🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@wishgranter14

not really.. yes there is a lot of disinformation, and that disinformation poured in from both sides, so neither gets to play the good guy in that respect, though I admit liberals are a bit more guilty of that the last 4 years, but when a democrat president is in the republicans are the more guilty party in that regard.. either way both sides did it in spades.

There were virtually no illegal election changes. All changes were perfectly legal except for one that I know of which effected about a dozen votes total and didnt appear to be an attempt at rigging an election so much as just a poorly constructed law that was overthrown. For the most part there is no evidence to back up your stance in any meaningful way.

@louiscouture

@EMPEROR

Thats all well and good, but you better take it away from the conservatives two then. Both groups are guilty of that. It isnt an excuse for how the liberals act mind you, but if it means actually abolishing them then the republicans need to be right up there on the chopper with them.

@louiscouture

@djsumdog

Dude what the hell are you smoking, you can literally see the water on the floor from the leak in the video tape for one, and for two, the observers were never asked to leave, counting continued as normal, it was just a small leak... what in the world are you even talking about you dont have any of the facts right and literally all of it is on video so there isnt much to dispute.

@louiscouture

@djsumdog

What "evidence" are you even suggesting here.. We literally have every second of footage (17 hours of it) of them counting the ballots. No sign of any wrong doing of any kind. Not even sure what a pipe bursting somewhere in the building has to do with your claim of wrong doing.

@louiscouture

@pthenq1 Here is a literal quote from biden himself talking about Trump.. notice he doesnt say its the nature of his executive orders, but claiming that by governing by executive order at all he is a dictator.. clearly not at all in line with what you are saying here:

“I have this strange notion. We are a democracy... if you can’t get the votes by executive order, you’re going to do something.’ Things you can’t do by executive order unless you’re a dictator. We’re a democracy. We need consensus” -- Joe biden

@djsumdog

What, the pipe didnt burst in the room they were counting in, it burst in a totally different section of the building and had no effect on the count... what is there to even question?

@louiscouture

@djsumdog

Whats to debunk, we know what happened quite well, the pipe burst, **part** of the building was evacuated. The part where they were counting the ballots wasnt effected and the ballot counting continued after the pipe break, which occured in a different area of the building.

Whats even to debunk, there is literally no evidence anything other than what i just recited occured.

@louiscouture

@pthenq1 nah, you cant rewrite history now... the people complaining didnt say "I dont like the fact that trump is signing an executive order that does XXX" (and when they did it wasnt a problem or what is being addressedhere)... but many, a hu8ge number cited specifically not WHAT he was writing them for but the number of them that he wrote, and how it was an abuse of power to use an EO rather than to go through congress... they made it quite clear what their complaint was and no it isnt what you just recited.

@djsumdog

We can go through each of those points one by one.. each are pretty trivially debunked with a little research.

For example in philadelphia, observers were allowed in all the places the law allows them to be (and have been allowed in previous elections). The argument made is that they were denied access to certain areas where poll watchers are and always have been explicitly denied access to.. so whats the legal argument there your trying to make at all? Where is the unfairness.. it was handled exactly as it was supposed to be.

@louiscouture

@louiscouture he did not "incite violence".. again walking to the capitol is a pretty standard protest tactic.. the million man march marched on the capitol too. The idea of marching on the capitol in protest is a **very** common motif so your arguments are really really weak, these exact words have been said a hundred times over from a hundred different politicians in similar settings.

@louiscouture

Agreed, Trump's lack of evidence means he wont get a court case heard in many circumstances, thats normal and the appropriate response.

Also many courts **did** take his case and he still lost.. so its moot either way.

@djsumdog

@djsumdog

Bullshit, many cases were heard, the courts gave very clear answers. In some situations courts of course didnt hear cases, largely because **there was no evidence**... The courts responded exactly how they should have, Trump was wrong, dead wrong, and he had no evidence. There is nothing wrong with how the courts responded.

I am not and never would argue Trumps stance was right, it wasn't, he lost and he was a pathetic sore loser who couldn't handle that. But it is still laughable to claim he intentionally started a coup.

@louiscouture

@louiscouture

Yes they did, and yes Trump didnt.. at best that allows you to say Trump is a sore loser, and I would agree with you on that. You can also say he is a conspiracy theorist, I would also agree with you on that. But none of that makes your earlier statement true. Thinking you lost an election unfairly (and being wrong about it) and wanting to fight to right that perceived wrong, through the courts, through protests, through government action, is all fine, it doesnt make you the master mind behind a coup, it just makes him an idiot.

@louiscouture

> what’s the agenda, where is the agenda?

What do youmean where is the agenda. Its literally right in the **title**

> ...of how Trump incited...

The very title says "We have decided that Trump is guilty of inciting a coup and here are all the reasons you should agree with our agenda to sell that perspective.

Any news agency that had even a smidgen of journalistic integrity would not be telling you how to interpret the days events they would simply give an unbiased accounted of what happened, both supporting and contradicting any such agenda, and let the reader decide what conclusions to draw.

The article has no intention of doing that, they have a very clear agenda and the article is cherry picked and written to try to support that agenda, so very clear bias. Not a single mention of any counter points that might lead someone to disagree. That is **not** journalism.

> Trump lost and Biden won and there was next to no voter fraud, and if there was, it wouldn’t change the outcome.

Yes he did... your point?

> Facts aren’t opinions, you don’t have two side of the same fact.

What someone deems to be a fact (true) or not **is** a matter of opinion.. your opinion is that trump tried to incite a coup, you have the **opinion** that that is a fact. I am of the opinion he did not try to start a coup, I declare that him intentionally inciting a coup is **not** a fact.

There may be only one of those two facts which are true, but your opinion as to which of them that they are, and my opinion are still opinions. Saying "Facts dont care about your opinions" is a pretty dumb argument considering as it doesnt do anything to help support that your opinion of what is fact is any more valid than mine.

@louiscouture actually several have, in fact i had this conversation just a week or two ago and found quotes of both kamala and biden using very similar wording in the past.

@louiscouture I wouldnt use the term Fake News.. discredited for sure though. It is clear their intention is not an objective analysis of both sides.. it is pretty obvious by the wording and context the intention is to sell a particular political perspective... is that not even obvious to you? seems pretty obvious to me, you just happen to agree with that agenda, but you suddenly become blind to the bias just because the bias is the same as yours?

@louiscouture Not sure how any of that even remote supports your point.. those words and those instructions have been given countless time sto countless crowds in similar political protests.. marching on the capitol and "fighting for our rights" is a very common motif and never once represented someone intentionally inciting a coup.

@louiscouture it also is a horrifically inaccurate account (to be expected considering the source which is pretty bias)... but thats another matter.

@louiscouture I've read this before.. does not disprove a single thing i just said.

@louiscouture Not true.. they impeached because a president lied, under oath, and in court... thats pretty serious. The fact that he used his position to take advantage of a woman isnt the best but it is not what he was impeached over.

Trump on the other hand never planned or asked anyone to do a coup. The moment any violence broke out he immediately was on TV asking everyone to go home and asking for there to be no violence.. he did not start, encourage, or perpetuate a coup.

Now what Trump was legitimately guilty of was being a fucking nut job conspiracy theorist and spreading that bullshit and others believed him... Which is totally legitimate to dislike Trump for that, but it is hardly illegal.