Make Trump accountable before midterms

[promethean75]

Well, did you not, Walker?

[Walker]

You sound quite emotional.

Sure, I saw that. That was caused by insufficient security.

But I didn't see an insurrection. No guns.

You obviously have not investigated the matter very closely.

[Walker]

There was inadequate security because at the time, the Democrats were on record supporting the Defund The Police movement. That much we do know. Given Pelosi’s record, it’s highly likely, but will not be investigated, that she had other motives for not beefing up the security, Biff.

Now, if Trump had been in charge of security at the Capitol, there would have been no monkeys (Minkies) climbing the walls. Why? Because that’s a man who gets things done, and does the right thing.

Just look at all the good things he did for the country, that Biden and his voters wrecked.

Trump tried to help in the preparations for the day, but he was turned down. Why? The answer has not been investigated under oath, and it will not be investigated under oath in a court of law. At least, that's my prediction.

But, if you pay close attention and think clearly, the clouds will part, the sun will shine, the music will play, and you will have the proper perspective to see not only what is glaringly obvious, but you will see into the shadows, with your mind. Cue mysterious twilight zone music.

(I've heard I'm incomprehensible, so speak up if you don't understand.)

[Walker]

btw: If you don't speak up, I won't infer that you understand, or agree.

(I've heard I'm incomprehensible, so speak up if you don't understand.)

[commonsense]

You sound quite emotional.

Sure, I saw that. That was caused by insufficient security.

But I didn't see an insurrection. No guns.

You obviously have not investigated the matter very closely.

An insurrection doesn’t require guns—look it up.

Insufficient security did not cause an insurrection.

What the Sargeant at Arms failed to do and failed to inform the Speaker of was the Sargeant’s fault and should be grounds for his dismissal.

[commonsense]

There was inadequate security because at the time, the Democrats were on record supporting the Defund The Police movement. That much we do know. Given Pelosi’s record, it’s highly likely, but will not be investigated, that she had other motives for not beefing up the security, Biff.

Now, if Trump had been in charge of security at the Capitol, there would have been no monkeys (Minkies) climbing the walls. Why? Because that’s a man who gets things done, and does the right thing.

Just look at all the good things he did for the country, that Biden and his voters wrecked.

Trump tried to help in the preparations for the day, but he was turned down. Why? The answer has not been investigated under oath, and it will not be investigated under oath in a court of law. At least, that's my prediction.

But, if you pay close attention and think clearly, the clouds will part, the sun will shine, the music will play, and you will have the proper perspective to see not only what is glaringly obvious, but you will see into the shadows, with your mind. Cue mysterious twilight zone music.

(I've heard I'm incomprehensible, so speak up if you don't understand.)

I understand that you are completely delusional concerning the attempted coup. Your wishes do not make it so, sir.

[commonsense]

btw: If you don't speak up, I won't infer that you understand, or agree.

(I've heard I'm incomprehensible, so speak up if you don't understand.)

Because I speak up I neither agree nor misunderstand.

You, however are fixated on blaming those who were victimized and defending those who are responsible.

Defund the police, which really just amounts to balancing their budget because “defund” is a major misnomer, has nothing to do with the number of extra police who were on duty that day.

BTW, when I tire of conversing with you and your alternate set of facts, and quit responding at that point, it will not mean you accomplished anything. It will just mean you’re exasperatingly unable to participate in a rational discussion.

[Walker]

btw: If you don't speak up, I won't infer that you understand, or agree.

(I've heard I'm incomprehensible, so speak up if you don't understand.)

Because I speak up I neither agree nor misunderstand.

You, however are fixated on blaming those who were victimized and defending those who are responsible.

Defund the police, which really just amounts to balancing their budget because “defund” is a major misnomer, has nothing to do with the number of extra police who were on duty that day.

BTW, when I tire of conversing with you and your alternate set of facts, and quit responding at that point, it will not mean you accomplished anything. It will just mean you’re exasperatingly unable to participate in a rational discussion.

Oh come on now. Don't be fixated on telling me what I'm thinking or what I mean. But speaking of that ...

This article appeared on my machine. Lo and behold, it agrees with me that the purpose of the whole farce is to keep Trump out of the White House, at all costs.

So I said to myself, Self , I've heard that I'm incomprehensible. But this here fella, he says it real good.

So I said to myself, commonsense is going to like this article. However, that was before I realized you were into telling other people what they think. Sheesh. You could at least ask.

Here’s a taste:

They Can't Let Him Back In
Michael Anton
https://compactmag.com/article/they-can ... im-back-in
Now, I personally believe that such a charge (seditious conspiracy) would be ludicrous. Seditious conspiracy, when it is charged at all, which it rarely was before Jan. 6, is typically reserved for the likes of Omar “Blind Sheikh” Abdel-Rahman, who tried to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993. And they are going to try it against a former president, for phone calls and texts ambiguously connected to a protest in which many walked through doors held open by Capitol Police, minimal property damage occurred, the only people who died were unarmed protesters, and which may have been a setup, or at least egged-on, by the feds.

(I've heard I'm incomprehensible, so speak up if you don't understand.)

[Walker]

An insurrection doesn’t require guns—look it up.

Insufficient security did not cause an insurrection.

Oh, rest assured, I did look up the dictionary definition.
And then, I looked at reality.

The hearing is not a serious affair. It's relying on the ignorance of the population to have an effect. Apparently it's working on some folks.

[Walker]

btw: If you don't speak up, I won't infer that you understand, or agree.

(I've heard I'm incomprehensible, so speak up if you don't understand.)

Because I speak up I neither agree nor misunderstand.

You, however are fixated on blaming those who were victimized and defending those who are responsible.

Defund the police, which really just amounts to balancing their budget because “defund” is a major misnomer, has nothing to do with the number of extra police who were on duty that day.

BTW, when I tire of conversing with you and your alternate set of facts, and quit responding at that point, it will not mean you accomplished anything. It will just mean you’re exasperatingly unable to participate in a rational discussion.

Regarding that tagline, and the clarification of your potential responses:

I heard it from the same little birdie that there’s more than one layer to that onion. The clever bird said that neural pathways scorched by decades of irony could cause the syndrome of opposites, at least that’s what I thought it said. The beak made him say some things kinda funny. Not funny haha, but funny that I had to decipher the meaning.

The syndrome of opposites is also known by the cumbersome name of “Counterintuitiveness.” That sometimes gets passed off as philosophy. It can also be seen in changing word definitions so that for instance, “bad” becomes “good”, and “sick” becomes “good”.

To carry that same principle further and to extrapolate out into the real world of propaganda, war becomes peace, and evil becomes good. Currently in the news, Brandon and company are broadcasting that there is not a recession in the good old USofA.

Ancillary to this, to see what Progressives are up to, just listen to their accusations. Their own actions invariably match with the accusations pointed at others, even telling others what they think, what their values are, and continuing that vein of nonsense in other ways.

In fact, the hearings that serve as political fodder to keep Trump out of office, are themselves a non-violent insurrection against both the spirit of law and the rule of law.

Buddha advises to look to the meaning, and not the words.

These days, Buddha’s advice vs. the noise of Progressive propaganda is like a whisper in a Chicago shootout on a Saturday night.

[Walker]

I understand that you are completely delusional concerning the attempted coup. Your wishes do not make it so, sir.

I challenge your understanding, with facts and reasoning that refute the misapprehension of delusion. Your response will be self-explanatory regarding your capacity, sir. My request is that you take it in the objective spirit and goodwill in which it is transmitted, which is indicated by the smile. To space, or not to space? That is the question. To space allows more room for invalidators to isolate thoughts from the whole and thus not consider the whole, and thus to nor relate the isolated response to the whole. (It's a cheap trick). To not space makes reading more difficult for the comprehension-challenged and causes them to show their shoe-size by throwing-up their hands and saying … “Gee willickers, I just don’t have a clue. This is incomprehensible.” Or saying something to that effect with the more limited vocabulary of cursing. To space, or not to space? Hmmm. Yes, that is the question. And the answer is …

[Walker]

- The purpose of an insurrection is to overthrow a government. The rioters were not trying to violently overthrow the government. Without guns, they knew they wouldn’t have enough violence to overthrow the government.

- The purpose of challenging the certification of votes, which the Democrats do just about every time they lose a big election, is to follow the rules.

- To follow the rules is to preserve the government.

- Thus, Trump was following the rules, and Pence betrayed the attempt to preserve the government.

- A legitimate challenge to certification requires the procedure of a senator’s signature, which the Democrats don’t get for all their challenges.

- The Republican challenge to the certification of the 2020 election was legitimate because procedures were followed. Signatures were on the dotted line, thus the protest was more than just a hooting and a hollering by the disappointed losers, who actually had not lost because the votes had yet to be certified by Pence.

- Legally, the challenge to the certification was a valid challenge, and more than that, it was necessary.

- Why? Because there was much, much evidence of various voting irregularities, of various kinds, that stunk to high heaven, that’s why.

- The purpose of marching on the capitol, was to encourage VP Pence to do his constitutional duty, and suspend some of the state certifications for the purpose of further investigation into voting irregularities. This would have been a legitimate challenge by Pence, had the proceedings not been interrupted by a riot.

- The intent of protesting was not to overthrow the government with an insurrection.
- The purpose was to give Pence some spine to do his duty, and preserve the process of the government, which was his sworn duty.

- According to eyewitnesses of the initial breaching of the barriers and the monkey climbs, there was on-scene coordination of the riot in the initial stages. There were many attempts by the protesters to stop the evil-doers.

- However, it quickly became an aping of the riots of the previous summer in the cities … riots which were condoned by the Democrats … it quickly became mob violence.

- A violent insurrection to overthrow the government is not the type of mob violence that was encouraged by Democrats in 2020 with the riots in the cities, and the sanctioned calls to Defund the Police (essentially do away with law and order). However, it was violence on a much larger scale, an endemic scale, and it was condoned.

- The optics of Democrats condoning the violence in the cities by allowing the violence to happen, and the Democrats failure to condemn the movement to defund the police and even support the movement in some cases … was obviously a factor why the security was not beefed up for the anticipated crowd on Jan. 6, Biff.

- They knew, Pelosi knew, everyone knew ... that the crowd would be large because Trump was hugely popular.

- (Asserting that optics was not a factor after calling to Defund the Police shall always be just a baseless assertion, because there will be no investigation linking it to Pelosi, queen of the optics, a title earned by her tearing up the State of the Union address during Trump’s presidency, with her massively powerful wrists.

- Thus, there is no evidence, and there is no reasoning, that Trump was part of any coordinated effort to overthrow the government with an unarmed, violent insurrection.

- Those are the facts, even though folks wish them away with feeble attempts, such as the befriending of Cheney.

(Even befriending the demonized name is a knee-slapper. )

[Walker]

Well, did you not, Walker?

I responded. This obligates you, because you're a decent person. I'll let you know the payment, and when. It need not be here in this thread, since I pretty much summed up the misapprehension of the thread title and you'd just be whistling Dixie. It will be on a topic of your interest, so there will be no need for research. Don't worry ...

I'll just expect your best, like you promised when you arrived.

[Walker]

Now, here’s a real example of an alternative fact.

It’s found in the propaganda universe where the Left lives, and it’s found in the beliefs of their minions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6W6AjGxxOc