Feb 20, 2011, twelve thousand angry Democrats and leftists marched to protest their anger at Wisconsin legislation confirming the right to work. They violently stormed the state capitol and occupied it for weeks. Today many of the same Democrats claiming Jan-6 was a threat to democracy and an insurrection (without ever having to define…
Feb 20, 2011, twelve thousand angry Democrats and leftists marched to protest their anger at Wisconsin legislation confirming the right to work. They violently stormed the state capitol and occupied it for weeks. Today many of the same Democrats claiming Jan-6 was a threat to democracy and an insurrection (without ever having to define the use of those terms) were lauding the Wisconsin spectacle as just freedom of speech with some civil disobedience.
In general whataboutism is how we identify the hypocrites in our midst.
The Wisconsin protesters gathered outside the Capitol or in public areas of the building while the legislature was able to carry on with business (though there were some incidents of violent and/or threatening behavior).
Since when did "legislature was able to carry on its business" be the criteria by which we consider a protest by the people with civil disobedience to occupy a government building that is owned by the people to be right or wrong? Isn't this just creative excuse-making for politics sake?
I did not support the Wisconsin protests and occupation and I did not support the Jan-6 protests and occupation. I am consistent there. What I oppose is the attempting to turn the Jan-6 protest into something it was not and to see a perpetual political circus be made from it. Especially considering the other splitting hairs about the previous 18 months of violent BLM and Antifa riots. Now THOSE would be good to have a commission to investigate. Maybe we can get around to it starting in Jan 2023.
If you were brave enough to forsake FOX and watch the actual hearing on Thursday, and read this preview: https://www.brookings.edu/research/trump-on-trial/ Then you know any seditious president of whatever party merits full investigation. No patriots supports such a person. The protest was one prong of attack on our democracy that day. Your trivialization of the event tells us all we need to know. No hair splitting necessary.
Trump thought at that point, and many other people did too, that there were election shenanigans and that the Democrats cheated and that he had won the election legally. It was not an election without those controversies. Without the pandemic-justified mail in ballots, the likelihood is that Trump would still be President and the Senate would be in GOP hands and old Nancy would have fewer congressional lackeys to boss around. It was NOT a free and fair election, it was a manipulated ballot harvested election. Trump's goal was to uncover the shenanigans and prove that he was still President. It did not work out that way as the political establishment was too strong and thwarted his attempts.
Now we have the 2000 Mules documentary and other facts that do in fact prove that the Democrats did significant dirty cheating in the swing states.
But your attempt to rewrite what actually happened to fit your political mythology is patently infantile and there is not a single mind being changed by it... except more moderates jumping ship from the Democrat insanity. Liz Cheney is already dead politically.
The most patriotic thing to do is to reject the irrational rants of those so afflicted with media-made Trump derangement syndrome. The 2022 and 2024 elections are not going to make you happy. Voter ID will prevent the same shenanigans.
Chris Krebs, Republican head of CISA said no rigged election, adding 2020 was the most secure election in US history.
The Election Officials in 50 states said no rigged election.
Numerous Audits said no rigged election.
GA Sec’y of State and Republican Raffensperger said no rigged election.
GA Gov. and Republican Kemp said no rigged election.
Trump's Fixer Attorney AG Barr said no rigged election.
Trump's acting Attorney General Jeffery Rosen said no rigged election.
60+ court petitions and appeals said no rigged election.
80+ judges, many Trump appointees, said no rigged election.
The Supreme Court said no rigged election.
Trump’s Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett unanimously said no rigged election.
👉 Cyber Ninjas said no rigged election. 👈
“No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact,” Powell's attorneys said in a court filing [...] www.nbcnews.com — Mar 23, 2021
Trump admitted in interviews that he legitimately lost the election, regardless of what he says at his stupid rallies.
2000 Mules has been well and truly debunked.
Of the very few 2020 election fraud cases, the big majority of perps were Republicans.
You are the only one here so afflicted with TDS that you cannot let go of your political mythology.
But you are right about one thing. It may well be that there are enough voters who have thrown in with seditionists in key states that your longed-for authoritarian gets elected via the electoral college while losing the popular vote. And I and the actual majority of Americans will be unhappy. You may rejoice, but inevitably your authoritarian will make you unhappy as well.
No, none of those were Trump's. But he did learn his lesson and there will be doing house cleaning in 2024. Or DeSantis will. All GOP candidates learned that the swamp is Democrat and will be hostile. So firing is going to happen.
---At a pivotal moment in the film, state-captured surveillance video shows a man depositing several ballots into a drop box before getting into a white Ford SUV whose license plate is visible, but blurred by the filmmakers.
“What you are seeing is a crime,” D’Souza says in the film as the video plays. “These are fraudulent votes.”
In fact, investigators say it was not a crime. And those were not fraudulent votes.
Rather, an investigator for the Georgia Board of Elections has determined the man was depositing his own ballots, plus the ballots of his wife and adult children, who are also registered voters. That’s all perfectly legal in Georgia.---
That's just one example. What D'Souza claimed was a crime was investigated and found not to be. So when you say, "Not at all", you appear to be projecting the same false certainty of the guy who made the 'documentary'. Coupled with what appear to be made up numbers in your post that don't tie to the link you provided, I don't see how I can ascribe much credibility to your claims.
Yes all of those were Trump's in just the same way you guys think everything now is Biden's, and furthermore many of them were either Republicans in office or one of Trump's nominees.
What you mean by housecleaning is that your authoritarian will purge anyone who chooses loyalty to the constitution over loyalty to him personally.
Is rigged a legal term? It is trump's preferred term. Since you think you are so informed, you know 2000 mules was nonsense. Dinesh's 2000 mules has already been debunked, beginning with something Biden DID NOT say. The "2,000 mules" trailer begins with an clip of Joe Biden talking before the election about pulling together "the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics." Biden was describing a project to help people learn where and how to vote legally, but the trailer falsely frames his quote as an admission to election fraud.
There have been isolated cases of fraud associated with ballot harvesting, such as a North Carolina Republican in a 2018 congressional race. A few people in 2020 collected and returned mail ballots in violation of their state laws, and like the NC Republican, face consequences. D’Souza’s portrayal of the practice as leading to fraud on the scale of 400,000 illegal votes is not supported by evidence.
Experts say cellphone location data, even at its most advanced, can only reliably track a smartphone within a few meters — not close enough to know whether someone actually dropped off a ballot or just walked or drove nearby. What’s more, ballot drop boxes are often intentionally placed in busy areas, such as college campuses, libraries, government buildings and apartment complexes. Lots of repeat cell phone pings.
An awful lot of people at the Bulwark are not lefties, but apart from you, they are not far right either. No wonder everyone here looks like a lefty to you. Again, your speculations are are not facts. You have not a shred of evidence for anything. Immoral? You are projecting again.
I live in liberal land and have for over 40 years. Much of my extended family lives in Trump land. My Trump land relatives call me a liberal for my social views. I am a center-right libertarian from my checklist of political principles and beliefs.
But living as I do in liberal land, and having decades of experience debating the species, it is common for them to claim that they are independent while demonstrating almost complete solidarity with the progressive left orthodoxy of the time.
So I always call BS on that... sorry, you don't get to claim membership in a moderate or center political tribe while ranting the same as a standard issue liberal. Certainly there are old-style establishment Republicans that are anti-Trump, but they don't tend to support anything the Democrats stand for today.
My position is that Trump is somewhat like Teddie Roosevelt, Winston Churchill or George S. Patton. He is a SOB, but he is a needed SOB given the challenges of the time.
Center-right people tend to be pragmatic about their politics (saving their emotive energy for God, family and community). They don't get all wee weed up about character issues if the politician is doing what he said he would do. You can identify a lefty because they tend to do the exact opposite... not care much what the politician is getting done as long as he says the right words.
This continued fantasy on the right is puzzling. Specifically, this idea that protests about the treatment of minorities by police is equivalent to protests to try to overthrow the gov't. It's bizarre. What makes it even stranger is that of all people, one would think traditional conservatives would get it. They would understand threats to our system of gov't are far more serious than policy protests.
One can only assume it's motivated reasoning at work. Grasping at any rationalization no matter how ridiculous to avoid facing the damning reality that one has thrown in with seditionists.
So, it was all a grift? How deep does it go? Did BLM leaders pay Chauvin? Next thing you know the BLM-DNC industrial complex will be fleecing their supporters about stolen elections!
There's this thing called projection...oh, never mind.
Violently? Please, elaborate. Are you referring to the 6 people arrested for disorderly conduct? Or the GOP operative cited for theft?
In any event, let's go ahead and stipulate that was a Bad Thing. So, if protesting a law in a state - with a handful of arrests - is bad, what does that make trying to overthrow a national election, an event that was unequivocally violent with hundreds of arrests?
You may be right about whataboutism as a marker for hypocrites. "Both sides" is a marker for bad faith.
BTW, "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government". This really isn't that difficult. Although trying to excuse it must be exhausting.
Heh, well, I guess you'll have to write to Merriam-Webster and let them know they have it wrong. Dare I ask: is there some other definition you like better? Hopefully you won't try to pull the current standard right-wing deflection using legal pedantry.
Also, I note that you ducked all the salient issues.
The Democrat-controlled search engines of course have done some good scrubbing to keep the sheeple in line. However, the definition of insurrection has always been: "a usually violent attempt to take control of a government."
So say Trump won and was still in office and then parts or all of the US military leadership, the Justice Department, national law enforcement... they all colluded with other private actors... say the billionaire tech oligarchs and the DNC.. to overthrow the Trump government and take control.
Or say senior people in Justice and the FBI colluded with politicians and other private parties to make up a fake dossier and then lie to the FISA court to illegally spy on the campaign of the opposition party to dig up dirt on that candidate... and then violently with guns drawn go pull the candidates supporters out of their beds at night and lock them away... and then after that candidate was elected President, continue to push the fake narrative in the media and then attempt to impeach him twice based on the lies based on the fake dossier. Now THERE is a real insurrection attempt.
These are real insurrection scenarios. Not the protests of few hundred unorganized bearded blue collar workers that your ilk seem intent to keep punching down. It is really quite hilarious to keep hearing "insurrection" related to Jan-6... as it immediately brands the spewer as non-serious.
Sigh. Here I go through the looking glass again...
"The Democrat-controlled search engines of course have done some good scrubbing to keep the sheeple in line." - I see. Sheeple...nice. And, has the DNC infiltrated Merriam-Webster, as well? More on this grand conspiracy concept below. Meantime, your definition isn't substantially different than the one I used ("revolt" means in this context to rebel and replace an authority), so let's press on.
"So say Trump won and was still in office...to overthrow the Trump government and take control." - assuming, in such a hypothetical scenario, that illegal and anti-Constitutional means were used to remove Trump, that would likely be an insurrection. And, if it succeeded, a coup. Your wording suggests this a hypothetical and that you don't believe Trump is currently president, correct? Just need to make sure. So, it's an interesting story, but seems to have nothing to do with anything that happened in the real world.
"...to make up a fake dossier..." - ah, so now we're in 2016 and, supposedly, not hypothetical. Let's cut to the chase: the Steele dossier is a, what's the word Trumpists use...nothingburger. It had little to no influence on any investigation. Moreover, the right has pinned their hopes on a series of efforts to try to give the hoax counter-narrative a dash of credibility. Alas, Horowitz and now Durham failed. And, despite the latter's hyperbolic and very partisan efforts, he pretty much belly-flopped. (BTW, can you remind me: how many times did Biden threaten Durham and/or his investigation?)
To be clear, I don't like oppo research. I don't like bad actors in gov't of any stripe. I'm actually glad that Durham found a couple of mice nuts. If Dem-friendly folks perpetrated fraud on Steele, throw the book at 'em I say. However, to suggest that the minor malfeasance of a handful of low-level nobodies amounts to insurrection is absurd.
"It is really quite hilarious to keep hearing "insurrection" related to Jan-6" - odd that it's funny. It's the very definition of it, even using your preferred definition. Sure, it was poorly planned and executed, but don't kid yourself about what is was, especially the intent.
Sure, let's not punch down. Nor be disingenuous. We both know that the bigger issue here is what incited these poor bearded fools to assault the Capitol. As we learn more every day, the thousands of deluded idiots of J6 were only a small piece of the puzzle. No need to go fabricating baby-blood drinking conspiracies when you have the Trump coup attempt staring you in the face, eh?
Finally, regarding your apparent conspiratorial nature, do the probabilities ever bother you? Which seems more non-serious to you. Thousands of gov't (mostly Republican, btw) actors and private sector folks secretly conspiring to remove Trump, and successfully lying about it to a person. Or, that a single well-known habitual liar is lying to you?
Yep, someone, I forgot who, said that the effort to refute propaganda is exponentially greater than the effort to spread it. I refer back to this all too true principle all the time.
Feb 20, 2011, twelve thousand angry Democrats and leftists marched to protest their anger at Wisconsin legislation confirming the right to work. They violently stormed the state capitol and occupied it for weeks. Today many of the same Democrats claiming Jan-6 was a threat to democracy and an insurrection (without ever having to define the use of those terms) were lauding the Wisconsin spectacle as just freedom of speech with some civil disobedience.
In general whataboutism is how we identify the hypocrites in our midst.
The Wisconsin protesters gathered outside the Capitol or in public areas of the building while the legislature was able to carry on with business (though there were some incidents of violent and/or threatening behavior).
Thank you for the response.
Since when did "legislature was able to carry on its business" be the criteria by which we consider a protest by the people with civil disobedience to occupy a government building that is owned by the people to be right or wrong? Isn't this just creative excuse-making for politics sake?
I did not support the Wisconsin protests and occupation and I did not support the Jan-6 protests and occupation. I am consistent there. What I oppose is the attempting to turn the Jan-6 protest into something it was not and to see a perpetual political circus be made from it. Especially considering the other splitting hairs about the previous 18 months of violent BLM and Antifa riots. Now THOSE would be good to have a commission to investigate. Maybe we can get around to it starting in Jan 2023.
You are not the first to push that false equivalency. Jan 8, 2021: https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2021/01/08/wisconsin-act-10-protests-vs-capitol-riot-breach-4-key-differences-violence-arrests-deaths-damage/6584619002/ What is odd is that you are still pushing the debunked false equivalency a year and a half later. As Liz Cheney said, "Donald Trump's goal on Jan 6 was to remain president despite the outcome of the free and fair election."
If you were brave enough to forsake FOX and watch the actual hearing on Thursday, and read this preview: https://www.brookings.edu/research/trump-on-trial/ Then you know any seditious president of whatever party merits full investigation. No patriots supports such a person. The protest was one prong of attack on our democracy that day. Your trivialization of the event tells us all we need to know. No hair splitting necessary.
Trump thought at that point, and many other people did too, that there were election shenanigans and that the Democrats cheated and that he had won the election legally. It was not an election without those controversies. Without the pandemic-justified mail in ballots, the likelihood is that Trump would still be President and the Senate would be in GOP hands and old Nancy would have fewer congressional lackeys to boss around. It was NOT a free and fair election, it was a manipulated ballot harvested election. Trump's goal was to uncover the shenanigans and prove that he was still President. It did not work out that way as the political establishment was too strong and thwarted his attempts.
Now we have the 2000 Mules documentary and other facts that do in fact prove that the Democrats did significant dirty cheating in the swing states.
But your attempt to rewrite what actually happened to fit your political mythology is patently infantile and there is not a single mind being changed by it... except more moderates jumping ship from the Democrat insanity. Liz Cheney is already dead politically.
The most patriotic thing to do is to reject the irrational rants of those so afflicted with media-made Trump derangement syndrome. The 2022 and 2024 elections are not going to make you happy. Voter ID will prevent the same shenanigans.
Once again:
Trump’s CIA said no rigged election.
Trump’s FBI said no rigged election.
Trump’s NSA said no rigged election.
Trump’s DHS said no rigged election.
Chris Krebs, Republican head of CISA said no rigged election, adding 2020 was the most secure election in US history.
The Election Officials in 50 states said no rigged election.
Numerous Audits said no rigged election.
GA Sec’y of State and Republican Raffensperger said no rigged election.
GA Gov. and Republican Kemp said no rigged election.
Trump's Fixer Attorney AG Barr said no rigged election.
Trump's acting Attorney General Jeffery Rosen said no rigged election.
60+ court petitions and appeals said no rigged election.
80+ judges, many Trump appointees, said no rigged election.
The Supreme Court said no rigged election.
Trump’s Supreme Court Justices Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett unanimously said no rigged election.
👉 Cyber Ninjas said no rigged election. 👈
“No reasonable person would conclude that the statements were truly statements of fact,” Powell's attorneys said in a court filing [...] www.nbcnews.com — Mar 23, 2021
Trump admitted in interviews that he legitimately lost the election, regardless of what he says at his stupid rallies.
2000 Mules has been well and truly debunked.
Of the very few 2020 election fraud cases, the big majority of perps were Republicans.
You are the only one here so afflicted with TDS that you cannot let go of your political mythology.
But you are right about one thing. It may well be that there are enough voters who have thrown in with seditionists in key states that your longed-for authoritarian gets elected via the electoral college while losing the popular vote. And I and the actual majority of Americans will be unhappy. You may rejoice, but inevitably your authoritarian will make you unhappy as well.
"Trump's _ _ _"
No, none of those were Trump's. But he did learn his lesson and there will be doing house cleaning in 2024. Or DeSantis will. All GOP candidates learned that the swamp is Democrat and will be hostile. So firing is going to happen.
What is "rigged" election? Is that a legal term?
And no, 2000 Mules has not been debunked. Not at all. People that watch it... even 75% of Democrats... are convinced that some cheating happened after watching it. https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/2000_mules_documentary_s_message_resonates_with_voters
When looking at the crosstabs, I do not see where you are getting the 75% number you are claiming.
I also don't know how I am to view the objectiveness of people who paid to see what appears very much to be a slanted political production.
As for debunking: https://www.factcheck.org/2022/06/evidence-gaps-in-2000-mules/
---At a pivotal moment in the film, state-captured surveillance video shows a man depositing several ballots into a drop box before getting into a white Ford SUV whose license plate is visible, but blurred by the filmmakers.
“What you are seeing is a crime,” D’Souza says in the film as the video plays. “These are fraudulent votes.”
In fact, investigators say it was not a crime. And those were not fraudulent votes.
Rather, an investigator for the Georgia Board of Elections has determined the man was depositing his own ballots, plus the ballots of his wife and adult children, who are also registered voters. That’s all perfectly legal in Georgia.---
That's just one example. What D'Souza claimed was a crime was investigated and found not to be. So when you say, "Not at all", you appear to be projecting the same false certainty of the guy who made the 'documentary'. Coupled with what appear to be made up numbers in your post that don't tie to the link you provided, I don't see how I can ascribe much credibility to your claims.
Yes all of those were Trump's in just the same way you guys think everything now is Biden's, and furthermore many of them were either Republicans in office or one of Trump's nominees.
What you mean by housecleaning is that your authoritarian will purge anyone who chooses loyalty to the constitution over loyalty to him personally.
Is rigged a legal term? It is trump's preferred term. Since you think you are so informed, you know 2000 mules was nonsense. Dinesh's 2000 mules has already been debunked, beginning with something Biden DID NOT say. The "2,000 mules" trailer begins with an clip of Joe Biden talking before the election about pulling together "the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics." Biden was describing a project to help people learn where and how to vote legally, but the trailer falsely frames his quote as an admission to election fraud.
There have been isolated cases of fraud associated with ballot harvesting, such as a North Carolina Republican in a 2018 congressional race. A few people in 2020 collected and returned mail ballots in violation of their state laws, and like the NC Republican, face consequences. D’Souza’s portrayal of the practice as leading to fraud on the scale of 400,000 illegal votes is not supported by evidence.
Experts say cellphone location data, even at its most advanced, can only reliably track a smartphone within a few meters — not close enough to know whether someone actually dropped off a ballot or just walked or drove nearby. What’s more, ballot drop boxes are often intentionally placed in busy areas, such as college campuses, libraries, government buildings and apartment complexes. Lots of repeat cell phone pings.
Rassmussen? Ha! Way to self-own. 146 people is not considered a reasonable sample. And Q3 makes an invalid assumption that 100% start with the conviction of widespread fraud and asks if that conviction was strengthened or weakened. https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/public_surveys/questions_2000_mules_june_1_2_2022
Garbage movie. Garbage poll.
You have thrown in with the seditionists. If any Dem president had done what trump did, you would be demanding an indictment.
An awful lot of people at the Bulwark are not lefties, but apart from you, they are not far right either. No wonder everyone here looks like a lefty to you. Again, your speculations are are not facts. You have not a shred of evidence for anything. Immoral? You are projecting again.
I live in liberal land and have for over 40 years. Much of my extended family lives in Trump land. My Trump land relatives call me a liberal for my social views. I am a center-right libertarian from my checklist of political principles and beliefs.
But living as I do in liberal land, and having decades of experience debating the species, it is common for them to claim that they are independent while demonstrating almost complete solidarity with the progressive left orthodoxy of the time.
So I always call BS on that... sorry, you don't get to claim membership in a moderate or center political tribe while ranting the same as a standard issue liberal. Certainly there are old-style establishment Republicans that are anti-Trump, but they don't tend to support anything the Democrats stand for today.
My position is that Trump is somewhat like Teddie Roosevelt, Winston Churchill or George S. Patton. He is a SOB, but he is a needed SOB given the challenges of the time.
Center-right people tend to be pragmatic about their politics (saving their emotive energy for God, family and community). They don't get all wee weed up about character issues if the politician is doing what he said he would do. You can identify a lefty because they tend to do the exact opposite... not care much what the politician is getting done as long as he says the right words.
This continued fantasy on the right is puzzling. Specifically, this idea that protests about the treatment of minorities by police is equivalent to protests to try to overthrow the gov't. It's bizarre. What makes it even stranger is that of all people, one would think traditional conservatives would get it. They would understand threats to our system of gov't are far more serious than policy protests.
One can only assume it's motivated reasoning at work. Grasping at any rationalization no matter how ridiculous to avoid facing the damning reality that one has thrown in with seditionists.
"protests about the treatment of minorities by police" Yeah, that is what that was. More mythology.
I'm intrigued. So protests about Floyd's murder were really protests about...? Please, do tell.
And, once again, you avoid the elephant in the room.
Donations to BLM were processed through ActBlue.com for a hefty fee.
So, it was all a grift? How deep does it go? Did BLM leaders pay Chauvin? Next thing you know the BLM-DNC industrial complex will be fleecing their supporters about stolen elections!
There's this thing called projection...oh, never mind.
Violently? Please, elaborate. Are you referring to the 6 people arrested for disorderly conduct? Or the GOP operative cited for theft?
In any event, let's go ahead and stipulate that was a Bad Thing. So, if protesting a law in a state - with a handful of arrests - is bad, what does that make trying to overthrow a national election, an event that was unequivocally violent with hundreds of arrests?
You may be right about whataboutism as a marker for hypocrites. "Both sides" is a marker for bad faith.
BTW, "an act or instance of revolting against civil authority or an established government". This really isn't that difficult. Although trying to excuse it must be exhausting.
That is NOT the definition of insurrection. Otherwise the political left is guilty of perpetual insurrection. Please try again.
Heh, well, I guess you'll have to write to Merriam-Webster and let them know they have it wrong. Dare I ask: is there some other definition you like better? Hopefully you won't try to pull the current standard right-wing deflection using legal pedantry.
Also, I note that you ducked all the salient issues.
The Democrat-controlled search engines of course have done some good scrubbing to keep the sheeple in line. However, the definition of insurrection has always been: "a usually violent attempt to take control of a government."
So say Trump won and was still in office and then parts or all of the US military leadership, the Justice Department, national law enforcement... they all colluded with other private actors... say the billionaire tech oligarchs and the DNC.. to overthrow the Trump government and take control.
Or say senior people in Justice and the FBI colluded with politicians and other private parties to make up a fake dossier and then lie to the FISA court to illegally spy on the campaign of the opposition party to dig up dirt on that candidate... and then violently with guns drawn go pull the candidates supporters out of their beds at night and lock them away... and then after that candidate was elected President, continue to push the fake narrative in the media and then attempt to impeach him twice based on the lies based on the fake dossier. Now THERE is a real insurrection attempt.
These are real insurrection scenarios. Not the protests of few hundred unorganized bearded blue collar workers that your ilk seem intent to keep punching down. It is really quite hilarious to keep hearing "insurrection" related to Jan-6... as it immediately brands the spewer as non-serious.
Sigh. Here I go through the looking glass again...
"The Democrat-controlled search engines of course have done some good scrubbing to keep the sheeple in line." - I see. Sheeple...nice. And, has the DNC infiltrated Merriam-Webster, as well? More on this grand conspiracy concept below. Meantime, your definition isn't substantially different than the one I used ("revolt" means in this context to rebel and replace an authority), so let's press on.
"So say Trump won and was still in office...to overthrow the Trump government and take control." - assuming, in such a hypothetical scenario, that illegal and anti-Constitutional means were used to remove Trump, that would likely be an insurrection. And, if it succeeded, a coup. Your wording suggests this a hypothetical and that you don't believe Trump is currently president, correct? Just need to make sure. So, it's an interesting story, but seems to have nothing to do with anything that happened in the real world.
"...to make up a fake dossier..." - ah, so now we're in 2016 and, supposedly, not hypothetical. Let's cut to the chase: the Steele dossier is a, what's the word Trumpists use...nothingburger. It had little to no influence on any investigation. Moreover, the right has pinned their hopes on a series of efforts to try to give the hoax counter-narrative a dash of credibility. Alas, Horowitz and now Durham failed. And, despite the latter's hyperbolic and very partisan efforts, he pretty much belly-flopped. (BTW, can you remind me: how many times did Biden threaten Durham and/or his investigation?)
To be clear, I don't like oppo research. I don't like bad actors in gov't of any stripe. I'm actually glad that Durham found a couple of mice nuts. If Dem-friendly folks perpetrated fraud on Steele, throw the book at 'em I say. However, to suggest that the minor malfeasance of a handful of low-level nobodies amounts to insurrection is absurd.
"It is really quite hilarious to keep hearing "insurrection" related to Jan-6" - odd that it's funny. It's the very definition of it, even using your preferred definition. Sure, it was poorly planned and executed, but don't kid yourself about what is was, especially the intent.
Sure, let's not punch down. Nor be disingenuous. We both know that the bigger issue here is what incited these poor bearded fools to assault the Capitol. As we learn more every day, the thousands of deluded idiots of J6 were only a small piece of the puzzle. No need to go fabricating baby-blood drinking conspiracies when you have the Trump coup attempt staring you in the face, eh?
Finally, regarding your apparent conspiratorial nature, do the probabilities ever bother you? Which seems more non-serious to you. Thousands of gov't (mostly Republican, btw) actors and private sector folks secretly conspiring to remove Trump, and successfully lying about it to a person. Or, that a single well-known habitual liar is lying to you?
He's an outlier here. You could keep debunking his myths for the next week and he won't stop. May as well save your energy.
Yep, someone, I forgot who, said that the effort to refute propaganda is exponentially greater than the effort to spread it. I refer back to this all too true principle all the time.
Clearly you are a democrat controlled post-bot, designed to sway those of an ovine persuasion. Your lizard over-lords will not succeed!!1!!1!
;)
Right, me and Charlie and JVL...