Honest question for Trump supporters

[Luvnit2]

(09-14-2023, 11:52 AM)Dill Wrote: You do know that Trump IS being charged with a conspiracy to defraud voters and obstruct certification of the 2020 election, right? 

Twice even, as both federal and state prosecutors have brought separate cases.  And "the facts" include fake electors from seven different states, as well as a mob whipped to a frenzy and sicced on the Capitol to influence Pence to break the law.

Why don't you think that attempting to overthrow a valid election "divides the nation"? 

It's a "biased FBI, CIA and DOJ" that leads to your concern about a decline in democratic principles--not your leader's attempt to overturn an election he lost with the support of many in his party and tolerance of most of the rest.

Ask Hillary Clinton for a nation?

Then ask Stacey Abrams from Georgia? I guess I missed the DA charging her with obstruction.

Yes, justice is supposed to be blind, if Trump is proven guilty of all of the charges, then I would still hope if he is the leading candidate for the GOP and the Democrats and those who don't feel he is the right choice can vote for someone else.

The difference in Trump being politically prosecuted and the D.O.J and F.B.I. colluding to go after a political candidate for POTUS makes us closer to a 3rd world country. It is damage that may never be able to overcome. 

I would argue a vote for Trump in 2024 is a vote to allow Trump and Congress the ability to go after the F.B.I. and D.O.J. in a lot of ways including getting rid of all top tiers in both departments so they can have the ability to get past acts by the justice department without being stonewalled.

[Dill]

(09-14-2023, 02:13 PM)Luvnit2 Wrote: Ask Hillary Clinton for a nation?

Then ask Stacey Abrams from Georgia? I guess I missed the DA charging her with obstruction.

Yes, justice is supposed to be blind, if Trump is proven guilty of all of the charges, then I would still hope if he is the leading candidate for the GOP and the Democrats and those who don't feel he is the right choice can vote for someone else.

The difference in Trump being politically prosecuted and the D.O.J and F.B.I. colluding to go after a political candidate for POTUS makes us closer to a 3rd world country. It is damage that may never be able to overcome. 

I would argue a vote for Trump in 2024 is a vote to allow Trump and Congress the ability to go after the F.B.I. and D.O.J. in a lot of ways including getting rid of all top tiers in both departments so they can have the ability to get past acts by the justice department without being stonewalled.

Jeezus Luvnit. 

Did Hilary or Stacy sic a mob on the Capitol, coordinated with fake lists of electors? What could possibly be the basis for charging them with obstruction?

The DIFFERENCE is that Trump has committed crimes whereas your whattabout examples have not. 

You call it "political prosecution" when law enforcement enforces the law. 

And you can't wait until Trump gets back in power with enough GOP in Congress to break the DOJ and FBI. 

If the "both siders" don't finally see the difference in the parties, then US democracy is headed for crisis. 

[LSUfaninTN]

(09-15-2023, 10:46 AM)Dill Wrote: Jeezus Luvnit. 

Did Hilary or Stacy sic a mob on the Capitol, coordinated with fake lists of electors? What could possibly be the basis for charging them with obstruction?

The DIFFERENCE is that Trump has committed crimes whereas your whattabout examples have not. 

You call it "political prosecution" when law enforcement enforces the law. 

And you can't wait until Trump gets back in power with enough GOP in Congress to break the DOJ and FBI. 

If the "both siders" don't finally see the difference in the parties, then US democracy is headed for crisis. 

He did not sic a mob on the Capitol. Enough of that. If it were a BLM riot and the Capitol were burned down, the media would've called it a "fiery but mostly peaceful protest." Jan 6 started out as a protest by people who were fed up with their president being sabotaged for 4 years and a blatantly rigged election on the part of social media, the FBI, and democrats in power. With the Steele dossier, the purposeful anchoring of the laptop story, the political and pointless Russia investigation, the false accusations of racism with open borders, etc (you and I have been through all of that on here), the resentment had been building for 4 years. Unfortunately the protest was ruined by a few total morons who went into the Capitol, but the whole thing was, as usual, exaggerated by the left. Trump's last tweet was, "Please support our Capitol police and law enforcement. They are truly on the side of our country. Stay peaceful." If people like Maxine Waters had tweeted things like that, maybe we'd have a few less burnt down post offices, buildings and businesses from the mindless leftist riots the last few years.

How is that siccing a mob? He cannot control the anger of protesters and to be honest, they had every right to be pissed off after their legitimately elected President was sabotaged under mostly false pretenses for 4 f*cking years. C'mon, you're better than that.

While he did say the election was stolen, there's no evidence to prove that it was, but there is ample evidence that it was rigged. Let's just say, infinitely more than there was that Russia colluded in the 2016 election. 

If Trump honestly committed crimes, and I've seen all sorts of explanations on both sides that are convincing either way, I'm all for him being brought to justice.

[Dill]

(09-15-2023, 11:05 AM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: He did not sic a mob on the Capitol. Enough of that. If it were a BLM riot and the Capitol were burned down, the media would've called it a "fiery but mostly peaceful protest." Jan 6 started out as a protest by people who were fed up with their president being sabotaged for 4 years and a blatantly rigged election on the part of social media, the FBI, and democrats in power. With the Steele dossier, the purposeful anchoring of the laptop story, the political and pointless Russia investigation, the false accusations of racism with open borders, etc (you and I have been through all of that on here), the resentment had been building for 4 years. Unfortunately the protest was ruined by a few total morons who went into the Capitol, but the whole thing was, as usual, exaggerated by the left. Trump's last tweet was, "Please support our Capitol police and law enforcement. They are truly on the side of our country. Stay peaceful." If people like Maxine Waters had tweeted things like that, maybe we'd have a few less burnt down post offices, buildings and businesses from the mindless leftist riots the last few years.

How is that siccing a mob? He cannot control the anger of protesters and to be honest, they had every right to be pissed off after their legitimately elected President was sabotaged under mostly false pretenses for 4 f*cking years. C'mon, you're better than that.

While he did say the election was stolen, there's no evidence to prove that it was, but there is ample evidence that it was rigged. Let's just say, infinitely more than there was that Russia colluded in the 2016 election. 

If Trump honestly committed crimes, and I've seen all sorts of explanations on both sides that are convincing either way, I'm all for him being brought to justice.

YO LSUfan. I appreciate your posts. And I respect your arguments. I am still working up an answer to your posts on another thread, and probably won't be able to get back to them till this evening.

Meantime, I'll just say this about this one.

Trump stoked the insurrection crowd for months with false claims the election had been stolen. Social media ENABLED him to do this.

He called his followers to the Capitol on 1/6, stoked them some more, exhorting them to "take back" their stolen country, and knowing many were armed, sent them to the Capitol to pressure Pence into an illegal action. The crowd pressure was coordinated with the forgery of lists of fake electors from seven states. Trump knew this. Already there were Oath Keepers and Proud Boys "standing by," and in contact with Trump associates like Roger Stone.   

Then, as over a thousand "total morons" violently breached the Capitol and sent Congress fleeing for their lives, Trump watched the TV feed for two hours, IGNORING pleas from his daughter, son-in-law, Sean Hannity, and Kevin McCarthy to stop them. A world from Trump would have stopped them in their tracks. But "Those aren't my people" he told McCarthy. 

Surely the guy who created the anger with false claims, stoked it for two months, then called a mob to the Capitol for a final dose of the BIG LIE on 1/6, then watched as they trash the Capitol and interrupt the certification of election, could have controlled the anger he'd stoked at every point, couldn't he?  I certainly don't see some BLM leader getting away with bringing that kind of mayhem down on our seat of government, nor do I see some "left" media shrugging it off as mostly peaceful. 

There are other puzzling statements I can address latter, such as that there is more evidence the election was somehow "rigged" by social media than there was evidence for a Russia investigation which resulted in north of two dozen convictions and the expulsion of over a dozen spies. 

[GMDino]

(09-15-2023, 11:05 AM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: He did not sic a mob on the Capitol. Enough of that. If it were a BLM riot and the Capitol were burned down, the media would've called it a "fiery but mostly peaceful protest." Jan 6 started out as a protest by people who were fed up with their president being sabotaged for 4 years and a blatantly rigged election on the part of social media, the FBI, and democrats in power. With the Steele dossier, the purposeful anchoring of the laptop story, the political and pointless Russia investigation, the false accusations of racism with open borders, etc (you and I have been through all of that on here), the resentment had been building for 4 years. Unfortunately the protest was ruined by a few total morons who went into the Capitol, but the whole thing was, as usual, exaggerated by the left. Trump's last tweet was, "Please support our Capitol police and law enforcement. They are truly on the side of our country. Stay peaceful." If people like Maxine Waters had tweeted things like that, maybe we'd have a few less burnt down post offices, buildings and businesses from the mindless leftist riots the last few years.

How is that siccing a mob? He cannot control the anger of protesters and to be honest, they had every right to be pissed off after their legitimately elected President was sabotaged under mostly false pretenses for 4 f*cking years. C'mon, you're better than that.

While he did say the election was stolen, there's no evidence to prove that it was, but there is ample evidence that it was rigged. Let's just say, infinitely more than there was that Russia colluded in the 2016 election. 

If Trump honestly committed crimes, and I've seen all sorts of explanations on both sides that are convincing either way, I'm all for him being brought to justice.

To me it doesn't even matter if he "sicced" [sic] a mob on the Capitol.  

Can we name one, just one, person who lost the election for POTUS and then not only denied he lost, not only falsely claimed he was the victim of "massive" voter fraud, not only did EVERY bit of "proof" get rejected by the courts (including some judges appointed by  P01135809 himself) but also held a personal rally on the same day as the vote was to certified AND told the crowd to march down tot he capitol and "encourage" the voters there to "do the right thing"?

Just one.

How about on a state level?  City?

One.

What he did was the spark to the dried up grass and sticks that created the fire...no matter how he worded it.

He tweeted to be "peaceful" AFTER the barriers were breached, police were injured and doors were broken.  

And he committed many crimes.  Some of which he has admitted to on tape and in interviews.

[LSUfaninTN]

(09-15-2023, 12:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: To me it doesn't even matter if he "sicced" [sic] a mob on the Capitol.  

Can we name one, just one, person who lost the election for POTUS and then not only denied he lost, not only falsely claimed he was the victim of "massive" voter fraud, not only did EVERY bit of "proof" get rejected by the courts (including some judges appointed by  P01135809 himself) but also held a personal rally on the same day as the vote was to certified AND told the crowd to march down tot he capitol and "encourage" the voters there to "do the right thing"?

Just one.

How about on a state level?  City?

One.

What he did was the spark to the dried up grass and sticks that created the fire...no matter how he worded it.

He tweeted to be "peaceful" AFTER the barriers were breached, police were injured and doors were broken.  

And he committed many crimes.  Some of which he has admitted to on tape and in interviews.

I’m not denying that it was “unprecedented” though there were MANY things that were unprecedented, most of which worked against Trump in a shady ass way. My point was that the claim that “siccing an assault on the Capitol” is bogus, and we need to be factual here. “Do the right thing” is nowhere near the same as him saying “pretend you’re BLM and mindlessly break a bunch of sh*t for no reason.” The Jan 6 protesters did that on their own. There was a small handful of weak minded fools who were easily provoked that day. Trump wanted a protest, and it went so much further than the election being “stolen.” Of course he said it after it was breached. Why would he say it before? Do you have proof that he truly expected a riot and not a protest? I sure didn’t expect one. Plus, if he had said it from the get go, you’d likely still blame him anyway. The election was blatantly rigged. How are you OK with this? Stolen? I do know that he truly does believe the election was stolen. What’s your problem with him saying “massive voter fraud”? You do know there were more voting machine malfunctions in this election than in history, particularly in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona, where he lost by a combined total of 40,000 votes, right? This combined with the Democrats being avidly against voter ID laws (wtf?), all the sh*t they pulled during his presidency and the election, and the fact that they 100% colluded with Twitter and the FBI to shut down a political opponent are reason to be suspicious, and you’re either naive or have Trump Derangement Syndrome if you think otherwise. If you’re OK with the collusion, then you’re just as guilty of promoting the things you claim to be against. Period. Do I think it was “stolen”? I don’t have proof, so I have to say no. But I believe the suspicion is 100% justified on his part and the protesters’ part. Moot point because anyone who’s OK with the Dem collusion is a sad excuse of a human being. I really can’t believe there are people who turn a blind eye to that. Banana republic.

Is it a crime to call an election illegitimate? I don’t know. Is Hillary in prison for calling the 2016 election illegitimate? Is anyone in prison for anchoring a campaign-sinking story that was legitimate the entire time? What I’m tired of is the double standards, every f*cking week. The Republicans get punished and brutalized in the media for doing the exact sh*t that the Democrats get away with, and Republicans get called conspiracy theorists, bigots, “tin foil hats” unless they put up with it. If we could hold both sides equally accountable, I wouldn’t have a problem with any of this. But we don’t. I’m not singling you out per se, but anyone who’s OK with that double standard should be ashamed of themselves.

[hollodero]

(09-15-2023, 08:10 PM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: I’m not denying that it was “unprecedented” though there were MANY things that were unprecedented, most of which worked against Trump in a shady ass way. My point was that the claim that “siccing an assault on the Capitol” is bogus, and we need to be factual here. “Do the right thing” is nowhere near the same as him saying “pretend you’re BLM and mindlessly break a bunch of sh*t for no reason.” The Jan 6 protesters did that on their own. There was a small handful of weak minded fools who were easily provoked that day. Trump wanted a protest, and it went so much further than the election being “stolen.” Of course he said it after it was breached. Why would he say it before? Do you have proof that he truly expected a riot and not a protest? I sure didn’t expect one. Plus, if he had said it from the get go, you’d likely still blame him anyway. The election was blatantly rigged. How are you OK with this? Stolen? I do know that he truly does believe the election was stolen. What’s your problem with him saying “massive voter fraud”? You do know there were more voting machine malfunctions in this election than in history, particularly in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona, where he lost by a combined total of 40,000 votes, right? This combined with the Democrats being avidly against voter ID laws (wtf?), all the sh*t they pulled during his presidency and the election, and the fact that they 100% colluded with Twitter and the FBI to shut down a political opponent are reason to be suspicious, and you’re either naive or have Trump Derangement Syndrome if you think otherwise. If you’re OK with the collusion, then you’re just as guilty of promoting the things you claim to be against. Period. Do I think it was “stolen”? I don’t have proof, so I have to say no. But I believe the suspicion is 100% justified on his part and the protesters’ part. Moot point because anyone who’s OK with the Dem collusion is a sad excuse of a human being. I really can’t believe there are people who turn a blind eye to that. Banana republic.

Is it a crime to call an election illegitimate? I don’t know. Is Hillary in prison for calling the 2016 election illegitimate? Is anyone in prison for anchoring a campaign-sinking story that was legitimate the entire time? What I’m tired of is the double standards, every f*cking week. The Republicans get punished and brutalized in the media for doing the exact sh*t that the Democrats get away with, and Republicans get called conspiracy theorists, bigots, “tin foil hats” unless they put up with it. If we could hold both sides equally accountable, I wouldn’t have a problem with any of this. But we don’t. I’m not singling you out per se, but anyone who’s OK with that double standard should be ashamed of themselves.

Reading this tirade time and again, I wonder two things. 

First, what should the FBI have done regarding this laptop. I'm actually curious about that one. Give a press conference a few days before the election, informing the public that they have a laptop of Hunter Biden in their possession? - Is there incriminating stuff about Hunter or Joe - we don't know as of now. We investigate it. But we wanted to tell everyone anyway for that's what your friendly FBI does, always inform the public abut our investigations first.

In fairness, they did that before. To Hillary. Could have just as easily done it with Trump back then, who had an investigation against his campaign running, but in the stupidest conspiracy move ever they forgot about that.


Second. If twitter is merely a democratic outlet, how comes they let Trump spew out whatever he pleased for years on end? The stuff Trump wrote would have gotten every one of us banned a thousand times. Already back when he was first running, he should have been banned. When he told me to check out a non-existing porn tape of some women he did not like, for example. Anyone else pull that shit on twitter once and we're kicked out. Trump, however, could keep using twitter as his probably most important channel to the world and break their terms of service a million times while doing so. Why? How? Are these twitter operatives the dumbest conspiracists ever too?

[LSUfaninTN]

(09-15-2023, 09:24 PM)hollodero Wrote: Reading this tirade time and again, I wonder two things. 

First, what should the FBI have done regarding this laptop. I'm actually curious about that one. Give a press conference a few days before the election, informing the public that they have a laptop of Hunter Biden in their possession? - Is there incriminating stuff about Hunter or Joe - we don't know as of now. We investigate it. But we wanted to tell everyone anyway for that's what your friendly FBI does, always inform the public abut our investigations first.

In fairness, they did that before. To Hillary. Could have just as easily done it with Trump back then, who had an investigation against his campaign running, but in the stupidest conspiracy move ever they forgot about that.


Second. If twitter is merely a democratic outlet, how comes they let Trump spew out whatever he pleased for years on end? The stuff Trump wrote would have gotten every one of us banned a thousand times. Already back when he was first running, he should have been banned. When he told me to check out a non-existing porn tape of some women he did not like, for example. Anyone else pull that shit on twitter once and we're kicked out. Trump, however, could keep using twitter as his probably most important channel to the world and break their terms of service a million times while doing so. Why? How? Are these twitter operatives the dumbest conspiracists ever too?

Dude. Are you serious right now? Have you ever even been on Twitter in your life?

1) If twitter is merely a democratic outlet, how comes they let Trump spew out whatever he pleased for years on end? No What is this "if"? 98% of them voted Democrat and there have been messages between admins that were released after Elon bought it on what excuse they would use to silence the Biden laptop story. Public info. How come they let him... because he wasn't taken seriously, then, immediately became the president of the United States. He had what, 50 million followers on Twitter? You can't silence those tweets, you can only bury stories. Which is what they did. 

2) The stuff Trump wrote would have gotten every one of us banned a thousand times. Anyone else pull that shit on twitter once and we're kicked out.. Dude, you are so off the mark on this one it's truly staggering. Twitter colludes by A) silencing stories B) making conservatives less visible. Both of these they are confirmed of doing. Trump never posted stories that everyone hadn't already seen yet, no point in silencing those, especially if it's not 2 weeks before an election. You also can't make him "less visible" no matter how hard you try because he was front and center for a decade. You get a suspension or a warning for extreme hate speech, or pulling a Kathy Griffin and showing the president's head on a pike. She's back. He did nothing like that. Calling Rosie O'Donnell is not hate speech nor is it a threat. You've clearly never had a Twitter or even seen it.

3) First, what should the FBI have done regarding this laptop. I'm actually curious about that one. Give a press conference a few days before the election, informing the public that they have a laptop of Hunter Biden in their possession? Let the story get the same TV time as the Russia collusion. They shouldn't have lied to Twitter and say it was disinformation when they knew damn well it wasn't. This is public info, man. If your TDS is so bad that you choose to ignore it I can't help you. They lied to get Biden elected. Does that make sense now? And they knew it was disinformation because there was no new investigation conducted from 2 weeks before to 2 years into Biden. Did they release the Russia story before the investigation? Yes. So your point is total stupidity. Do you know how powerful the FBI is? You honestly think they wouldn't investigate something as serious as a Presidential candidates son taking bribes from our biggest enemy? This is public knowledge dude. They f*cking lied. They had had this story for months. Maybe you should stop lying to yourself. 
 

[hollodero]

(09-15-2023, 10:52 PM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: Dude. Are you serious right now? Have you ever even been on Twitter in your life?

Yes, dude.

(09-15-2023, 10:52 PM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: 3) First, what should the FBI have done regarding this laptop. I'm actually curious about that one. Give a press conference a few days before the election, informing the public that they have a laptop of Hunter Biden in their possession? Let the story get the same TV time as the Russia collusion. They shouldn't have lied to Twitter and say it was disinformation when they knew damn well it wasn't. This is public info, man.

Is it, man? Dude? My info is that some social media companies asked the FBI whether they actually had Hunter's laptop in possession, to which they wisely gave a 'no comment' answer. Officially. Inofficially, it is said that one agent first said "yes" and then was overruled by the no comment position. In no way did the FBI tell anyone that this story was in fact Russian misinformation (as some officials and media outlets speculated). Some argued they "led them to believe" it was by not clearly stating the opposite, but all they actually did was saying no comment. Which rather proves that the FBI wanted to keep their heads down and not get heavily involved in yet another presidential campaign, after they heavily involved themselves in the 2016 one by announcing a renewed investigation into Hillary's emails. That's all. The rest is storytelling.

I don't even know how to respond to you demanding the FBI should have given the laptop story an equal amount of TV time. The FBI is not into TV programming.

(09-15-2023, 10:52 PM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: Did they release the Russia story before the investigation? Yes. So your point is total stupidity.

Yeah, first off, love you too. Second, what point is that supposed to be? The media talked plenty about Russia alright, mainly because Russia tried to interfere in the election, and because Trump made some peculiar personnel choices and said the darndest things about Russia. That had nothing to do with the FBI investigations, which the FBI, again, did not inform the public about prior to the election.

Which is where your whole conspiracy stops making any sense. An FBI in cohouts with democrats would not have torpedoed Hillary's campaign a few days before the election by announcing a renewed investigation into her emails, and might probably just have informed the public about the investigation into the Trump campaign instead. Someone explain to me once why they did what they did in '16 while they were so in bed with the democrats.

(09-15-2023, 10:52 PM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: 1) If twitter is merely a democratic outlet, how comes they let Trump spew out whatever he pleased for years on end? No What is this "if"? 98% of them voted Democrat and there have been messages between admins that were released after Elon bought it on what excuse they would use to silence the Biden laptop story. Public info. How come they let him... because he wasn't taken seriously, then, immediately became the president of the United States. He had what, 50 million followers on Twitter? You can't silence those tweets, you can only bury stories. Which is what they did. 

He wasn't taken seriously and then immediately was president, aha. Sure there was a primary first, then he became the nominee, then there was the election cycle, and all of a sudden he was president, much aided by twitter letting him reach many millions of people. On twitter, he falsely accused different folks of murder, like the Central park 5 or Joe Scarborough, he reposted videos of an European extremist party, he engaged in slander and harassment, and so much more, all clear violations of the twitter conduct rules. You and I would have gotten banned for that. According to yourself they allegedly banned conservatives all the time (which makes me wonder where the 50 million Trump followers came from, but whatever). Why not ban him?
And of course you can just ban him at any time, it does not cost any more clicks to ban @realDonaldTrump than it takes to ban anyone. As proven when after two elections, they finally did just that. That he had 50 million followers and twitter did not want to lose that revenue would make sense for a company, sure. But according to you own words, they worked as a democratic outlet. As such, no reason to bother about them.

Now to your narrative. Just imagine a non-private entity totally in cohouts with democrats. That observe how their opponent gathers more and more support on their very platform and uses it to spread his word. The democrats should have ordered them to delete his account immediately and without hesitation. There was plenty of valid reason to justify that. That he was allowed to stay on blows a huge hole in your whole conspiracy theory, it just makes no sense.

Twitter should not have gone so far as to flag the Hunter laptop stories, that much I can agree with. Then again, I would have also flagged anything coming out of the mouth of Rudy Giuliani. You spread misinformation a thousand times like Rudy did, you will get labeled as such.
Where you got you 98% vote democrats number from, I don't know. But even if, all that proves is that Trump is fairly unpopular there. That happened to him frequently. You can of course argue that in fact half the country colluded against Trump by voting for the other person. Scandal!

[Dill]

(09-15-2023, 08:10 PM)LSUfaninTN Wrote: I’m not denying that it was “unprecedented” though there were MANY things that were unprecedented, most of which worked against Trump in a shady ass way. My point was that the claim that “siccing an assault on the Capitol” is bogus, and we need to be factual here. “Do the right thing” is nowhere near the same as him saying “pretend you’re BLM and mindlessly break a bunch of sh*t for no reason.” The Jan 6 protesters did that on their own. There was a small handful of weak minded fools who were easily provoked that day. Trump wanted a protest, and it went so much further than the election being “stolen.” Of course he said it after it was breached. Why would he say it before? Do you have proof that he truly expected a riot and not a protest? I sure didn’t expect one. Plus, if he had said it from the get go, you’d likely still blame him anyway. The election was blatantly rigged. How are you OK with this? Stolen? I do know that he truly does believe the election was stolen. What’s your problem with him saying “massive voter fraud”? You do know there were more voting machine malfunctions in this election than in history, particularly in Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Arizona, where he lost by a combined total of 40,000 votes, right? This combined with the Democrats being avidly against voter ID laws (wtf?), all the sh*t they pulled during his presidency and the election, and the fact that they 100% colluded with Twitter and the FBI to shut down a political opponent are reason to be suspicious, and you’re either naive or have Trump Derangement Syndrome if you think otherwise. If you’re OK with the collusion, then you’re just as guilty of promoting the things you claim to be against. Period. Do I think it was “stolen”? I don’t have proof, so I have to say no. But I believe the suspicion is 100% justified on his part and the protesters’ part. Moot point because anyone who’s OK with the Dem collusion is a sad excuse of a human being. I really can’t believe there are people who turn a blind eye to that. Banana republic.

Is it a crime to call an election illegitimate? I don’t know. Is Hillary in prison for calling the 2016 election illegitimate? Is anyone in prison for anchoring a campaign-sinking story that was legitimate the entire time? What I’m tired of is the double standards, every f*cking week. The Republicans get punished and brutalized in the media for doing the exact sh*t that the Democrats get away with, and Republicans get called conspiracy theorists, bigots, “tin foil hats” unless they put up with it. If we could hold both sides equally accountable, I wouldn’t have a problem with any of this. But we don’t. I’m not singling you out per se, but anyone who’s OK with that double standard should be ashamed of themselves.

Regarding the underlined--I doubt Trump wanted a riot. That doesn't mean he is not responsible, since it was his lie that whipped them to a lynch mob frenzy and launched them at the Capitol.  Over 700 people have been convicted of breaching it. That's not a "handful."  

However, the issue is not whether Trump "intended" for his mob to breach the Capitol. 

The issue is whether he was orchestrating an effort to overturn the election. The proof is in the fake elector plot, the pressure on Pence to throw the certification, and the calling of the crowd to pressure Pence. All coordinated to coincide. NO ONE is saying Trump's goal was a riot. Trump's goal was to throw the election to the House with a fake electoral issue.  

What I don't hear you responding to is the coordination of the mob with the fake electors and the deliberate pressure on Pence to do the wrong thing, to commit an illegal act. 

You keep claiming the election was "blatantly rigged."  How? Where? The only people who can possibly determine such have spoken--unanimously. The only evidence of "rigging" comes from the crackpot theories of Giuliani and Powell--Italian satellites and Chinese paper. Recounts are meaningless if the only evidence you will accept is what agrees with what you already want to believe. If Trump really believes the election was stolen, it means he has lost the capacity to distinguish reality from fiction; who can tell if he is mad or a liar? The absurd charge that the FBI and Twitter somehow rigged the election has been summarily dealt with by Hollo. It is reverse verification spun up to create false equivalence.

Where is your capacity for comparison and evaluation if you reduce Trump's assault on the election to simply "calling" the election illegitimate,

Then crying "Hilary did too," so there is this terrible double standard that you are so tired of, that Dems "get away with."

Poof! the refusal to concede, the spreading of the fraud lie, the forgery of certification, the mob sent to the Capitol--all that disappears in this
double standard. Trump is only indicted for SAYING the election was illegitimate. So unfair cuz Hilary did too. "Why isn't the Dem media talking about what Hilary said that one time rather than always going on about how Trump actually tried to steal the election and people died?" Well I'M OK with that "double standard."

Ignoring what Trump did, for which we have plenty of visual and documented evidence and dozens of conspirators from seven states--with their names on documents--while claiming "blatant rigging" for which we do NOT have evidence, somehow leads you to conclude that those who are following "blatant evidence" are the ones turning a "blind eye." 

"Banana republic" is what we have if Trump can attempt to overturn a valid election, and then run again with impunity.