The Amateur Message Boards of the World Famous VoyeurWeb

Thoughts on when these 5 million Democrats will be indicted for election denial and RICO?

In the entire history of the U.S. no one has EVER been indicted for election denial. Why is he so desperately trying to distract from Trump's crimes with dishonest irrelevancies?

But the most incredible bit of dishonesty in all of this is that johnforbes (who claims he was trained in the law in one of the countries premier law schools) is insisting that there is no difference between a petition and an armed insurrection; a peaceful, procedural disagreement and a full blown riot to stop the peaceful transfer of power for the first time in our history.

Looks like those 5 million Democrats were engaged in RICO infractions?

"Looks like those 5 million Democrats were engaged in RICO infractions?"-johnfoibles

How is one to know, dummy? That would require your role to be evidentiary or prosecutorial.

But you certainly haven't been heuristic either; just a bunch of desperate partisan diversions from Trump's crimes, and pointless rambling diversions unaccompanied by any thought do nothing to enlighten anyone.

It is heuristic to note that 5 million Democrats signed that petition, and they wanted electors to cast ballots for Hillary instead of for Trump although he won.

Point being that 5 million Democrats were not only election deniers in December 2016, but didn't want the legit process to unfold because they didn't like the outcome.

Were they indicted on RICO charges?

Or were they talking with their lawyers and pursuing legal avenues to dispute the 2016 election based upon their gut feeling that Hillary might have won?

Were those 5 million people indicted for their visceral belief that Hillary won?

johnny, Hillary DID win. She garnered 3 1/2 million more votes than Trump did. So you can see the point of the petitioners.
But it was a PETITION, dimwit. They didn't instigate a plan to put in fake Electors and commit perjury by signing forged documents to try to get illegal Electoral votes sent to Congress. And in fact, Constitutionally, an Elector may vote for whomever they please. They could all agree to vote for someone who wasn't even on the ballot. It is only the state rules that say they can't today.

It is the fault of the system that no Republican has been elected with a plurality of the popular vote in decades. This is the cause of today's upset. People get upset when someone who lost the popular vote by millions of votes gets put in office anyway.

Republicans can't win by popular vote any longer. They only win Presidential elections because of the problematic outdated Electoral College silliness that insures a minority often rules.

But to your phony point about 'will 5 million people be indicted on RICO charges' the answer is no, because they did not commit any RICO offenses as the Trump people did, such as Conspiracy to Commit Impersonating a Public Officer; Conspiracy to Commit Forgery in the First Degree; Conspiracy to Commit False Statements and Writings; Conspiracy to Commit Filing False Documents; Conspiracy to Commit Forgery in the First Degree; Filing False Documents; and Solicitation of Violation of Oath by a Public Officer.

Those 5 million petitioners did none of those things the way Trump's henchmen did. Your phony point is just that. The sad thing is, you are perfectly aware of it but you keep polluting the public discourse with fallacious comparisons anyway simply to further your authoritarian partisan agenda to intentionally breed distrust of our system of elected government.

Clowntoker is engaged in election denial.

Andrew Jackson did much the same after 1824, and it will be my recommendation to the Intl Court of Justice in The Hague that both be charged.

The sad thing is that Andrew Jackson had great hair, but Clowntroller doesn't.

Once again, when johnforbes is made a fool of, he desperately tries idiotic diversions to pretend he wasn't made a fool of.

But he was. His inability to refute a single point I made is proof.

Mr Forbes doesn't expend time seeking to refute points from leftist trolls.

His time is far more valuable, and his goal is far more noble.

He seeks enlightenment, and spreads sagacity.

Once again johnforbes confuses spreading "sagacity" and spreading "manure" on this forum.

johnforbes really needs to learn to use a dictionary. He would learn that those two words aren't even close to being synonyms.

Those 5 million election deniers do make Clowntroller very angry.

5 million Democrats refused to accept the 2016 election, and had the raw audacity to sign a petition saying that electors should not cast votes for Trump's victory.

Clowntoker joins us in his outrage at those election deniers who were disputing democracy.

^^^^^^^^^ Look at johnny flailing around, desperately trying to equate perfectly legal "election denial" (everyone is entitled to an opinion) with illegal criminal behavior of Trump and his cronies such as Conspiracy to Commit Impersonating a Public Officer; Conspiracy to Commit Forgery in the First Degree; Conspiracy to Commit False Statements and Writings; Conspiracy to Commit Filing False Documents; Filing False Documents; and Solicitation of Violation of Oath by a Public Officer.. (Things no one is entitled to.)

Again, no one in the history of this country (including Trump) has ever been criminally charged with "election denial." Why johnforbes continues to waste our time with that noxious red herring is baffling because only brain dead Trumpist morons (no offense, johnny) believe such nonsense. You aren't fooling anyone but your own, dummy.

Why is johnforbes, an alleged officer of the court, showing such contempt for our legal system and its rulings by continuing to pretend it charges and convicts people for having an opinion when it doesn't?

But that is precisely the problem.

Jackson was outraged by the "corrupt bargain" and campaigned against it. Was he indicted for election denial?

Jimmy Carter and Hillary denied the 2016 election on crystal clear video, so were they indicted under RICO?

No, there IS no problem, dimwit. None of those people you bring up committed crimes to stop the peaceful transfer of power.

All you did was prove what I said, that no one has ever been indicted for election denial. And that includes Trump.

Once again you are agreeing with what I said but trying to make it sound like I am wrong somehow. That's the only problem I see on this thread, other than your faulty premise for it, of course.

No, Jackson did not commit any crime at all when he gave his opinion that the 1824 election had been a "corrupt bargain."

Nor did those who subsequently exercised their rights under the First Amendment.

Did BLM and Antifa riot, loot, and burn all across the country in 2020 as Democrat applauded them and knelt to show solidarity with them?

Why yes.

"No, Jackson did not commit any crime at all when he gave his opinion that the 1824 election had been a "corrupt bargain."
Nor did those who subsequently exercised their rights under the First Amendment."-johnflubs

Yet again johnforbes agrees with what I said and yet again he pretends he disagrees with me when he is agreeing with me.

johnforbes has once again shown the difference between Inmate Number PO1135809 and EVERY OTHER ELECTION DENIER IN U.S. HISTORY.

They all accepted the certified election results, allowed a peaceful transfer of power, and didn't foment an insurrection or illegally strong arm election officials to change their election results.

This is why Inmate Number PO1135809 is being prosecuted and all of the other election deniers johnny listed aren't.
Denying an election is not a crime. Trying to overturn a certified election with threats and coercion IS a crime. Or many crimes, in the case of Inmate Number PO1135809.

Now stand by for another post by johnforbes telling us that I am right and that he agrees with me again...

Mr Forbes makes haste to clarify.

Typically, Mr Forbes will agree with himself given his relentless good cheer and overall sagacity.

On those rare occasions when Mr Forbes has some tiny element of dissent from the celestial wisdom of Mr Forbes, he indicates that in a footnote (often to Kant or Hume).

Why must it always take johnforbes three sentences (at least) to say "I agree with Clownkicker"?

I can do it with just four words.

johforbes obviously suffers from some sort of verbal diarrhea. He's like a sphincter of verbose words. He just keeps squeezin' 'em out long after he has said anything germane he has to say on a topic.

That is, if he has anything at all to say on a topic, which is usually nothing. He has several more trolling threads containing no thoughts whatsoever on the board right now.

Four words? Far too verbose for the trenchant and concise Forbes.

Mr Forbes has gazed upon the entire history of this fine forum and reduced it all to 3 words, which shimmer in the lonely silver rain now pattering outside in the autumnal dusk.

Three golden words-- no more, no less -- and here they are:

Mr Forbes was totallhy correct in all his posts, each and every one of them.

^^^^^^^^^ Well that explains everything one needs to know about johnforbes' utter inability to discuss a political issue intelligently: being a typical Trump supporter, he never learned to count to three.

Yes, the august Mr Forbes has gazed upon the entire history of this fine forum and reduced it all to 3 words, which shimmer in the lonely silver rain now pattering outside in the autumnal dusk.

Three golden words-- no more, no less -- and here they are:

Mr Forbes was totallhy correct in all his posts, each and every one of them.

^^^^^^^ johnforbes actually believes that if he parades his ignorance and stupidity often enough on this thread it will somehow distract people from realizing that he made a fool of himself on this pointless thread.

Yes, he is THAT stupid.

As the steady rain fell this afternoon, Mr Forbes hiked through a verdant forest where the first small hints of autumnal foliage change were manifest.

As he walked, his legs -- lean and lithe, tan and tawny, magnificent and muscular -- kept time to the rhythm of the rain.

As he walked, his fabulous forebrain turned naturally toward Rousseau's claim that the human development in the "savage" stage was the best for being between brute ignorance and decadence.

As he wandered, he realized that Clowntroller was, while essentially "savage" in his egregious ignorance, he was also -- as a naive socialist -- not an arrival at genteel decadence.

Such were his profound ponderings and cagey cogitations.

^^^^^^ And there it is--johnforbes just admitted that I live rent free in his vacuous brain.

I own him.

A full picosecond was expended on the matter of Clown's pressing -- yet preening and proletarian -- posting.