Democrats don't care about the law. Anything that keeps Trump out of the White House, legal or not is all that matters.

Yes... ignore the fact that she was there shooting a documentary... and ignore the fact it takes a lot of time to get shooting a documentary inside the Capitol permission and setup, so it was planned...

Yes... they did dress for the occasion... 😂

Something the DC police noted... 😂😂

"And that makes him not look so bad...as long as you ignore everything else he said"

Pray tell, what did Trump say that was so bad? Did he say "just kidding" after he called peace? Did he said "What I definitely do NOT want you to do" just before he said to obey the law and support the Capitol police?

He did NOT call for a riot. He did NOT call for an insurrection.

"The election wasn't stolen and they weren't protesting, they were trying to stop the certification of the election. The event was called "stop the steal". They wanted to use force and intimidation to stop politicians from certifying the results of the 2020 election."

But the election was stolen. There is just far too much proof of that and it is just so painfully obvious that it was stolen. So how would you expect any American to act when an election was stolen?

When has an insurrection ever NOT been armed? It doesn't have to be with firearms. In medieval times they used what ever they could get their hands on to fight with.

But that entire point is moot because Jan 6th was NOT an insurrection. It was NOT an attempt to overthrow the government.

"The FBI wouldn't need to do that because plenty of Trump supporters showed up that day ready to commit violence. We know this because they said so themselves."

But that is NOT what the FBI did. Nor was what was happening under the jurisdiction of the FBI. There was no reason for the FBI to be there. This falls under the jurisdiction of the Capitol Police Board and the National Park Service. The FBI were caught, on camera, telling people to storm the Capitol Bldg.

You'll have to point me to who said they were there to commit violence because that is not what I have heard. Citing the Declaration of Independence is not a call to violence unless our government becomes tyrannical.

"False. Numerous rioters had weapons with them. And others used what they could find as weapons (like barricades)"

FBI operatives were armed. One guy had a hand gun in the trunk of his car which was parked far away. So you mean the barricades where used as weapons when the Capitol Police helped the protestors move the barricades? I saw the videos. Barricades were not used as weapons.

The Democrat Party is immoral, unethical and lacks any kind of integrity. There is just nothing good about the Democrat party. And the Republican Party is not far behind them.

Excellent rebuttals. And nobody on the right wants to talk about the fact that Trump watvhed it on teevee for over three hours without making a move to end it, despite pleas from his advisors and even his own family members.

I disagree.

Tell me about trump watching it on tv for 3 hours.

I will engage you, and only you, on the topic.

Go ahead.

I'm all eyes.

You know...'cause you're typing.

There were eyewitnesses. And he even did a running commentary while watching, saying things like he agreed with the mob that wanted to hang Pence. If you have a differing version of what he was doing during those three hours, let's see it. We do know that he wasn't doing anything to stop it.

That's it?

Some hearsay?

Nothing more concrete or verifiable?

That was not very informative.

One of your like minded comrades was arguing the other day that the capitol building is the responsibility of, and controlled by, the speaker of the house who has no requirement to notify the president of anything that occurs on that campus.

Is that individual incorrect?

The president IS responsible when some people do some things at the capitol?

Perhaps there is some sort of rule of law that I am not aware of that could clear this up.

I'll do a lil research later.

That's all they ever have...

Trump helped out the Antfia/BLM insurrectionists??? I wasn't aware of that. That's the only insurrection that happened in recent times.

Because in two different speeches, one on Jan 5th and another on Jan 6th before the riot, Trump called for peace and he called for supporting the Capitol Police.

A lot of good that did because the Capitol Police were ordered to start firing flash grenades and rubber bullets in the protesters in order to start a riot. And that is all they started.

And insurrection is an armed conflict with the insurrectionists attempting to over throw the government.

Technically speaking there cannot ever be an insurrection in this country because of the Declaration of Independence. It states: "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government"

And the 14th amendment used the wrong word to describe the North's punishment of the South when the called the CSA insurrectionists. The CSA at no point ever tried to overthrow the government. Their sole objective was the LEAVE the USA, not over throw it. They should have punished the South by calling them secessionists, not insurrectionists.

No matter, Trump is not guilty of either. It was a riot plain and simple. There is just no other way to describe it. No one, absolutely no one, showed up in DC that day to overthrow the government. The people on the right are the only ones who want to preserve our government. The left wants some moronic Marxist regime and their insurrection is happening by bits and pieces, not a violent overthrow. The left's insurrection has been going on for over a century.

The Antifa/BLM insurrection happened when they took over by force sections of Portland, Seattle and other cities. And they were armed.

They wanted to end our Constitutional Republic and replace it with a communist government. They failed only because they missed their mommies too much. They missed all the comforts that capitalism provides for them.

What's to ignore about Trump's speech? I think you need to find actual transcriptions of his speeches and read them. Just because Rachel Maddox or Don Lemon says that Trump used treasonous speech doesn't mean he actually did use treasonous speech. The mainstream media refused to air those speeches when they happened.

The left's plan to ease us bit by bit into Marxism is not an insurrection in the conventional sense. It is just as treasonous and it is just as anti-American as you can get.

I know you guys think it's nuts but that's because you don't know history and you cannot recognize the Marxism you take for granted. You think it is how America should be.

Here's a fun thing for you to do. Go find an online copy of the 1928 Nazi Party platform. Count the number of items you agree with. And when you find out that Dems are more Nazi than American then maybe, just maybe , you'll understand what the right is talking about.

"civil authority" or " established government"

The "relevant part"? Are there irrelevant parts?

Show me. What section, article and clause says that a person can be disqualified from running for president for no reason at all? The only "no reason at all" qualifying factor is the person much be a naturalized citizen, born here or a parent who was born here and they must be 35 years old or older. Trump was born here and he is over 35 years old.

If Trump hasn't committed a crime then why is he being disqualified? It makes absolutely no sense at all that you would think there is some "relevant part" of the Constitution that permits disqualifying a president for nothing.

Is this a new secret constitution that the Democrats have invented to run the country with? If this is an alternate constitution then all the parts in it are irrelevant.

Hating Trump is NOT a valid reason.

Was the Civil War about an insurrection or a secession? There is a difference. The South was trying to overthrow the U S. Government. They were trying to leave the United States all together. They would have done it peacefully but the North didn't want them to go. You see, while the North made a big stink over slavery, what they really wanted was not not lose their agricultural base. They wanted to continue to benefit from slave labor by trying to hold the Union together.

Granted, Lincoln did want to end slavery and that was the purpose of the Republican Party but overall the north wanted the benefits of slave labor without supporting slavery.

Just like how we benefit from Chinese slaves today. And how Democrat politicians benefit from child sex slavery.

Hold up playa!

The south wasn't trying to overthrow the US Government, they were simply wishing to separate from the United States over the issue of slavery - but not the way everyone thinks.

It was about slavery in the new territories. 😯

Then some people did some things and war broke out.

That war is the "insurrection" referenced in the Constitutional amendment #14...passed and ratified within 2 years after the war ended.

Everybody is overlooking the obvious in the amendment...read it carefully.

Read it again and ponder every sentence.

Lemme know what you come up with.

Just for fun:
(Nay sayers do your own search for "evidence" or "proof". Nothing I provide will ever be considered adequate.)

While the southern slaves were freed at the end of the "northern aggression" and given seized land, the northern slaves remained enslaved. (Watch who loses their minds over that phrase 🤭)

But a few days after Lincoln announced he was giving blacks the right to vote he was murdered.

A democrat president took over, took back the seized land and returned it to the previous white owners, and did not give blacks the right to vote.

History in history books sheds a favorable light on the victor, not necessarily the noble.

Keep standing for what you believe.

Partial List Of Democrat officials convicted of sex crimes with minors.
Democratic Illinois State Representative, Keith Farnham, has resigned and was charged with possession of child pornography and has been accused of bragging at an online site about sexually molesting a 6-year-old girl.

Democratic spokesperson for the Arkansas Democratic Party, Harold Moody, Jr, was charged with distribution and possession of child pornography.

Democratic Radnor Township Board of Commissioners member, Philip Ahr, resigned from his position after being charged with possession of child pornography and abusing children between 2 and 6 years-old.

Democratic activist and BLM organizer, Charles Wade, was arrested and charged with human trafficking and underage prostitution.

Democratic Texas attorney and activist, Mark Benavides, was charged with having sex with a minor, inducing a child under 18 to have sex and compelling prostitution of at least nine legal clients and possession of child pornography. He was found guilty on six counts of sex trafficking.

Democratic Virginia Delegate, Joe Morrissey, was indicted on charges connected to his relationship with a 17-year-old girl and was charged with supervisory indecent liberties with a minor, electronic solicitation of a minor, possession of child pornography and distribution of child pornography.

Democratic Massachusetts Congressman, Gerry Studds, was censured by the House of Representatives after he admitted to an inappropriate relationship with a 17-year-old page.

Democratic Former Mayor of Stillwater, New York, Rick Nelson was plead guilty to five counts of possession of child pornography of children less than 16 years of age.

Democratic Former Mayor of Clayton, New York, Dale Kenyon, was indicted for sexual acts against a teenager.

Democratic Former Mayor of Hubbard, Ohio, Richard Keenan, was given a life sentence in jail for raping a 4-year-old girl.

Democratic Former Mayor of Winston, Oregon, Kenneth Barrett, was arrested for setting up a meeting to have sex with a 14-year-old girl who turned out to be a police officer.

Democratic Former Mayor of Randolph, Nebraska, Dwayne L. Schutt, was arrested and charged with four counts of felony third-degree sexual assault of a child and one count of intentional child abuse.

Democratic Former Mayor of Dawson, Georgia, Christopher Wright, was indicted on the charges of aggravated child molestation, aggravated sodomy, rape, child molestation and statutory rape of an 11-year-old boy and a 12-year-old girl.

Democratic Former Mayor of Stockton, California, Anthony Silva, was charged with providing alcohol to young adults during a game of strip poker that included a 16-year-old boy at a camp for underprivileged children run by the mayor.

Democratic Former Mayor of Millbrook, New York, Donald Briggs, was arrested and charged with inappropriate sexual contact with a person younger than 17.

Democratic party leader for Victoria County, Texas, Stephen Jabbour, plead guilty to possession and receiving over half a million child pornographic images.

Democratic activist and fundraiser, Terrence Bean, was arrested on charges of sodomy and sex abuse in a case involving a 15-year-old boy and when the alleged victim declined to testify, and the judge dismissed the case.

Democratic Party Chairman for Davidson County, Tennessee, Rodney Mullin, resigned amid child pornography allegations.

Democratic activist, Andrew Douglas Reed, pleaded guilty to a multiple counts of 2nd-degree sexual exploitation of a minor for producing child pornography.

Democratic official from Terre Haute, Indiana, David Roberts was sentenced to federal prison for producing and possessing child pornography including placing hidden cameras in the bedrooms and bathrooms at a home he shared with two minor female victims.

Democratic California Congressman, Tony Cárdenas, is being sued in LA County for allegedly sexually abused a 16-year-old girl.

Democratic aide to Senator Barbara Boxer, Jeff Rosato, plead guilty to charges of trading in child pornography.

Democratic Alaskan State Representative, Dean Westlake, resigned from his seat after the media published a report alleging he fathered a child with a 16-year-old girl when he was 28.

Democratic New Jersey State Assemblyman, Neil Cohen, was convicted of possession and distribution of child pornography.

Republicans living in a glass house and throwing stones...

I got 48 - get this - for insulting the child rapists on the list!!!!!

WTF?

Yup!

I posted a list of convicted pederasts and rapists who happen to be Republicans, as well as another of quotes (both are still above). If I made a blanket statement about the party membership, sure, ok, then I'm stereotyping a group and slagging them. But both were lists that named specific people and what they did or said. That's what my comments were in regards to.

Meanwhile, those were in reply to the OP's comment as seen in the screenshot, specifically the last sentence. HE's making a blanket statement about the Democrats, which is bogus, ludicrous, heinous as well as slanderous, yet it's still up above.

Other comments of his likewise make unfounded claims, but again, with impunity.

Well, you getting a timer for that is just plain injustice. The mods obviously have two different sets of rules.

Republican insanity on full display.

It's just so weird. What nightmare alternated universe are they from?

Bizarro World

"The North would have still had the agricultural base that was their own"

Yes, there were farmers in the North. But just like how California out produces all other states combined in agriculture, the South was out producing the North for the same reason. Longer growing seasons. The North was mostly industrial while the South was mostly agricultural.

Welfare saved the South???? No, FDR did nothing for the South. The South, like you said, became close to a 3rd world country until a lot more recently. What really helped the South was liberals. Liberals ran businesses out of all of the liberal states and drove them into the red states. That is why Atlanta will soon overtake New York City (if it hasn't already) in everything. It is liberals who have caused a mass migration OUT of California. Liberals have made the cities, counties and states they control unlivable. And the left refuses to see that. I just do not know why. I guess their still all living in their fairy tale utopia playing with unicorns and bunny rabbits.

The North was mostly industrial? In the mid 1800s?

Cash crops. Tobacco. Cotton. Sugar in the Caribbean Slaves weren't brought here because peaches and wheat were so utterly difficult for farm owners to handle.

Tax incentives and subsidies - paid by the Northern tapayer, mind you - were used to lure manufacture, and retail, etc, to the South, as them folks still haven't been able to anything on their own economic-wise since slavery ended other than some really swell BBQ joints and Moonshine. Sorry, Pulled Pork didn't exactly make America an economic powerhouse.

Carib slaves belonged to the French.

There was industry in the north...coal mines, factories, mills, timbering

"The push to abolish slavery had a lot of momentum by 1861"

It had a lot of momentum in 1776 also. Of the 13 original states, 10 of them were willing to end slavery. 2 states objected to ending slavery. Had we not capitulated to those 2 states they would have sided with England or stayed out it, during the Revolutionary war. Nearly all of the founding fathers were opposed to slavery. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both wanted to end slavery even though they own slaves.

"Lincoln is on record as saying that if keeping slavery would've kept the union together, he would've been fine with keeping slavery"

I've read that quote before by Lincoln. Lincoln was not the great emancipator that everyone credits him with. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed the slaves in the parts of the country that fought against the Union. If they fought with the Union they were allowed to keep their slaves.

Lincoln wasn't perfect but I think as the war went on he became more vocal about ending slavery. And the 13th and 14th amendments were ratified while he was still alive.

"Right, because no Republican has been caught abusing children?"

Here is the reason why I said what I said about Democrats. For one we don't know who is in Epstein's client list. There's no doubt some high ranking Republicans in there as well but it is my belief that the reason why it will never be released is because the Dems are scared to death to let that get out.

The other reason that cemented it was the Democrats reaction to the movie "the Sound of Freedom". They went nuts and called it a QAnon conspiracy. They did everything they could to discredit the movie. Why? Because the Dems are the ones who are keeping the human trafficking going. That is the reason why the Dems are so lax on the border issue. They keep making it about race but it never had anything to do with race and the Dems know that. If millions of Canadians started flooding across our border the response would be the same.

No the Dems want that border wide open specifically for the drug and human trafficking and no other reason. They don't care that hundreds of thousands of Muslims have crossed our border illegally. Now I am not saying that all Muslims are terrorists but what I am saying is how would we know if they were or were not. The hundreds of thousands are just the ones we caught.

Why aren't we allowed to vet those who want to immigrate to America? Why is that such a hard thing for Dems to get.

"So for all you know, there could be an equal number of Republicans and Democrats on the list, or there could be more Republicans on the list"

Yep. And they should all be rotting in prison. I'm not a Republican.

"Not only is the movie an unrealistic and sensationalized story, but people who actually work to help victims of human trafficking have said that the movie does more harm than good by portraying an unrealistic image of the issue."

Well then. I guess I'll have to watch the movie to see if it is doing any of that. I haven't seen it because I just don't want that kind of depression in my life. I do not suffer from depression but everyone can get depressed every now and then. Like when the Chiefs lost to the Raiders last week. What was that about? The Raiders suck but they made the Chiefs look like a high school football team. Anyway. I just don't like movies about tragic events.

But the intention of the movie was NOT about harming the movement. It was about exposing human trafficking and showing how evil it is. The movie is based on actual events. I have no idea if the events were embellished or not but do they have to be? Seriously. What could be worse then a child being kidnapped and forced into sex slavery? Human trafficking is just getting worse. It is worse, in numbers, then the human trafficking of Africans to the Americas in all the years slavery was legal in the countries that allowed slavery.

ANY movie that tries to call attention to this growing horror should not be criticized, it should be praised. People need to be more aware of this problem and the government needs to put their best effort into stopping it instead of helping it.

It is the left who criticizes this movie because it is the left who are engaged in sex slavery of children. And you, yourself, are spreading the leftist talking points without even considering what that means.

"I could just as easily say Republicans want to keep human trafficking going, which is why Greg Abbott doesn't do more to close off the southern border in Texas."

You do know that the states don't have autonomy on the border. The US Border Patrol is controlled by the Federal Government.

What Abbott and others are doing is brilliant. They are shipping the illegals off to blue states and blue "sanctuary" cities. Liberals are too isolated from the problem. They need to see it first hand. They need to see the financial costs that border states have been forced to pay.

Yes, there are more people on the planet than there were back in the days of African slavery but the fact that there are more sex slaves than African slaves should not be dismissed. This is one of the most disgusting and repulsive crimes there is. Anyone convicted of human trafficking should get the death penalty if they are prosecuted in America. If they are foreign nationals who were found guilty on American soil there should be no extradition, just the death penalty. And we need to shut that border down as tight as we can. No excuses. No calling people racist for doing this. It is NOT about race. It is about what our economy can take, it is about drugs and it is about sex slavery. I know Biden is working on collapsing our economy and allowing illegals to cross our border in the millions while at the same time handing out millions in cash to support those who are here illegally. This is a horrible and entirely unnecessary burden on the taxpayer. One that is causing massive harm to our economy and the American people.

"'It is the left who criticizes this movie because it is the left who are engaged in sex slavery of children'

Not even remotely accurate and I'm sure you know it. Why would you say something that untrue?"

Not all of them. But it does beg the question of why do so many attack this movie? I know there is a huge percent that just mindlessly follow the party narrative and don't even think things through. But behind those lies the real pedophiles. The ones who promote and support human trafficking.

After all the goal of those hard core pedos on the left has always been to mainstream pedophilia. They've already given them a euphemism, "minor attracted persons".

I have no doubt that some Republicans support human trafficking also. They just aren't vocal about it. Politicians are some of the scummiest people. Not all but many are.

Yep. Trump has already shown he can't be trusted with any sort of security clearance.
I used to have SCI clearance and if I behaved like he's behaving I'd be out of the SCIF door on my butt.