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 differen…
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.
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...