Poll of the Day > The YOUNGEST Capitol Rioter SOBS and BEGS Judge to give him ANOTHER CHANCE!!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

BlackScythe0 posted...

You seem to fundamentally misunderstand the legal system of the US.

Who really does? I've never been able to afford the tuition at Harvard to have it explained to me so I begin to comprehend the immense garbage heap it has become.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Standing is important, so it isn't that a claim is disregarded due to standing. They are just told to properly file their complaint.

I don't think it is important who makes the claim. The validity of the claim should be determined regardless. And it wasn't a matter of improperly filling out the form. The courts were not willing to get involved in the election under any circumstances.

BlackScythe0 posted...

There is no court in the country that would grant the relief that was requested.

This is precisely the issue. Even if the arguments were heard, the evidence was examined, and everything was in Trump's favor the courts were not willing to do what would then be required of them. So the courts put a stop to it before anything could be proven.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Incorrect some politicians helped with a terrorist attack that attempted to overthrow our government.

I think you know we are talking about different politicians. Also this statement is rather hyperbolic. No one attempted to overthrow the government. It was a protest much like the others from the previous year and in some ways more tame. The protesters even managed to not burn down the city or declare independence from the rest of the country.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Multiple claims were debunked.

I know the news outlets kept saying it was debunked. I have yet to hear how, or by who it was debunked.

BlackScythe0 posted...

Incorrect, there was rumors of ballots left in dumpsters.

Incorrect, the postal workers responsible were found and admitted that they had gotten lazy, throwing out the rest of the mail instead of finishing their rounds. They just happened to be transporting mail-in ballots which breaks the chain of custody.

BlackScythe0 posted...

there is that very famous court exchange where a judge presses a lawyer hard with his status in the bar and the lawyer is forced to admit there were observers there before the judge asks "then what is your problem?"

Is this the the one I heard about where the judge only cared that observers were in the building and couldn't understand how they were still being impeded? That example doesn't improve confidence in the courts.

---

BlackScythe0 posted...

postal inspectors looked into it (federal law enforcement) said he recanted. Dude said he didn't and would release more the next day and I never heard anything else from him.

Are you suggesting they killed him?

BlackScythe0 posted...

I mentioned at least two cases were it was.

I'll take your word for that since I have no way of verifying your examples.

BlackScythe0 posted...

I would actually need proof from you to be able to believe no investigation occurred

Apparently I don't receive the same courtesy. So how would I do that? Maybe go back in time and film all the moments the courts aren't addressing the concerns of voters. You say the issues were resolved. Where is your proof showing how that was done?

BlackScythe0 posted...

The election results were disputed despite there being no reason to call it into question

There were 4 years of the democrats crying about election integrity, ignoring due process when it suits them, and talk of doing away with the electoral college as well as the constitution itself.
The news outlets were proven unreliable in several high profile stories. They are biased and arrogant. When they say something is so there is no reason to take their word for it.
The courts demonstrated cowardice and shirked their responsibilities. They feared both what might be required of them as well as threats against them and their family.

BlackScythe0 posted...

you have clearly demonstrated that you are not willing to engage in reasoned discussion

I think you're using a subjectively narrow definition of reasoned here that precludes my own agency in this discussion.

---

Zareth posted...

Not when we're in the midst of a fucking pandemic they shouldn't.

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/mask
---

Zeus posted...

"The severity of what he did"? >_> Technically what he did was trespass in a government building

He personally admitted to "storming the capitol," "physically fighting [his] way in," and "attack[ing] the swamp rats," and his charges include assaulting a federal officer. You should really read these things before trying to summarize them. You'll look a lot less silly, to say nothing of how absurd it looks to ignore that this was a blatant terrorist attack for the sake of undermining a fair election by assassinating high-level government officials.

Zeus posted...

...and he wasn't put on trial because people believed he had broken any law, but because they had objected to his existence and had sought to have him impeached before he even took office. In fact, the decision to vote against the proceedings was less partisan than to vote for it.

He was put on trial for fabricating the sole motivation these rioters had for their attack. Trump crafted the "stolen election" myth out of whole cloth. There was never any actual evidence of meaningful fraud (and, for that matter, most of what little fraud has been conclusively determined to have happened was in Trump's favour). Had Trump not invented the story, there would have been no basis for attacking the capitol (unless somebody else propagated the same lie, in which case they'd be similarly responsible), therefore he can be said to be at fault for it.

Quite simply, Trump is as guilty of the attack on the capitol as Manson is of serial murder. McConnell himself said he didn't vote to acquit him because he felt he was innocent, but some nonsense excuse about not liking the wording of the charges (translation: "I didn't want my buddies thinking I wouldn't have their back if they ever did anything similarly wrong").

---

adjl posted...

Quite simply, Trump is as guilty of the attack on the capitol as Manson is of serial murder.

Manson wanted to start a race war.
Trump wanted to stop government funding of critical race theory.
Biden then brought it back.
I think the progressives that have taken over would convict Trump and pardon Manson.

---

Full Throttle posted...

We never would have gone to Washington if we would have known things would have turned violent"

not one single thing forced this kid to participate when it did become a riot, he willingly did participated in the insurrection attempt.

---

Revelation34 posted...

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/mask

I'm sorry, what was the CDC saying about gathering in large groups during the election? OH FUCK, THAT WE SHOULDN'T!

Arcturusisnow posted...

I'm sorry, what was the CDC saying about gathering in large groups during the election? OH FUCK, THAT WE SHOULDN'T!

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/3-poll-of-the-day/79334799/951471104
---