• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • Hey Guest. Check out the NeoGAF 2.2 Update Thread for details on our new Giphy integration and other new features.

Impeachment trial kicks off this week as Democrats seek to tie Trump to Capitol riots

Monkeygourmet

Member
Jul 8, 2019
947
2,378
470
Can someone confirm that Trump wrote his speech before the protest himself? Was it entirely written by him?
 

Thirty7ven

Member
Apr 13, 2020
3,306
13,310
560
People making excuses for this are so short sighted, it’s the future of the system at risk. Over Trump? Cry about it when the other side decides to do it and succeed. Morons. How can people be this stupid?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: OnionSnake

RoadHazard

Member
Dec 9, 2008
19,612
2,239
1,245
Gothenburg, Sweden
Any representative who doesn't vote to convict Trump should themselves be impeached (they can be, right?). They are not serving their country and democracy as they've swore to do, they are serving only Trump. It's essentially treason.

It's so obvious Trump wanted this to happen, incited it to happen, was delighted when it did happen, and did absolutely nothing to try to stop it. The arguments of the defense are laughable.
 
Last edited:

Schattenjäger

Gabriel Knight
Oct 12, 2005
7,798
1,804
1,940
Any representative who doesn't vote to convict Trump should themselves be impeached (they can be, right?). They are not serving their country and democracy as they've swore to do, they are serving only Trump. It's essentially treason.

It's so obvious Trump wanted this to happen, incited it to happen, was delighted when it did happen, and did absolutely nothing to try to stop it. The arguments of the defense are laughable.
ummmm no

he will be acquitted today and we can move on from this politically motivated sham waste of time and resources
 

SF Kosmo

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
6,484
7,697
700
I know he will be. And that will be a big failure for US democracy. It essentially tells you an outgoing president can do whatever the hell he wants with no consequences, including attempting a state coup.
I really wish we stuck to the word "sedition," because it's the one that most accurately describes what happened. He wasn't necessarily trying to overthrow the government (that he was already in charge of) as much as disrupt the administration of some of its functions such that they couldn't carry out the procedures that would certify his loss.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BarringGaffner

Schattenjäger

Gabriel Knight
Oct 12, 2005
7,798
1,804
1,940
I know he will be. And that will be a big failure for US democracy. It essentially tells you an outgoing president can do whatever the hell he wants with no consequences, including attempting a state coup.
if he did something wrong or broke any laws, why haven’t local authorities or the dept of justice try and prosecute him?
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,262
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
I don't have to, Trump's lawyers spent like 40 minutes arguing that for me because they think it proves his innocence. You should probably watch this thing if you want to comment on it.
Then what's the point of discussing if you can't even parrot the thin accusations leveraged by the Dems?

For 15 pages, the Democrat accusers and their followers in this thread have yet failed to show how Trump incited an insurrection. They've doctored speech footage to support their case, which was later swatted down. But hey, Dems put in more effort to doctor that footage than most of you have invested so far, who were asked for the specific speeches or the phrases that supposedly riled up the audience, and ran away to deal with distractions of your own making.

And now we have assumptions about what the crowd was there to do. Something tells me if you have yet failed to establish clear motives for one person (Trump), it's going to be exponentially harder to determine what the whole crowd was thinking.

I also love how you've flip-flopped between "this isn't a court case" and "this is like a court case".

Although crucially, impeachment is not criminal court and "incitement of insurrection" is not the name of a specific federal crime. There are related crimes he could probably be charged with but that isn't what's happening here.
It's like defending yourself in a murder trial by pointing out other people have guns. It's a nonsense argument. Democrats did not incite insurrection because there was no insurrection.

This impeachment seems like a pretty big deal, yet like all the other Democrat show-trials, the accusations remain thin at best.
 

SF Kosmo

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
6,484
7,697
700
Then what's the point of discussing if you can't even parrot the thin accusations leveraged by the Dems?

For 15 pages, the Democrat accusers and their followers in this thread have yet failed to show how Trump incited an insurrection. They've doctored speech footage to support their case, which was later swatted down. But hey, Dems put in more effort to doctor that footage than most of you have invested so far, who were asked for the specific speeches or the phrases that supposedly riled up the audience, and ran away to deal with distractions of your own making.

And now we have assumptions about what the crowd was there to do. Something tells me if you have yet failed to establish clear motives for one person (Trump), it's going to be exponentially harder to determine what the whole crowd was thinking.

I also love how you've flip-flopped between "this isn't a court case" and "this is like a court case".




This impeachment seems like a pretty big deal, yet like all the other Democrat show-trials, the accusations remain thin at best.
Where I think we agree is that the powers that be on both sides have clearly opted for a show trial. Dems are coming out with powerpoint presentations and Trump is coming out with his angry Youtuber lawyers, and no one has been deposed, no admissable evidence entered, no witnesses expected to be called, and a general cooperative effort on both sides to end this as quickly as possible.

The constitutional arguments made by the dems have been very strong, I think, and the defense has been mostly bluster and bullshit, but the one point I agree with the defense on is that "reportedly" isn't evidence. I think that there's a lot of circumstantial evidence that speaks to the fact that Trump was happy with the outcome, and that the event was pre-planned. While it's reasonable to conclude from these two things that Trump wanted it to happen, and that others close to him might have been in on that, there has been no effort on the part of the House Managers to substantiate those claims.

It doesn't mean that there isn't a case to be made there, but they don't intend to drag this out long enough to make it.
 

Vestal

Gold Member
Sep 26, 2007
9,539
716
1,370
Tampa FL
Where I think we agree is that the powers that be on both sides have clearly opted for a show trial. Dems are coming out with powerpoint presentations and Trump is coming out with his angry Youtuber lawyers, and no one has been deposed, no admissable evidence entered, no witnesses expected to be called, and a general cooperative effort on both sides to end this as quickly as possible.

The constitutional arguments made by the dems have been very strong, I think, and the defense has been mostly bluster and bullshit, but the one point I agree with the defense on is that "reportedly" isn't evidence. I think that there's a lot of circumstantial evidence that speaks to the fact that Trump was happy with the outcome, and that the event was pre-planned. While it's reasonable to conclude from these two things that Trump wanted it to happen, and that others close to him might have been in on that, there has been no effort on the part of the House Managers to substantiate those claims.

It doesn't mean that there isn't a case to be made there, but they don't intend to drag this out long enough to make it.
They are trying to call Rep Herrera.

That call is the ball game. It’s evidence of what the POTUS thinking was during the situation and gives credence to the argument that this was his end goal. It shows a blatant disregard for his duty as commander and chief and that above all else he only cared about himself and his election prospects.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Apr 15, 2018
11,717
19,752
705
Then what's the point of discussing if you can't even parrot the thin accusations leveraged by the Dems?

For 15 pages, the Democrat accusers and their followers in this thread have yet failed to show how Trump incited an insurrection. They've doctored speech footage to support their case, which was later swatted down. But hey, Dems put in more effort to doctor that footage than most of you have invested so far, who were asked for the specific speeches or the phrases that supposedly riled up the audience, and ran away to deal with distractions of your own making.

And now we have assumptions about what the crowd was there to do. Something tells me if you have yet failed to establish clear motives for one person (Trump), it's going to be exponentially harder to determine what the whole crowd was thinking.

I also love how you've flip-flopped between "this isn't a court case" and "this is like a court case".




This impeachment seems like a pretty big deal, yet like all the other Democrat show-trials, the accusations remain thin at best.
This reminds me so much of the Bret Kavanaugh "it's a job interview, not a trial" bullshit that liberal trotted out when their evidence failed to live up to scrutiny during that freak show.

Nothing ever changes. It's always the same doublespeak
 
  • Like
Reactions: DunDunDunpachi

Vestal

Gold Member
Sep 26, 2007
9,539
716
1,370
Tampa FL
Echoes of ukrainegate. Pick a new act, Democrats. We've seen this one several times already.
Whatever. You are obviously too far gone the rabbit hole.

The quotes we have from that conversation are right there to read. Herrera under oath validating them is a huge thing and will be something anyone who votes to acquit will have hanging around their neck.

This wouldn’t even be a thing if this man showed even the slightest shred of human decency. That’s all that it would have taken in that call. DECENCY. Is it too much to ask from who at the time was the POTUS? Nope he decided to continue his abhorrent behavior and disregard for others during that event where the lives of the VP and every congress person and senator was at risk.
 

SF Kosmo

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
6,484
7,697
700
Echoes of ukrainegate.
You mean the President showed a consistent pattern of behavior showing a desire to lie, cheat, and steal his way to holding on to power in the months and years leading up to the election, and that the narrower his prospects for victory the more desperate the behavior?

Sure, I'll buy that.
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,262
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
Whatever. You are obviously too far gone the rabbit hole.

The quotes we have from that conversation are right there to read. Herrera under oath validating them is a huge thing and will be something anyone who votes to acquit will have hanging around their neck.

This wouldn’t even be a thing if this man showed even the slightest shred of human decency. That’s all that it would have taken in that call. DECENCY. Is it too much to ask from who at the time was the POTUS? Nope he decided to continue his abhorrent behavior and disregard for others during that event where the lives of the VP and every congress person and senator was at risk.
Anyone who doesn't agree with me is too far gone the rabbit hole. lol

Even though I'm asking you to substantiate the claims of the OT. Heck, could you even substantiate "decency"? What's the threshold there, and how would Trump show it in your mind? This is all empty, emotional pleading, not a real argument. If you need me to agree with your emotional/ethical presumptions in order to understand your argument, then you have no argument at all.

Few people seem interested in strengthening their own argument and instead just want to trumpet how foolproof the current argument already is. That is why this thread continues to go in meaningless circles.

Just like all the other Democrat fishing expeditions. It's not like this is the first -- or second, or third -- time we've seen these antics in the past few years. It follows a script.
 
Apr 27, 2018
3,153
2,582
605
East USA
Any representative who doesn't vote to convict Trump should themselves be impeached (they can be, right?). They are not serving their country and democracy as they've swore to do, they are serving only Trump. It's essentially treason.

It's so obvious Trump wanted this to happen, incited it to happen, was delighted when it did happen, and did absolutely nothing to try to stop it. The arguments of the defense are laughable.
All lies detected
 
  • Like
Reactions: oagboghi2

Vestal

Gold Member
Sep 26, 2007
9,539
716
1,370
Tampa FL
Anyone who doesn't agree with me is too far gone the rabbit hole. lol

Even though I'm asking you to substantiate the claims of the OT. Heck, could you even substantiate "decency"? What's the threshold there, and how would Trump show it in your mind? This is all empty, emotional pleading, not a real argument. If you need me to agree with your emotional/ethical presumptions in order to understand your argument, then you have no argument at all.

Few people seem interested in strengthening their own argument and instead just want to trumpet how foolproof the current argument already is. That is why this thread continues to go in meaningless circles.

Just like all the other Democrat fishing expeditions. It's not like this is the first -- or second, or third -- time we've seen these antics in the past few years. It follows a script.
Like I said way too far gone. If you can’t see the problem with the quote of what he said on that call, then you have been too far desensitized to understand.

I am not trying to attack you honestly. But I feel you are coming into this line of questioning from a bad faith perspective. Words, context and circumstances matter. That is not what a normal person in power and who has sway on the situation would respond if they were concerned for the lives of those in the Capitol along with the basis of our democracy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BarringGaffner

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
29,332
70,262
1,375
USA
dunpachi.com
Like I said way too far gone. If you can’t see the problem with the quote of what he said on that call, then you have been too far desensitized to understand.
This is a bad argument. You're saying I'm too far gone to understand your argument, which is no argument at all.

It also paints you as a zealot.

Explain it to me, the unconvinced person. Walk me through your thought process.

So far, the accusers can't manage to do even that. It always (very quickly) returns to the emotional pleading. It gives me a hunch that perhaps you have no thought process at all, but merely parrot what you hear is "right" or "wrong" based on what the TV pundit says.

I like to argue based on first principles. I like to give the person a chance to explain plainly why something is wrong (or right) and why it should be punished.

Instead, we get 15 pages of shrieking and browbeating, just like the Kavanaugh thread, the Jussie Smollett thread, the ukrainegate threads, the various "walls are closing in" russiagate threads, the Rittenhouse threads, the BLM threads, the

Dems cannot stand up for their own beliefs, as usual, and they cannot explain the behavior of their elected officials, as usual. They invest all their effort into pointing at unbelievers and gasping with great drama. "What?!? Are you saying you don't realize how.... indecent Trump was behaving?"

Secular churchmarms.

I am not trying to attack you honestly. But I feel you are coming into this line of questioning from a bad faith perspective. Words, context and circumstances matter. That is not what a normal person in power and who has sway on the situation would respond if they were concerned for the lives of those in the Capitol along with the basis of our democracy.
Instead of trying to puzzle out my motives, just answer the simple questions. I'm not asking tricky stuff.

Explain, from your perspective, what crime has been committed here, what specific words were used, and so forth. You are appealing to a "common sense of dececy" that you and I clearly do not share, yet you tantrum and say "well since you aren't decent, you wouldn't understand!" So it comes across as a child throwing a fit, not an adult trying to convince another adult.
 

prag16

Banned
Jul 12, 2012
12,186
4,386
860
I know he will be. And that will be a big failure for US democracy. It essentially tells you an outgoing president can do whatever the hell he wants with no consequences, including attempting a state coup.
What kind of alternate universe are you living in. The true "failure of democracy" involves what was detailed in the Time article in the other thread. Clearly demonstrates that a cabal of oligarchs are able to 'control' democracy as they see fit.

 

SF Kosmo

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
6,484
7,697
700
Looks like they just voted to call witnesses. Trump's lawyers have declared their intent to abuse this to draw it out for as long as possible. Oh boy.
 

SF Kosmo

...please disperse...
Jul 7, 2020
6,484
7,697
700
Wow you're able to read the minds of hundreds of thousands of people. You're wasting your time here Professor X
The chatter online from these people has been combed through in retrospect and it certainly seems like most of them were already talking in violent terms.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OnionSnake

GamingKaiju

Member
Oct 24, 2014
1,368
1,708
580
So as an outsider...

What are the odds that Trump gets impreached?

I know very, very little about US politics so be gentle.
 

draw4wild

Member
Sep 23, 2011
766
831
780
And they just voted to call witnesses.
This makes no sense to me since now it can be dragged out and Republicans can use this to show how the Dems care more about impeachment than covid relief. I don't see why the defense wouldn't call every single person who had violent rhetoric in the past 4 years.
 
Last edited:

Nehezir

Banned
Sep 2, 2020
679
719
295
Good. Punish the House for their blatant, partisan abuse of the system for the last 4 years.

Dems harp on and on about the damage Trump has done to our democracy but after your elected officials have made a partisan issue of...literally everything? Rings hollow. I don't care what your argument is, House Dems have been trying to impeach him since before he went into office and have grasped for any excuse the entire way. I don't have any time for this vindictive, malicious party and it's constituents.
 
  • Like
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: prag16 and Brazen

Vestal

Gold Member
Sep 26, 2007
9,539
716
1,370
Tampa FL
This is a bad argument. You're saying I'm too far gone to understand your argument, which is no argument at all.

It also paints you as a zealot.

Explain it to me, the unconvinced person. Walk me through your thought process.

So far, the accusers can't manage to do even that. It always (very quickly) returns to the emotional pleading. It gives me a hunch that perhaps you have no thought process at all, but merely parrot what you hear is "right" or "wrong" based on what the TV pundit says.

I like to argue based on first principles. I like to give the person a chance to explain plainly why something is wrong (or right) and why it should be punished.

Instead, we get 15 pages of shrieking and browbeating, just like the Kavanaugh thread, the Jussie Smollett thread, the ukrainegate threads, the various "walls are closing in" russiagate threads, the Rittenhouse threads, the BLM threads, the

Dems cannot stand up for their own beliefs, as usual, and they cannot explain the behavior of their elected officials, as usual. They invest all their effort into pointing at unbelievers and gasping with great drama. "What?!? Are you saying you don't realize how.... indecent Trump was behaving?"

Secular churchmarms.


Instead of trying to puzzle out my motives, just answer the simple questions. I'm not asking tricky stuff.

Explain, from your perspective, what crime has been committed here, what specific words were used, and so forth. You are appealing to a "common sense of dececy" that you and I clearly do not share, yet you tantrum and say "well since you aren't decent, you wouldn't understand!" So it comes across as a child throwing a fit, not an adult trying to convince another adult.
There is a trust we put in our leaders in all facets of life. We trust that they will lead us down the righteous path. These are principals that are as old as time. We entrust leaders with immense power, not just by voting but by following them.

So let’s start with that basis. Part of how society operates in regards to leadership is that we entrust them with power and expect them to lead us down the righteous path. In our system of government we have elections to have those in power answer to us the citizens. We can agree on this right?


So with that basic concept in mind, let’s look at the current situation. It is a fact that the President had been pushing the angle of fraud and cheating in the 2020 election for months prior to the actual election. The sitting President of the United States was doing this. That in of itself is a statement that prior to 2020 I never thought I would say. As had been established by various instances, Trump never found fault in any of the violence his supporters showed in the lead up to the election. We have the Whitmore thing, the Michigan state Capitol situation and the Biden Caravsn in Texas as text book examples. If your leadership is not sternly disagreeing with those types of actions then one can only assume he condones them. That’s what leadership is, taking responsibility for your words and actions and the consequences of those.

For 2 months since the election he continued this derange path of conspiratorial talk regarding the election being stolen, leveraging the White House itself to try and sway Republican state officials to challenge official results. We have the call to Georgia where the president clearly is saying he just doesn’t understand how they can’t find 11k votes for him. Threat after threat to state officials and election officials. All of this is playing out in the open for everyone to see. His supporters and all of us could see it. What he was trying to do, and the methods he was employing. All the while pushing more and more conspiratorial crap.

then we come to this call. During an attack inside the Capitol building where the entirety of elected officials outside of him were stationed. His response to a request for the president to send help and to make a statement to calm his supporters was that. Any rational person can easily come to the conclusion that he didn’t give a shit about anyone in the Capitol and was only concerned with his own self interest.

let’s say for the sake of argument that he inadvertently caused the riot, his actions and behavior displayed in that call shows that he saw benefit from it and possibility of maintaining power. Stupidity and lack of awareness of the fervor that his supporters had cannot be an excuse here. These are leaders and in this case the POTUS, we demand better from them and especially the POTUS.


Let’s stop playing stupid as well. Everyone and their mother knew that shit was stirring prior to Jan 6th. Everyone knew that the match was pretty much lit and all it would take was a little nudging to push it over the top.
 

Crimson_Fate

Member
Jun 6, 2013
1,046
657
700
Florida
And they just voted to call witnesses.
This makes no sense to me since now it can be dragged out and Republicans can use this to show how the Dems care more about impeachment than covid relief. I don't see why the defense wouldn't call every single person who had violent rhetoric in the past 4 years.
I think they should call 1000's of people who were at the speech and drag this out for 6 months .
 

Mass Shift

Member
Jun 12, 2019
1,426
1,434
430
Looks like they just voted to call witnesses. Trump's lawyers have declared their intent to abuse this to draw it out for as long as possible. Oh boy.
Lol. This isn't what they really wanted. All the grandstanding over the trial not being constitutional, about the House Managers not having an investigation, evidence, witnesses or denying Trump due process was bluster.

They're going to threaten to call DC Mayor Bowser, Nancy Pelosi and VP Kamala Harris as witnesses? Bowser isnt in charge of Capital Police, thats federal. And Harris and Pelosi can only testify to what they experienced. And those women aren't scared of anybody. LOL.

THEIR BLUFF WAS CALLED.

I remember listening carefully to Trump's wise guy team foolishly poking this bear with a stick and thinking, "You clowns barely scrapped together a two and a half hour defense. You idiots had ONE JOB. To make it easy for GOP senators who had already decided how they were going to vote to acquit the former President."

Be careful how loud you bluff. Someone just might call you out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BarringGaffner

Sparhavoc

Member
Sep 4, 2020
654
1,245
480
Calling it now:
- Nothing will happen to Trump
- The media will be in a frenzy, as will Twitter
- Going for the throat with the republicans
- To be republican will be equated to being a nazi (kind of already is)
- More divide

When the left don't get what they want their tantrums are destructive.
 

prag16

Banned
Jul 12, 2012
12,186
4,386
860
Seems like they're moving on from the witness thing. Defense agreed to allow public statements as evidence without demanding sword testimony.
Indeed. Closing arguments under way.
Raskin sounds like no less a petty illogical infant than he did earlier this week. Turning this off.
 
Last edited:
  • Empathy
Reactions: OnionSnake

Xenon

Member
Seems like they're moving on from the witness thing. Defense agreed to allow public statements as evidence without demanding sword testimony.

This makes sense considering the prosecution delivered so much 2nd-hand information that the court reporter asked if they wanted a receipt for their records when they closed their case.
 
Last edited:

Ten_Fold

Member
Jan 18, 2017
2,395
2,115
480
I can see this happening:
Nothing happens to trump and he will just be chilling in Florida.
Our country will become even more divide
They might try to limit Flights to States that voted for Trump especially if you come from a blue state.
Twitter will cry.
 
  • LOL
Reactions: OnionSnake

Schattenjäger

Gabriel Knight
Oct 12, 2005
7,798
1,804
1,940
The Democrats have done a good job desensitizing me to the impeachment process.. here we have another impeachment trial which should be a major major headline but seems to not be that big of a deal.. let’s see how impeachments are handled in the future
 
May 31, 2008
14,063
52
1,065
Then what's the point of discussing if you can't even parrot the thin accusations leveraged by the Dems?

For 15 pages, the Democrat accusers and their followers in this thread have yet failed to show how Trump incited an insurrection. They've doctored speech footage to support their case, which was later swatted down. But hey, Dems put in more effort to doctor that footage than most of you have invested so far, who were asked for the specific speeches or the phrases that supposedly riled up the audience, and ran away to deal with distractions of your own making.

And now we have assumptions about what the crowd was there to do. Something tells me if you have yet failed to establish clear motives for one person (Trump), it's going to be exponentially harder to determine what the whole crowd was thinking.

I also love how you've flip-flopped between "this isn't a court case" and "this is like a court case".




This impeachment seems like a pretty big deal, yet like all the other Democrat show-trials, the accusations remain thin at best.

Dude, Trump pretty clearly laid a rhetorical groundwork that any reasonably historically and politically literate person could see had the potential to result in violent mass action, from the biggest and most powerful platform in the world. Basically the only possible defense is that Trump was high on his own supply and too stupid to understand the ramifications of what he was doing.

I don’t especially care one way or the other, but we don’t need to beat around the bush and pretend like a violent storming of the capital is somehow *not* the probable outcome of a President loudly declaiming that he’d been defrauded out of a legitimate victory.
 

OnionSnake

Banned
Dec 29, 2020
2,380
2,727
535
Dude, Trump pretty clearly laid a rhetorical groundwork that any reasonably historically and politically literate person could see had the potential to result in violent mass action, from the biggest and most powerful platform in the world. Basically the only possible defense is that Trump was high on his own supply and too stupid to understand the ramifications of what he was doing.

I don’t especially care one way or the other, but we don’t need to beat around the bush and pretend like a violent storming of the capital is somehow *not* the probable outcome of a President loudly declaiming that he’d been defrauded out of a legitimate victory.
It's hard to discuss this with people who at this point still either won't accept that or are trying to obfuscate it. I don't want to say "theyre too far gone" but it definitely feels like it at times. Like you said there is a clear logical path from a president crying FRAUD for months, crying how they are going to take your country you wont have a country unless you fight like hell trial by combat etc and then his insane followers doing it. To suggest otherwise is just insane or dishonest.
 

Pumpkin Seeds

Member
Jul 13, 2018
1,648
2,873
430
Dude, Trump pretty clearly laid a rhetorical groundwork that any reasonably historically and politically literate person could see had the potential to result in violent mass action, from the biggest and most powerful platform in the world. Basically the only possible defense is that Trump was high on his own supply and too stupid to understand the ramifications of what he was doing.

I don’t especially care one way or the other, but we don’t need to beat around the bush and pretend like a violent storming of the capital is somehow *not* the probable outcome of a President loudly declaiming that he’d been defrauded out of a legitimate victory.

The rhetorical groundwork was laid out by the press for chumps like you.
 
May 31, 2008
14,063
52
1,065
The rhetorical groundwork was laid out by the press for chumps like you.

Lol I don’t read bourgeois media uncritically, ya putz. As an actual, honest to goodness Marxist, not the fever dream “cultural Marxist” conservatives fret over, what’s in the press is much farther away from my preferred reality than yours, but the obvious threads of reality from which the tapestry of bullshit is woven are plainly visible, here.