Nice quip, Reagan. You're so clever.

You listen to people that ascribe intent. They have no direct evidence. Everything they say is circumstantial, and it relies heavily on people having a predisposition to believing Trump (insert accusation). Comey wouldn't even prosecute Hillary after she bleached a HD with emails on it, saying she didn't know they were classified. He said he couldn't prove intent. You guys just call Trump a dictator and what people to take it as fact, with zero direct evidence. The guy is an inarticulate narcissist. He lies, especially about himself (his vision of himself). Nothing he has done has been dictatorial. Nothing. You guys start with that premise, then mold everything else to fit it. It's intellectually dishonest and borderline stupid that you can't see it.

I ascribe intent on my own.
I know that Hillary deleted emails when she knew it was illegal to do so, because she was hiding something.  And she succeeded.  We don't really know what she was hiding, even after all the WikiLeaks stuff.  Sad!  But could we prove in a court of law this was her intent? Maybe, maybe not.  Probably not worth trying.
Similarly, I know that Trump was trying to end the Constitution as we know it and make Congress bow to his mob.  We know he wanted them to do it because he asked them to do it and kept asking them to do it.  But thankfully the police and DCNG saw this effort as illegitimate and stayed loyal.  Now could I prove in a court of law this was his intent? Maybe, maybe not. People have already tried.  Colorado found he definitely meant to do it.  Others have avoided the question.  No judge has exonerated him.  And because it's the constitution itself at stake, not just some piddly little secrets of Hillary Clinton, it's definitely worth trying.

---

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

You don't know [BLEEP].

---

Nice quip, Reagan. You're so clever.

You listen to people that ascribe intent. They have no direct evidence. Everything they say is circumstantial, and it relies heavily on people having a predisposition to believing Trump (insert accusation). Comey wouldn't even prosecute Hillary after she bleached a HD with emails on it, saying she didn't know they were classified. He said he couldn't prove intent. You guys just call Trump a dictator and what people to take it as fact, with zero direct evidence. The guy is an inarticulate narcissist. He lies, especially about himself (his vision of himself). Nothing he has done has been dictatorial. Nothing. You guys start with that premise, then mold everything else to fit it. It's intellectually dishonest and borderline stupid that you can't see it.

I ascribe intent on my own.
I know that Hillary deleted emails when she knew it was illegal to do so, because she was hiding something.  And she succeeded.  We don't really know what she was hiding, even after all the WikiLeaks stuff.  Sad!  But could we prove in a court of law this was her intent? Maybe, maybe not.  Probably not worth trying.
Similarly, I know that Trump was trying to end the Constitution as we know it and make Congress bow to his mob.  We know he wanted them to do it because he asked them to do it and kept asking them to do it.  But thankfully the police and DCNG saw this effort as illegitimate and stayed loyal.  Now could I prove in a court of law this was his intent? Maybe, maybe not. People have already tried.  Colorado found he definitely meant to do it.  Others have avoided the question.  No judge has exonerated him.  And because it's the constitution itself at stake, not just some piddly little secrets of Hillary Clinton, it's definitely worth trying.

I don't know how you can believe that.

Seriously I don't get it.

He thought a few unarmed people could end the constitution of the most powerful nation on earth?

He's a billionaire. He could have bought and funded an army to storm Washington.

EDIT: it's just like the media reporting that old Jewish man that was murdered.. their headlines? Man dies.. man loses his life.. man suffers fatal head injury.

Not one mention of his murder by pro Palestine monsters. Ask yourself why? None of us are afraid of Arabs.. so why is the media afraid to report the truth?

YET they willfully and purposely continue to call January 6th an insurrection.. so you believe it

---

I ascribe intent on my own.
I know that Hillary deleted emails when she knew it was illegal to do so, because she was hiding something.  And she succeeded.  We don't really know what she was hiding, even after all the WikiLeaks stuff.  Sad!  But could we prove in a court of law this was her intent? Maybe, maybe not.  Probably not worth trying.
Similarly, I know that Trump was trying to end the Constitution as we know it and make Congress bow to his mob.  We know he wanted them to do it because he asked them to do it and kept asking them to do it.  But thankfully the police and DCNG saw this effort as illegitimate and stayed loyal.  Now could I prove in a court of law this was his intent? Maybe, maybe not. People have already tried.  Colorado found he definitely meant to do it.  Others have avoided the question.  No judge has exonerated him.  And because it's the constitution itself at stake, not just some piddly little secrets of Hillary Clinton, it's definitely worth trying.

I don't know how you can believe that.

Seriously I don't get it.

He thought a few unarmed people could end the constitution of the most powerful nation on earth?

He's a billionaire. He could have bought and funded an army to storm Washington.

Stop poking holes into his theory.. He's on a roll!!

---

I ascribe intent on my own.
I know that Hillary deleted emails when she knew it was illegal to do so, because she was hiding something.  And she succeeded.  We don't really know what she was hiding, even after all the WikiLeaks stuff.  Sad!  But could we prove in a court of law this was her intent? Maybe, maybe not.  Probably not worth trying.
Similarly, I know that Trump was trying to end the Constitution as we know it and make Congress bow to his mob.  We know he wanted them to do it because he asked them to do it and kept asking them to do it.  But thankfully the police and DCNG saw this effort as illegitimate and stayed loyal.  Now could I prove in a court of law this was his intent? Maybe, maybe not. People have already tried.  Colorado found he definitely meant to do it.  Others have avoided the question.  No judge has exonerated him.  And because it's the constitution itself at stake, not just some piddly little secrets of Hillary Clinton, it's definitely worth trying.

I don't know how you can believe that.

Seriously I don't get it.

He thought a few unarmed people could end the constitution of the most powerful nation on earth?

He's a billionaire. He could have bought and funded an army to storm Washington.

EDIT: it's just like the media reporting that old Jewish man that was murdered.. their headlines? Man dies.. man loses his life.. man suffers fatal head injury.

Not one mention of his murder by pro Palestine monsters. Ask yourself why? None of us are afraid of Arabs.. so why is the media afraid to report the truth?

YET they willfully and purposely continue to call January 6th an insurrection.. so you believe it

Maybe he's not that smart. That's one possibility.
But the more likely possibility is, he knows how revolutions work.
You clearly don't know, or you've conveniently forgotten, so let's review:
They usually start with protests by unarmed people who block the ordinary course of government or commerce by occupying spaces and refusing to leave.  That's step 1.
Step 2 is the police or national guard come.  The protestors try to persuade the police or national guard to join them.  
Step 3 is either the national guard declares that the protestors have won and their chosen person now controls government, and they fight on behalf of the protestors, or the national guard simply abandons post and leave the protestors with the keys to the armory.  Either way, the protestors don't win until step 3.
Showing up armed at step 1 doesn't end well because the national guard won't see you as helpless and sympathetic.  They don't want to shoot unarmed citizens.  They are much more willing to shoot armed ones.

If you need more details I'd be glad to help you review recent examples because they all fit this pattern.

---

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

Also one of the rules of understanding Trump is he never spends his own money. He's asking for donations today, and every day, from anyone.
Even if that wasn't one of his rules, the "private army" you suggest would not at all be secret, and the actual Army, not just the national guard, would have been on the scene if they caught wind of Trump trying to raise a private army. And the FBI would have infiltrated it within a day.

---

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

Geez, dude. It just keeps getting worse the more you speak. Trump isn't that smart, but he knows every aspect of revolutions.

---

Geez, dude. It just keeps getting worse the more you speak. Trump isn't that smart, but he knows every aspect of revolutions.

Your reading comprehension is terrible.
Try again.  It's an "or" not an "and".

---

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

My reading comprehension is fine. The or and/or and doesn't make a difference. Either way you start with the premise that orange man bad and the refute each other.

---

My reading comprehension is fine. The or and/or and doesn't make a difference. Either way you start with the premise that orange man bad and the refute each other.

I said he's either stupid, or he understands revolutions well.  I never said and.  And would be a contradiction.  Then I said he's not stupid.  Next I said he understands revolutions well.
That's just my opinion. 
But what do you think?
Is he stupid?
Or is there a third possibility I missed?  What is it?

---

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

Again, I am wasting my time trying to explain to you things I shouldn't have to. Your and and/or or does not matter, because your theory breaks down both ways. Either he's stupid, and he isn't orchestrating everything, or he's brilliant and he has the worst plan you've ever seen. Neither of those make sense. That's the "or" you live in. It's just nonsensical. The third option is that people have agency. They believe the election was stolen. They wanted the establishment to do something about it, but the establishment did not. They went to protest. Trump happens to be in agreement with those things. People went to the Capitol building, and the peaceful masses were lumped in with the relatively few dissidents, and the government is treating them as equals. They fear the people AS MUCH as they fear Trump, who actually gives the movement a face. That's the most likely scenario.

---

Again, I am wasting my time trying to explain to you things I shouldn't have to. Your and and/or or does not matter, because your theory breaks down both ways. Either he's stupid, and he isn't orchestrating everything, or he's brilliant and he has the worst plan you've ever seen. Neither of those make sense. That's the "or" you live in. It's just nonsensical. The third option is that people have agency. They believe the election was stolen. They wanted the establishment to do something about it, but the establishment did not. They went to protest. Trump happens to be in agreement with those things. People went to the Capitol building, and the peaceful masses were lumped in with the relatively few dissidents, and the government is treating them as equals. They fear the people AS MUCH as they fear Trump, who actually gives the movement a face. That's the most likely scenario.

There's somewhere in between stupid and brilliant.  That's a gradient.   It was a pretty good plan if he just had a few more protestors and a few loyalists in key positions.  You don't know what someone's loyalty is until you test it.  From a Machiavellian perspective, if you're the kind of person who is so full of charisma and room filling energy that you're never to really tell who's with you and who's just going along but not believing, it was absolutely a brilliant plan. I mean, it's not like he's being punished for what he did, so it's pretty smart all things considered.

The fact that people have agency and believe things about the election doesn't take away the fact that those people never would have organized and protested to the level that they did, on the day that they did, with the numbers that they did, and the violent threats, if Trump hadn't asked them to.  It would have been a much smaller, much tamer group if there even was a protest at all. We could go even farther and say that any of them would not believe those things about the election if Trump had not told them they were so. Agency is a tricky thing. Some people just believe what they believe, and others believe what they are told by people they trust.

---

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

It's not a good plan. It's a terrible plan. It's your plan. It's what you've concocted in your head because, without it, none of it makes sense.

---

It's not a good plan. It's a terrible plan. It's your plan. It's what you've concocted in your head because, without it, none of it makes sense.

No.
None of what *you* said makes sense.
Your posts are a blizzard of lies and non sequiturs.  Let's go point by point.

They believe the election was stolen.
They wanted the establishment to do something about it, but the establishment did not. The establishment did investigate. In fact, Josh Hawley, who the establishment hates, made two legitimate claims about the vote process on Jan 6.  Had those claims been judged favorably, Biden would have won, just by a smaller margin.  If there were more legitimate claims to be made, Hawley would have made them.  Yes there were questionable shenanigans.  No they did not affect the end result.  Biden won, Trump lost.

They went to protest. They went to break into a building while duty elected officials were performing official duties.

Trump happens to be in agreement with those things. Trump was the one who planted it in many of their minds in the first place.  

People went to the Capitol building, and the peaceful masses were lumped in with the relatively few dissidents, 2000+ is more than a few 

and the government is treating them as equals. Only the people who passed the barricades are being prosecuted. 

They fear the people AS MUCH as they fear Trump, who actually gives the movement a face. That's the most likely scenario. Anybody who wants us to select government officials by elections, and anyone who wants to run for office in those elections, should fear the people who just want to rule regardless of what elections decide.

---

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

It's not a good plan. It's a terrible plan. It's your plan. It's what you've concocted in your head because, without it, none of it makes sense.

No.
None of what *you* said makes sense.
Your posts are a blizzard of lies and non sequiturs.  Let's go point by point.

They believe the election was stolen.
They wanted the establishment to do something about it, but the establishment did not. The establishment did investigate. In fact, Josh Hawley, who the establishment hates, made two legitimate claims about the vote process on Jan 6.  Had those claims been judged favorably, Biden would have won, just by a smaller margin.  If there were more legitimate claims to be made, Hawley would have made them.  Yes there were questionable shenanigans.  No they did not affect the end result.  Biden won, Trump lost.

They went to protest. They went to break into a building while duty elected officials were performing official duties.

Trump happens to be in agreement with those things. Trump was the one who planted it in many of their minds in the first place.  

People went to the Capitol building, and the peaceful masses were lumped in with the relatively few dissidents, 2000+ is more than a few 

and the government is treating them as equals. Only the people who passed the barricades are being prosecuted. 

They fear the people AS MUCH as they fear Trump, who actually gives the movement a face. That's the most likely scenario. Anybody who wants us to select government officials by elections, and anyone who wants to run for office in those elections, should fear the people who just want to rule regardless of what elections decide.

The only one lying is you. To yourself.

---

No.
None of what *you* said makes sense.
Your posts are a blizzard of lies and non sequiturs.  Let's go point by point.

The only one lying is you. To yourself.

Which statement is a lie? Give examples.

---

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

It's not a good plan. It's a terrible plan. It's your plan. It's what you've concocted in your head because, without it, none of it makes sense.

No.
None of what *you* said makes sense.
Your posts are a blizzard of lies and non sequiturs.  Let's go point by point.

They believe the election was stolen.
They wanted the establishment to do something about it, but the establishment did not. The establishment did investigate. In fact, Josh Hawley, who the establishment hates, made two legitimate claims about the vote process on Jan 6.  Had those claims been judged favorably, Biden would have won, just by a smaller margin.  If there were more legitimate claims to be made, Hawley would have made them.  Yes there were questionable shenanigans.  No they did not affect the end result.  Biden won, Trump lost.

They went to protest. They went to break into a building while duty elected officials were performing official duties.

Trump happens to be in agreement with those things. Trump was the one who planted it in many of their minds in the first place.  

People went to the Capitol building, and the peaceful masses were lumped in with the relatively few dissidents, 2000+ is more than a few 

and the government is treating them as equals. Only the people who passed the barricades are being prosecuted. 

They fear the people AS MUCH as they fear Trump, who actually gives the movement a face. That's the most likely scenario. Anybody who wants us to select government officials by elections, and anyone who wants to run for office in those elections, should fear the people who just want to rule regardless of what elections decide.

Hey [BLEEP]... none of it has to be true for it to be the reason why it happened. That's like saying the villagers didn't go out to the field because the boy who cried wolf was lying. That's ridiculous. There is probably some merit to what you say in that if Trump had just rolled over and said the election was on the up and up, as many people wouldn't be irate. That said, he doesn't need to do that. Democrats don't do it, and Trump is a democrat. You're just too naive to realize he's playing the same game, which is why so many Republican people are drawn to him. That doesn't mean he's masterminding an insurrection. By all accounts, what you see is what you get with Trump. Yet, here you are, concocting some elaborate tale that isn't even able to be fact checked because it's all about what you THINK Trump was doing, despite the fact it's nonsensical. 

I am telling you what people did based on what people said. So, if they believe the election was stolen, it doesn't matter what Josh Hawley said. It's WHY THEY WENT THERE. It's why they said they were there. People were already at the Capitol building WHILE TRUMP WAS STILL SPEAKING. People did not leave his rally to "break into a building." Most of the people who went in were LET IN. There were a few hundred protestors who were violent, and even among them, 4 were convicted of seditious conspiracy (one who wasn't even present at the time). That's it. Of all the arrests, 4 were convicted of wanting to overthrow the government. 83 were convicted of assault. So, no... it wasn't hundreds and thousands of these people. It was a small minority. MOST people were convicted of being present that day.

https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-capit...-6-1826075

Scroll through those and educate yourself. You should shake your head at how many people served jail time for "demonstrating at the Capitol." You won't, because it's hard to shake your head while it's up your [BLEEP].

You keep telling yourself these fairy tales, bro.

---

No.
None of what *you* said makes sense.
Your posts are a blizzard of lies and non sequiturs.  Let's go point by point.

Hey [BLEEP]... none of it has to be true for it to be the reason why it happened. That's like saying the villagers didn't go out to the field because the boy who cried wolf was lying. That's ridiculous. There is probably some merit to what you say in that if Trump had just rolled over and said the election was on the up and up, as many people wouldn't be irate. That said, he doesn't need to do that. Democrats don't do it, and Trump is a democrat. You're just too naive to realize he's playing the same game, which is why so many Republican people are drawn to him. That doesn't mean he's masterminding an insurrection. By all accounts, what you see is what you get with Trump. Yet, here you are, concocting some elaborate tale that isn't even able to be fact checked because it's all about what you THINK Trump was doing, despite the fact it's nonsensical. 

I am telling you what people did based on what people said. So, if they believe the election was stolen, it doesn't matter what Josh Hawley said. It's WHY THEY WENT THERE. It's why they said they were there. People were already at the Capitol building WHILE TRUMP WAS STILL SPEAKING. People did not leave his rally to "break into a building." Most of the people who went in were LET IN. There were a few hundred protestors who were violent, and even among them, 4 were convicted of seditious conspiracy (one who wasn't even present at the time). That's it. Of all the arrests, 4 were convicted of wanting to overthrow the government. 83 were convicted of assault. So, no... it wasn't hundreds and thousands of these people. It was a small minority. MOST people were convicted of being present that day.

https://www.newsweek.com/full-list-capit...-6-1826075

Scroll through those and educate yourself. You should shake your head at how many people served jail time for "demonstrating at the Capitol." You won't, because it's hard to shake your head while it's up your [BLEEP].

You keep telling yourself these fairy tales, bro.

Yes they do.
Stacy Abrams never said "we can fix this if you 'protest' in Atlanta at this day and time".
We are starting to agree on some points,
but you're the one making stuff up, still.

Even if Trump's lies ( you won't commit to them being true) caused one extra person to show up rowdy and violent (you admitted this above), that counts as participation in an insurrection.  You've admitted it.

---

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

No, you [BLEEP] moron, it doesn't. It's well established in this country that you have freedom of speech unless you are inciting others to commit a crime. Trump did no such thing visibly, which is why you have to imagine it.

---

No, you [BLEEP] moron, it doesn't. It's well established in this country that you have freedom of speech unless you are inciting others to commit a crime. Trump did no such thing visibly, which is why you have to imagine it.

It's sad we have to recite the bill of rights

---