You are of course entitled to interpret the evidence in another way if you choose to, although the meaning seems pretty self-evident to most.

What you cannot do is deny that the evidence exists when it is there in plain sight, spoken and written by Trump and his inner circle.

Criticising it in the way I have cannot in any way be described as "hate speech", which was the ridiculous accusation made.

"abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, or sexual orientation."

How does what I say fit that? I am not even prejudiced against Trump when my criticisms are all based on known facts.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Seems even this specimen was too much for Rudy.

‘In her appearance before the house, Carone earned the rare distinction of making claims that were too bizarre for Rudy Giuliani, who has become a fount of unhinged election conspiracy theories in recent weeks.

Giuliani, who sat next to Carone at the Michigan hearing, was heard shushing her as she loudly spoke over a state representative, and could be seen wincing during some of her account of witnessing fraud.’

Or, maybe, he’s in on it too...

I wonder who is next in line to be paid up, doped up and wheeled out

It’s all becoming a sort of weird game where they all seem to be trying to outdo each other - a competition to see who can make the most outlandish claim. Such claims is fine as long as you have some, or in this case any, supporting facts or evidence. Wouldn’t you have reported that at the time? Or at least taken a photo of it. Live-streamed it, whatever

Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

So despite Antifa and BLM being involved in months of rioting. Yet for you, the groups have to be illegal for the Democrats to justifiably criticise them.

Yet, the Democrats can criticise the Proud Boys, who weren't involved in burning down cities and insist the President condemn them.

And apparently I'm the one talking BS?

Your double standards are as plain as the nose on your face.....you know, that incredibly long hooter you have.

[Link]

[Link]

Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Dec 2020 8.49am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Most of the demonstrations and riots occurred in Democratic areas. In some cases they went on for weeks and the local politicians declined to use more force e.g. Seattle CHAZ and Portland.

I said at the time it was ridiculous that the protestors were complaining about Trump who legally is not responsible for local policing and they ignored the fact that the Democrats were in power and were accountable for policing in those areas.

Still orange man bad.

It suited the Democrats to let those cities burn otherwise why would they reject Trumps offer of assistance and in some cases threaten legal action if he sent in the national guard.

Disgraceful dereliction of duty which I can only put down to politics, how many decent people lost their businesses or even their lives.

Now that the Democrats have won the BLM are no longer needed, more fool them for not going after the right people.

One more point

Yup blm will slink away or be pushed away as bad for business. Antifa might start going the same way when links between them and dems come to light.
Lunch time!

It has nothing to do with what I say. It only has to do with what Trump and his inner circle say and do. That is the evidence. It self evidently exists for all.

What conclusions are drawn as a consequence obviously varies, although I am confident that a large majority would agree with the thrust of my own opinions.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.