While Trump & GOP play their citizens for fools, internationally others aren't so gullible

When the majority of the GOP congress refused to condemn Trump's actions during his impeachment hearing for their own self serving political interests rather than upholding their sworn duty to serve, protect and defend the Constitution, don't think for a moment other nations didn't take note of that and decide 'who is' and 'who is not' easily corruptible within the Republican party to do their bidding in the future.

You mean things like the right to appeal to the government for an address of grievousness, the right of free speech, or like the right to peaceful assemble (which is what Trump told them directly to do)?

It constantly amazes me how people such as yourself completely ignore absolutely everything that occurred over a 5 year period which laid the foundations and ultimate culmination of the Capitol insurrection.

You might want to conduct some reseach into what 'is' and 'is not' considered to protected free speech. There are multiple exceptions to those laws that can land someone in prison for violating such. Inciting others to unlawful actions is just one of them as too threatening the life of President, VP, etc., among many others.

Just because Trump stated exactly ONCE about peaceful protests during his entire January 6th speech, he stated more than 20x that people needed to fight, fight like hell, etc. in that very same speech. What do think his supporters would remember most?

The man began planting seeds of doubt about the election almost 6 months prior to such because polls were showing he was not favored to win. He then doubled down on election night proclaiming he'd won when he was in the lead (due solely to counting in-person ballots first) while ignoring the fact that hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots had yet to be counted (most of which would go to the Dems because they had supported the policy of mail-ins while the GOP had mostly tried to dissuade voters from such). That is how and why the red mirage occurred and why Trump went from seemingly winning on election night to ultimately losing the election.

None any of the the things you listed are free speech exceptions as they are not calls for violence and "imminent lawless action" did not happen, as the riots where planned before Trump's speech and the rioters where not at the speech. democrats have a long history of the same language and saying Trump stole an election.

Trump also offered increased security that could have prevented the riot and it was repeatedly rejected.

In other words you have nothing but a hateful double standard pretending to be an exception for trying to take away rights from people you do not like, just the opposite of what you are whining is happening.

But enjoy your fake moral high ground.

Every single time I read any your comments, I'm reminded of a Mark Twain quote... “It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

You don't need to take my word for the fact that not all speech is actually legally protected. A simple online search would educate to such. Even Wikipedia - notorious for publishing biased facts and information - accurately cites many of those exceptions.

I have no interest in taking away anyone rights which is why I'm opposed to both gerrymandering and voter suppression but I sure as hell have a problem with any form of government corruption, no matter which party engages in such.

Trump was 100% legally defeated in the election. The entire world knows that. The only ones that refuse to believe it are his own supporters due to his lies. Even his sychophants in the media, senate, house, etc. all know the truth but continue to perpetuate his false claims for self serving social, economic and/or political interests.

LOL, you ignored where I addressed an exception to free speech you claim doesn't exist in this case and got back on your fake moral high ground to take away rights from people you hate. Then you tried to claim you don't want to take other rights from other people somehow means you don't want to in this case. See distinction without a difference.

But thanks for the ignoring facts, insulting me rather than using reason, and ending your comment by changing the subject ala red herring..

I ignored nothing. You seem to have a problem comprehending the fact that Trump's speech on January 6th - wherein he mentioned a peaceful protest ONCE yet went on to espouse fight, fight, fight more than 20x in that very same speech - telling supporters to 'stop the steal' and march on the Capitol - is somehow protected speech. It's not, particularly given his prior destructive rhetoric, which previously established both a pattern and motive for engaging in such.

Trump himself knows full well he didn't win the election, yet is playing individuals such as yourself for complete fools and knows that so long as you continue to believe in his lies, he's still able to elicit financial funding from you all (under the pretext of a stolen election) that he can use to try to save a number of businesses that are currently on the verge on bankruptcy.

While the man's completely immoral and corrupt and has been for many decades, he's not entirely stupid - highly ignorant yes - stupid, no. He knows he's now facing legal jeopardy akin to that of all those others high profile creeps who skirted the law and prosecution for decades but ultimately ended up in prison.

PS... it's not too difficult to hold a high moral high ground against those that continue to support an individual that blatantly lied about the election being stolen while simultaneously and fraudulently trying to overthrow and steal an election legitimately won by the opposition.

No, you're completely ignoring the standards of the exception to free speech, which is imminent lawless action in order to justify taking away the rights of people that you don't like. You're also ignoring that such language is very common in politicks and means something very different from what you wish to to mean.

You justify this by point to your other imagined behavior with a dose of fake mind reading and thus you mask of the fake moral high ground is slipping with your increase blood libel.

PS, I have no said anything here to support Trump, rather I'm protecting basic rights you wish to take away with your fake moral high ground, thus showing your further pretend morality.

Put it this way... discussing legal issues with you is akin to dealing with the pretzeled logic and distortions of legal principles, ethics & actual case law that both Hawley & Cruz have presented over the past few months for their own political self interests.

In their case, they know exactly what they're doing and why - which is truly disgusting - having attended law school. In your case, you're making the same foolish arguments due to surrendering your own critical thinking skills to those you perceive to be more educated than yourself, not realising the ones you are trusting to inform your decisions are completely corrupt.

So more self appealing references to irrelevant authority, huff and bluster, fake mind reading all without a basic underlying argument and facts to back it up.

LOL