards the prospect of Trump legitimately losing the election in 2024 viable, and rather than answering he cries like a little bitch.
shareYou pretended to be too retarded to understand the meaning of the word "if".
I not going to play your little troll boi games.
Go fuck yourself.
Yes. *IF* Trump loses you suggested it would be illegimate. I realise you didn't say he was going to lose, but you suggested strongly that if he does, it would be illegitimate in some way.
shareNO, I didn't. Go fuck yourself.
I made a real post with real points.
You want to respond seriously to any of them, do so.
As long as you post fag shit I will just call you out and/or ridicule you.
As you deserve.
"BUT, if we lose the election, then we will be in a situation where the government is clearly hostile to us and our interests.
And if Trump can't win, can anyone? And what if the margin of victory was "box of ballots found after the cameras went home" or because of the massive populations of illegals in dem states?"
A direct quote. No edits. The suggestion here strongly is that Trump cannot lose fairly, and that if he does lose, it would be down to some form of meddling or manipulation.
"THE SUGGESTION"?
My words are clear. I presented a POSSIBILITY and discussed it.
As it is presented as a POSSIBILITY, that clearly SUGGESTS that the other possibility is POSSIBLE.
So, all of this drama you ginned up, was, as I said, meaningless faggotry from you.
You see my words. Do you have anthing to say about what I actually SAID, not what you IMAGINE?
iF so, say it. If not, then stop being a fag and just go fuck off.
You framed the possibility in two terms:
1. Trump loses
2. Trump wins
But in the event of Trump losing, you suggested it could only happen due to some form of meddling, or manipulation. That's why I asked you if you regard it as possible for Trump to lose fair and square.
>iF so, say it. If not, then stop being a fag and just go fuck off.
I will do whatever the fuck I like and without your permission. I don't answer to you, fuckbrains.
1. No I didn't. You made that up. Go fuck yourself.
2. And we see that you have nothing to say. You are just...here being a fag for the sake of being a fag.
3. What's the big point you wanted to get to, if I answered your fag game question? Just make it. Get to it.
What's the point fag?
So you do think it's possible that Trump could lose the election fairly? I will continue to just throw your words back in your face:
"BUT, if we lose the election, then we will be in a situation where the government is clearly hostile to us and our interests.
And if Trump can't win, can anyone? And what if the margin of victory was "box of ballots found after the cameras went home" or because of the massive populations of illegals in dem states?"
My "point" in all of this was to simply ask you if you think it's possible that Trump could lose the election fairly.
‘suggested strongly’
Weasel words. You’re not fooling anyone with this shit.
"BUT, if we lose the election, then we will be in a situation where the government is clearly hostile to us and our interests.
And if Trump can't win, can anyone? And what if the margin of victory was "box of ballots found after the cameras went home" or because of the massive populations of illegals in dem states?"
This very much indicates that he doesn't believe it is possible that Trump can legitimately lose the election.
How is it clear that 1/6 was entrapment? Are you saying that someone told those people to do something criminal that they otherwise wouldn't? Who told them? And what did they tell them that compelled them to break the law? That would need to be clear in order for your claim that it was clear that it was entrapment to be valid.
Who told them to do what they did?
And what did they tell them to get them to do it?
The way Ray Epps was treated shows that he is certainly either an agent or an asset of the government. And he was massively inciting law breaking and violence.
And you have the police ATTACKING the at that time, angry but peaceful protestors, STARTING the violence.
That is how it is clear that it was entrapment and incitement.
The people who did it stated in no uncertain terms that they wanted to try to stop the election being stolen. None of them have blamed Ray Epps except for grifters like Carlson and Greene who weren't there making up crap about. Ray Epps is a MAGA nutcase who interested parties want to turn, with zero evidence to support it, into an infiltrator/scapegoat so they can wash their hands of the Qanon and MAGA fueled insurrection. You talk as if MAGA nutcases would never consider or have never actually broken the law without being manipulated by government agents.
I notice you still need a set of braces despite being supported by your licorice belt of secret agent manipulation theory. It happened because the police attacked the peaceful protest. Can't you have one without the other? Or are you just like the fucking JFK conspiracy nutcases who have to believe in every potential conspiracy scenario.
1. If Ray Epps was actually MAGA and not a fed, the way he was talking on video, he would have been arrested immediately and they would have brought the hammer down. INstead he was not arrested for months, and then got community service.
He is the clear example of a known agent that we known of. It shows what the intent was of the feds.
2. The violence was started by the police. That's on video. The next question is why. You want to just assume, what? Incompetence? Thuggery? From the video I saw I saw professionals executing a plan.
That's like I said, entrapment and incitement. And that casts an interesting light on a lot of other events that could have been overlooked otherwise, like the refusal of national guard troops or the insane overcharging we have seen since.