Here are some of your "incredulous that I'm blind to reality"  posts:

Lol. You guys are hilarious. So... let me just get this straight. We have video evidence of this man actively encouraging people to raid the Capitol. The crowd is chanting FED as he speaks, because it's obvious to them that he's an outsider. The next day, he's seen inciting the public to go INTO the Capitol building. Moments before the barriers are breached, he whispers something to the man who initiates the breach. Then he enters the Capitol while telling everyone to enter the Capitol. 

The NY Times... who HATES J6 protestors... who finds them to be an abomination to our "DEMOCRACY," is defending Ray Epps? A guy who supposedly represents the worst of the MAGA movement? A guy who thought the election was SO stolen, he tried over and over again to work up a crown to breech the Capitol building? On video? This guy? This is who they are defending? What is wrong with you guys, man? 

Ray Epps is suing Fox, guys. He must be innocent. They told us so. Those are the FACTS.

Did you watch the video? It's all on tape, man. What's there to swallow? You can see it. It's on video. Just watch it. I seriously don't understand you guys. That dude should be prosecuted. Period. Why are any of you defending him? Why is he not being charged? He literally represents EVERYTHING the media and the moderates and the leftist claim is wrong with the MAGA crowd. He's on film, inciting storming the Capitol. These are reasonable questions and none of the "enlightened" on here are even asking these questions. Why don't you ask the questions?

Aside from that, you guys still won't acknowledge that there were multiple, disingenuous agitators there that day. Ray Epps should be in jail. Period. There is no reason this guy is still unprosecuted unless he's protected. He's on video giving a command to two young men to remove the barriers. We know from multiple trials that the FBI was there undercover. We know there were some known ANTIFA affiliates present. We have, on video, some type of undercover personnel changing out of plain clothes and being welcomed into the building by other police, and they were claiming to be dressed as ANTIFA agents. 

You ignore ALL of this. Why is it hard to admit that the government may have played a role in what happened that day?

There you go pal.

The way you imply certainty about Epps was no different than the way I implied certainty about Trump.
which was what you tried to call me out on

Try harder. 

I don't really give a [BLEEP] about you speaking to your beliefs on a topic that way - but you tried to deflect the actual topic here by calling me out for the exact same [BLEEP] you do , so...  here we are. 

Hey - I've got an idea - why don't you try to weasel out of the actual point of the thread by trying to instruct me about the definition of some word you pulled out of your [BLEEP] in a weak attempt at snark? 
That will serve to further a "real discussion", right?? 

Just let the stupid semantics go and debate the damn topic if you actually have anything to add.

---

Even in the other thread, this is the closest you can get is this: "He's obviously an agent of some kind. Sure, I'm speculating, but none of this is outside of the pail,"

To any normal person, the admission that speculating is a clear signal that I'm not taking a dogmatic position on this opinion. A person using good faith would look at the broader context of the discussion and properly frame the discussion. You can't do that because you just "know." Maybe I just assume wrongly that you are capable of remembering my position from the previous thread we discussed about this. I believe he's an agent because of the myriad of other factors that go into this. It's not just blind conspiracy. I don't care if others don't believe it, but I think even a critic should be able to recognize that this is entirely within the government's capability and history and question it, which has been my consistent position.

Even still, look forward to your "proof."

---

Even in the other thread, this is the closest you can get is this: "He's obviously an agent of some kind. Sure, I'm speculating, but none of this is outside of the pail,"

To any normal person, the admission that speculating is a clear signal that I'm not taking a dogmatic position on this opinion. A person using good faith would look at the broader context of the discussion and properly frame the discussion. You can't do that because you just "know." Maybe I just assume wrongly that you are capable of remembering my position from the previous thread we discussed about this. I believe he's an agent because of the myriad of other factors that go into this. It's not just blind conspiracy. I don't care if others don't believe it, but I think even a critic should be able to recognize that this is entirely within the government's capability and history and question it, which has been my consistent position.

Even still, look forward to your "proof."

Let me see if I can get this straight:

Nothing else to say about codefendants taking plea deals when they agree to flip on Trump, so you want to have a contest about who stated their opinion as fact more convincingly? 

That's brilliant. 

How about this - Let's just say I'm more guilty than you are so you can let it go and stop deflecting the [BLEEP] thread?

---

You're the one making false accusations, dummy. Talk about backpedaling. You slander me as a deflection, then use my defense of said slander as evidence of me derailing the conversation (with me being as generous to your accusation as possible). Neat trick. That worked out great for you. Anyways, I accept your retreat. We can resume the previous discussion.

I would now like to admit the posts above as evidence that you disregard context when asserting claims about people with whom you disagree and are doing the same with regards to Trump. Your turn.

---

Nothing else to say about codefendants taking plea deals when they agree to flip on Trump

Have you seen some secret testimony? No one has flipped, all they have agreed to do is testify. They didn't admit to anything that is charged in the rico case.

Unless they try to lie, I don't see any of them being good witnesses for the DA.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

---

Nothing else to say about codefendants taking plea deals when they agree to flip on Trump

Have you seen some secret testimony? No one has flipped, all they have agreed to do is testify. They didn't admit to anything that is charged in the rico case.

Unless they try to lie, I don't see any of them being good witnesses for the DA.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

They're throwing a cast net into a pond that has no fish.. They just don't realize it because they're frothing at the mouth with the thought of Trump lolol

---

You're the one making false accusations, dummy. Talk about backpedaling. You slander me as a deflection, then use my defense of said slander as evidence of me derailing the conversation (with me being as generous to your accusation as possible). Neat trick. That worked out great for you. Anyways, I accept your retreat. We can resume the previous discussion.

I would now like to admit the posts above as evidence that you disregard context when asserting claims about people with whom you disagree and are doing the same with regards to Trump. Your turn.

Can't attack the point, so attack the person.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

In what way have I not addressed the point?

---

You know what, screw it. Don't bother to answer that question, because you probably can't anyways.

Character and credibility issues are always a part of debate if one can show the character or credibility of an actor impedes their ability to properly function in a debate. If you can find it in the court of law, it's perfectly applicable here. "You're dumb" is not a valid credibility attack. "You have shown yourself to be prone to ignoring context when convenient, as evidenced by this interaction" is valid, especially when that's the subject of the debate. I have addressed every "issue" of this debate, providing substantive disagreement to whatever claim has been levied, up to and including misrepresentations of my own argument. I can and will use his piss-poor attempt to slander me as an example of his inability to properly apply context when he is emotionally or mentally invested in the outcome. If you want to give me a specific point to address, I am more than happy to do so.

---

You know what, screw it. Don't bother to answer that question, because you probably can't anyways.

Character and credibility issues are always a part of debate if one can show the character or credibility of an actor impedes their ability to properly function in a debate. If you can find it in the court of law, it's perfectly applicable here. "You're dumb" is not a valid credibility attack. "You have shown yourself to be prone to ignoring context when convenient, as evidenced by this interaction" is valid, especially when that's the subject of the debate. I have addressed every "issue" of this debate, providing substantive disagreement to whatever claim has been levied, up to and including misrepresentations of my own argument. I can and will use his piss-poor attempt to slander me as an example of his inability to properly apply context when he is emotionally or mentally invested in the outcome. If you want to give me a specific point to address, I am more than happy to do so.

You are usually reasonable and you are totally right that there is a time and place for bringing personal attacks into a debate, especially if the person's credibility or guilt are the issue.  But all of us here are really too far removed from these topics, none of us are involved or profiting from being right or wrong in any way, so personal attacks are really not going to be useful here.

However, you weren't reasoned into your opinion of Trump being innocent or guilty and you won't be reasoned out of it. Reason is not the tool to use.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I am not making a claim to Trump's innocence OR guilt. In this thread, I have said I reserve the right to change my mind based on testimony. I am arguing with other people who are starting with guilt, then conforming the narrative to that world view.

---

Nothing else to say about codefendants taking plea deals when they agree to flip on Trump

Have you seen some secret testimony? No one has flipped, all they have agreed to do is testify. They didn't admit to anything that is charged in the rico case.

Unless they try to lie, I don't see any of them being good witnesses for the DA.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Just making the assumption that these prosecutors are using one of the most common tools in the book to strengthen their case. 

It's as common as catching a cold. 

Multiple defendants are charged with the intent of letting the little fish swim free in order to build a stronger case on the whale. 

Why would they not do this ?  
What real cause do most of these defendants have not to spit their guts on a guy who hung them out to dry? 

I'll wager a few of them will sing like birds. 

There are also dozens of reports out there claiming this is exactly what is happening via protected sources. 

I'm not making some wild claim here. This is courtroom 101 type stuff.

---

I am not making a claim to Trump's innocence OR guilt. In this thread, I have said I reserve the right to change my mind based on testimony. I am arguing with other people who are starting with guilt, then conforming the narrative to that world view.

He deserves a fair trial and the jurors should presume innocence, but the intent of the law in Georgia was to punish any influential person, who has enough access to information to know better, who presents relevant but false information to a government official.   Trump's only possible defense, which you have repeatedly invoked, is that he didn't know better.  That he completely ignored many advisors, officials, and judges who told him there was no evidence, and only listened to the ones telling him lies.  But that's still a pattern of behavior that nobody in any kind of public trust should ever engage in.  

I know you're a reasonable person.  The facts in Georgia show that he either deliberately lied, or that he delusionally lied.  Either way that's criminal, punishable behavior per Georgia law, either way it was completely self serving, and and either way it's not behavior befitting a leader.  

I think we could debate the point about it being criminal if he believed it. Maybe delusions of this type aren't criminal. I think they are, but maybe they're not. But they're still not befitting a leader. If a man kills someone but his lawyer successfully shows that the man didn't understand what he was doing, we agree that's no longer criminal, but the man still ends up in a psych ward. Not free to continue putting lives at risk. If Trump really believed, 40 days later, that there was something to the stories of hundreds of thousands of fraudulent ballots, his attachment to reality is not corresponding to sanity. Yet he shows few if any other symptoms of insanity, so it's more likely that he deliberately lied than delusionally.

Anyhow.

When do we get to move on?

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Have you seen some secret testimony? No one has flipped, all they have agreed to do is testify. They didn't admit to anything that is charged in the rico case.

Unless they try to lie, I don't see any of them being good witnesses for the DA.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Just making the assumption that these prosecutors are using one of the most common tools in the book to strengthen their case. 

It's as common as catching a cold. 

Multiple defendants are charged with the intent of letting the little fish swim free in order to build a stronger case on the whale. 

Why would they not do this ?  
What real cause do most of these defendants have not to spit their guts on a guy who hung them out to dry? 

I'll wager a few of them will sing like birds. 

There are also dozens of reports out there claiming this is exactly what is happening via protected sources. 

I'm not making some wild claim here. This is courtroom 101 type stuff.

Yes that is standard practice but in those cases the person admitted to something that was charged but was being given lesser sentences.

Right now no one has admitted to breaking any laws to do with the rico charges. When they testify, they will say no laws were broken. Trump will present the evidence of fraud and it will be not guilty.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

---

Just making the assumption that these prosecutors are using one of the most common tools in the book to strengthen their case. 

It's as common as catching a cold. 

Multiple defendants are charged with the intent of letting the little fish swim free in order to build a stronger case on the whale. 

Why would they not do this ?  
What real cause do most of these defendants have not to spit their guts on a guy who hung them out to dry? 

I'll wager a few of them will sing like birds. 

There are also dozens of reports out there claiming this is exactly what is happening via protected sources. 

I'm not making some wild claim here. This is courtroom 101 type stuff.

Yes that is standard practice but in those cases the person admitted to something that was charged but was being given lesser sentences.

Right now no one has admitted to breaking any laws to do with the rico charges. When they testify, they will say no laws were broken. Trump will present the evidence of fraud and it will be not guilty.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

They have admitted to lying and the lies themselves are crimes per GA law.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I am not making a claim to Trump's innocence OR guilt. In this thread, I have said I reserve the right to change my mind based on testimony. I am arguing with other people who are starting with guilt, then conforming the narrative to that world view.

He deserves a fair trial and the jurors should presume innocence, but the intent of the law in Georgia was to punish any influential person, who has enough access to information to know better, who presents relevant but false information to a government official.   Trump's only possible defense, which you have repeatedly invoked, is that he didn't know better.  That he completely ignored many advisors, officials, and judges who told him there was no evidence, and only listened to the ones telling him lies.  But that's still a pattern of behavior that nobody in any kind of public trust should ever engage in.  

I know you're a reasonable person.  The facts in Georgia show that he either deliberately lied, or that he delusionally lied.  Either way that's criminal, punishable behavior per Georgia law, either way it was completely self serving, and and either way it's not behavior befitting a leader.  

I think we could debate the point about it being criminal if he believed it. Maybe delusions of this type aren't criminal.  I think they are, but maybe they're not.  But they're still not befitting a leader.  If a man kills someone but his lawyer successfully shows that the man didn't understand what he was doing, we agree that's no longer criminal, but the man still ends up in a psych ward. Not free to continue putting lives at risk.  If Trump really believed, 40 days later, that there was something to the stories of hundreds of thousands of fraudulent ballots, his attachment to reality is not corresponding to sanity.  Yet he shows few if any other symptoms of insanity, so it's more likely that he deliberately lied than delusionally.

Anyhow.

When do we get to move on?

Trump will move on in 2029, the left and Quizzies will never move on.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I see a lot of people saying how bad Trump is, how many crimes he’s committed, how corrupt and destructive he is.

And I’m not a huge Trump fan myself. I’d personally rather see Haley run for the GOP….

That said, what does is say about Biden that all these polls are showing him losing to Trump? Biden was kicking Trumps [BLEEP] in every poll 4 years ago. And I don’t think Trump has picked up many more supporters since he lost in 2020. It seems to me more a fact that Biden is so horrible that people would rather vote for a criminal behind bars than Biden. I remember when Biden used to mock Trumps approval…and yet his approval is lower than Trumps!

I’ve said over and over…the Dems need to turn the page and find someone new or seriously risk losing in 2024. You’re scared to death of Trump? Choose someone who can beat him.

---

I see a lot of people saying how bad Trump is, how many crimes he’s committed, how corrupt and destructive he is.

And I’m not a huge Trump fan myself. I’d personally rather see Haley run for the GOP….

That said, what does is say about Biden that all these polls are showing him losing to Trump? Biden was kicking Trumps [BLEEP] in every poll 4 years ago. And I don’t think Trump has picked up many more supporters since he lost in 2020. It seems to me more a fact that Biden is so horrible that people would rather vote for a criminal behind bars than Biden. I remember when Biden used to mock Trumps approval…and yet his approval is lower than Trumps!

I’ve said over and over…the Dems need to turn the page and find someone new or seriously risk losing in 2024. You’re scared to death of Trump? Choose someone who can beat him.

It’s a conundrum for both parties right now. On the right, Trump sucks all of the oxygen out of the room. On the left, doddering Biden won’t do the right thing and say he’ll step aside after this term which would allow the Democrats to move forward with finding a more electable (and competent) candidate. 

We have a political bowel blockage. This country needs an enema.

---

Just making the assumption that these prosecutors are using one of the most common tools in the book to strengthen their case. 

It's as common as catching a cold. 

Multiple defendants are charged with the intent of letting the little fish swim free in order to build a stronger case on the whale. 

Why would they not do this ?  
What real cause do most of these defendants have not to spit their guts on a guy who hung them out to dry? 

I'll wager a few of them will sing like birds. 

There are also dozens of reports out there claiming this is exactly what is happening via protected sources. 

I'm not making some wild claim here. This is courtroom 101 type stuff.

Yes that is standard practice but in those cases the person admitted to something that was charged but was being given lesser sentences.

Right now no one has admitted to breaking any laws to do with the rico charges. When they testify, they will say no laws were broken. Trump will present the evidence of fraud and it will be not guilty.

Sent from my SM-S901U using Tapatalk

Why do you assume the bolded? 

How do you think you know who will and won't testify with damaging testimony against Trump, and how do you think you know what they will and won't say?

You have no idea. We can only guess. Based on what I've seen following cases with multiple defendants in the past -
It is my opinion that they used these plea deals to coerce damaging testimony out of one or more of those defendants. It's a perfectly reasonable thing to expect. And again - reporters with protected sources are saying this is the case. 

You can disagree - but you don't know beyond doubt any more than I do.

---

I am not making a claim to Trump's innocence OR guilt. In this thread, I have said I reserve the right to change my mind based on testimony. I am arguing with other people who are starting with guilt, then conforming the narrative to that world view.

He deserves a fair trial and the jurors should presume innocence, but the intent of the law in Georgia was to punish any influential person, who has enough access to information to know better, who presents relevant but false information to a government official.   Trump's only possible defense, which you have repeatedly invoked, is that he didn't know better.  That he completely ignored many advisors, officials, and judges who told him there was no evidence, and only listened to the ones telling him lies.  But that's still a pattern of behavior that nobody in any kind of public trust should ever engage in.  

I know you're a reasonable person.  The facts in Georgia show that he either deliberately lied, or that he delusionally lied.  Either way that's criminal, punishable behavior per Georgia law, either way it was completely self serving, and and either way it's not behavior befitting a leader.  

I think we could debate the point about it being criminal if he believed it. Maybe delusions of this type aren't criminal.  I think they are, but maybe they're not.  But they're still not befitting a leader.  If a man kills someone but his lawyer successfully shows that the man didn't understand what he was doing, we agree that's no longer criminal, but the man still ends up in a psych ward. Not free to continue putting lives at risk.  If Trump really believed, 40 days later, that there was something to the stories of hundreds of thousands of fraudulent ballots, his attachment to reality is not corresponding to sanity.  Yet he shows few if any other symptoms of insanity, so it's more likely that he deliberately lied than delusionally.

Anyhow.

When do we get to move on?

Personally, I think these charges are largely concocted, but we'll see if anything actually damning comes out with this testimony. I have a feeling it will be more of the same... lines taken out of context and soundbites, but we'll see. 

That said, I have no problem with this line of reasoning. I still think it's short sighted. Trump aside, I don't see how any person can come in and effectuate change without being castigated and maligned to the point they lose all credibility. It is going to take someone like Trump who is self-serving and narcissistic, but who's interests align more with the American people than the establishment. 

There is a reason things were better under Trump. It's not because he's a great man. He just wants America to be like it was when he was growing up, and, the reality is, that's a BETTER America (minus the racism, obviously). No person who comes in office and pushes back against our corrupt establishment will come out unscathed. 

I know you like to think you are open minded, but the minute all of the establishment puts its power into destroying someone, you will cave. You can't help it. You're just not a strong enough person outside that little part of your faith that pushes back from time to time. That's just my opinion. 

To your larger point, I would love to have an honorable and dignified leader who genuinely wants change and genuinely wants to help American citizens. I think most Republicans would ditch Trump in a heartbeat if they thought there was a candidate who would fight like Trump. Sometimes, I think DeSantis could be that guy, but, you know, he wore boots.

---