-->
@Lemming
Unfortunately you have no rational grounds on which to do so. The army, pathetic as it was, and the intent to separate from the US Constitution are well documented facts.
MANAFORT ADMITS to RUSSIAN COLLUSION, LYING UNDER OATH
Posts
Total:
52
-->
@oromagi
The Leftist News repeating again and again, "It was a coup" "It was a coup",
Does not make 'fact.
I also disagree that the group of people qualify as an 'army.
-->
@Lemming
NATO is not leftist news but NATO defines Jan 6 as an attempted coup
In fact, the national security of most EU nations reported it as a coup
Liz Cheney is not leftist news but Cheney defines Jan 6 as an attempted coup
Yale History Professor Timothy Snyder is not leftist news but says history will judge Jan 6 a coup
The Right Honorable David O Carter referred the Eastman Memo to Congress as a "memo for a coup"
The Brookings Institute, etc..
some call it a self-coup or just an attempt to overthrow the US govt or seditious conspiracy but those are all the same thing.
an ARMY is "a large number of people or things, typically formed or organized for a particular purpose."
-->
@oromagi
True there's some people not on the Left, who 'call it a coup.
Football. . . Armies.
School. . . Armies.
Music concert. . . Armies.
(Sarcasm)
-->
@Lemming
Just to bring it back to our subject.
The point is that Manafort now says that every claim made about him in the Steele Dossier and the Mueller Report is actually true and that all those many, many Republicans that have been swearing up and down for the last six years that those claims made about Manafort were fake news and lies were all either wrong or themselves lying.
-->
@Lemming
Washpo today:
"Trump has marshaled his army of supporters to declare, in knee-jerk fashion, any legal scrutiny of him a deep-state operation."
-->
@oromagi
Burr was looking to form an army as we use the phrase for 'military conquest.
Trump, you call anyone who supports him in a group part of his personal 'army.
Then shy away from the military definition of the word,
Yet 'attempt to nudge people's thoughts in the direction of the military definition.
-->
@Lemming
Burr was looking to form an army as we use the phrase for 'military conquest.Trump, you call anyone who supports him in a group part of his personal 'army.Then shy away from the military definition of the word,Yet 'attempt to nudge people's thoughts in the direction of the military definition.
I agree that WashPo and Burr's treason trial are using different senses of the word ARMY. As far as I can tell, Trump's army was larger, better equipped, and killed more people than Burr's army- although roughly the same amount of drinking was involved.
-->
@oromagi
Unfortunately you have no rational grounds on which to do so. The army, pathetic as it was, and the intent to separate from the US Constitution are well documented facts.
In that case what are your rational grounds in failing to recognize the CHAZ as a rebel army under the control of Maxine Waters and AOC?
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
In that case what are your rational grounds in failing to recognize the CHAZ as a rebel army under the control of Maxine Waters and AOC?
Please show some evidence for your claim that I failed to recognize CHAZ as "a rebel army under the control of Maxine Waters and AOC?"
-->
@oromagi
ADOL: In that case what are your rational grounds in failing to recognize the CHAZ as a rebel army under the control of Maxine Waters and AOC?oromagi: Please show some evidence for your claim that I failed to recognize CHAZ as "a rebel army under the control of Maxine Waters and AOC?"
Easily: If you had recognized as such you would recognize that AOC and Maxine waters were traitors to the constitution on Jan 6 2021. Consequently you would know that on Jan 6 the proceedings occurring within the capitol building were in violation of the constitution (for traitors may not serve in congress and yet they were participating).
Thus an army formed to prevent the proceedings (even if that was true) would not be an army necessarily meant to detach a portion of the territory claimed by the USA from the constitution. Indeed if the goal was to prevent the pretenders from carrying on pretending that would be the reattachment of territory of the USA to the constitution of the USA.
You may have noticed if you read history or even a good novel that who is the traitor and who is the usurper is a codependent state. If the king is false, the plot is not treasonous.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
SECOND REQUEST: (please answer as directly as you are able)
oromagi: Please show some evidence for your claim that I failed to recognize CHAZ as "a rebel army under the control of Maxine Waters and AOC?"
- Your reply should include at least one link to a post I made backing up your false claim.
- Of course, you won't be able to find any because I had to look up what a CHAZ was.
- Further non-sequiturs will be ignored.
-->
@oromagi
Post #31 of this thread: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/7823/post-links/337045
The army, pathetic as it was, and the intent to separate from the US Constitution are well documented facts.
In post #41 I related the bolded proposition to the recognition of the CHAZ.
To reiterate: Since you claimed in post #31 that the intent was to separate from the US Constitution on Jan 6 you imply that the proceedings which were to be interrupted were the embodiment of the constitution which in turn implied that sedition had not already rendered prior members of congress usurpers by that point.
I suppose you could claim that you are not equivocating attempting to stop the proceedings with "separating from the US Constitution" (aka sedition), but I had dismissed that possibility because people were certainly not going around on Jan 6 explicitly saying "The Constitution is the problem, forget it", certainly not Trump.
Regardless I have my answer:
ADOL: In that case what are your rational grounds in failing to recognize the CHAZ as a rebel army under the control of Maxine Waters and AOC?oromagi: I had to look up what a CHAZ was.
If you did not know what the CHAZ/CHOP was you failed to recognize it as a rebel army because you failed to recognize it in any sense.
Now you may know what it is, but since your sources are suspect I will summarize: The CHAZ was a chunk of territory explicitly marked off by various militias and mobs as being free from all federal, state, and municipal law. That is quintessential separation from the constitution, again also known as sedition.
Keep in mind I'm not using these words for moral impact. Loyalty to paper is not a virtue. Sedition from an evil organization is a moral good. I'm merely observing a political fact. Sedition = rejection of the social contract a government claims binds you. Insurrection is the violent pursuit of sedition.
Sedition is not the same thing as accepting the social contract but claiming the government is corrupt or illegitimate. As with all conflicts over legitimacy each side will call the other illegitimate but that is a different category from people who clearly reject the proposed social contract entirely.
CHAZ people would pee on the constitution, MAGA rioters would wear it as a cape. The former rejects the contract, the later contests legitimacy. The former is necessarily seditious, the later may be depending on the facts (or more cynically depending on who wins).
In the European wars of succession almost no one claimed to be fighting to overturn a feudal holding since almost all of them claimed to be fighting to restore the true lord to his/her possessions. They fought over legitimacy not social contract.
Now to the point your ignorance has delayed: The standard applied to Trump and to the Jan 6 mob is absurd, because it is absurd it leads to absurd conclusions when equally applied. The most absurd part about it is the connection between telling people to protest and being held as an accomplice for anything any one of them may do from that point on.
Maxine Waters told people to get in politicians faces and praised protests that turned into violent riots. She did not tell anyone to pick up a gun and declare the constitution void in a certain area.
Trump told people to march peacefully. He did not tell anyone to knock down a door. He also did not tell them to abandon the constitution and no one claimed they were trying to abandon the constitution (which is surprising given the number of people and the amount of recordings).
CHAZ was technical insurrection, but it had no organizer in office. Jan 6 was not an insurrection, and the riot had no organizer in office.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
yeah, don't know much about CHAZ. Judging by arrest records and hospitalizations seems like it was mostly a bunch of teenaged white boys from the suburbs calling themselves anarchists, right? Boys that age are like that. That's probably the number one reason why civilizations have armies, because boys that age are like that.
Jan 6 was organized by the President of the United States to the perpetual heartache of every lover of freedom and liberty. Trump was the usurper with the 6 point plan to fuck the US Constitution in its bloody eye socket. You can make your excuses for him but ultimately he was the only one person in America with the power to make Jan 6 happen and the only one person that could have stopped it, stopped it any point he wanted, stopped it at will.
-->
@oromagi
yeah, don't know much about CHAZ. Judging by arrest records and hospitalizations seems like it was mostly a bunch of teenaged white boys from the suburbs calling themselves anarchists, right? Boys that age are like that.
Recall from post:
oromagi: The army, pathetic as it was, and the intent to separate from the US Constitution are well documented facts.
Your gravitational-wave-inducing spin is quite obvious.
Actual insurrection being declared from people holding actual assault rifles = "boys will be boys"
A riot from unarmed people where only the unarmed rioters died = "an army trying to separate from the constitution"
It would take an especially poor capacity for self-reflection for you to not notice this warping.
Jan 6 was organized by the President of the United States to the perpetual heartache of every lover of freedom and liberty.
Absurd
You can make your excuses for him
Facts are stubborn things and so am I when I repeat them.
You can make your excuses for him but ultimately he was the only one person in America with the power to make Jan 6 happen and the only one person that could have stopped it, stopped it any point he wanted, stopped it at will.
It is amazing how many layers of error you have wrapped yourself in:
Error 1: Trump told anyone to riot, organized a riot, led the people to the capitol.
Truth 1: The capitol mob were at the whitehouse and left the whitehouse because they cared more about shouting at Congress than listening to Trump. They/I left Trump behind.
Error 2: Trump chose not admonish violence and tell people to disperse.
Truth 2: Trump told people to go home. Trump told people to be peaceful.
Error 3: If Trump had told people to go home they would have gone home.
Truth 3: Trump did tell people to go home, but since they left him, and were rioting/protesting they were not listening to him nor did they much care when they did hear it. They were not robots, and Trump was not their master.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Since I didn't get any joy from my last opponent, I'd be happy to remake this ongoing debate for you
-->
@oromagi
1.) I thought all 10 posters on this site had been informed, for the record: I don't do debates with votes. Logic is not a democracy.
2.) Whether or not it was stolen my points in this thread remain. If it was not stolen but AOC was the leader of an insurrection allowing her to participate in congress would still be unconstitutional and thus a mob attempting to prevent the unconstitutional proceedings would be protecting the constitution not violating it. This is why historically and predictably once political opponents have started to regularly accuse each other of treason, sedition, and insurrection; civil war is soon to follow.
3.) The BoP you wrote in the intro is silly. It is not silly that you defined a BoP, it is silly that you translated "Not Stolen" to "PRO will argue the consensus of the local, state, and Federal governments of the United States of America." which essentially means: "Pro will show that nobody with the authority to act acted in an official capacity as if it was stolen"
Imagine you had a Pro "Jews in 1938 Germany were not mistreated" and went on to explain in your BoP that what you meant by that was that nobody in the German government acted to protect Jews (so clearly they were not mistreated).
The missing premise is laughable: That if it was stolen or the Jews were mistreated the people who should have done something about it would necessarily have done something about it.
"The item couldn't have been stolen, the police said they didn't see anything getting stolen." Were they in a position to see anything? Would they have had the courage and motivation to report it if they had?
"PRO will be obligated to demonstrate electoral fraud by Democrats on a scale sufficient to overturn the published result"
Assuming that meant "CON" otherwise PRO is doomed.
So you write the resolution as a negative, take the pro position, and then try to push the relevant BoP back on to CON?
If CON met this burden, what would the consensus of bureaucrats matter? Why not word the resolution as "The election was stolen" and take the CON position? The triple negative only serves to confuse analysts.
In the end there are two types of people whom can definitively be branded as fools: Those who claim they are certain the election was stolen, and those who claim they are certain it was not.
If you think you can prove by argument, using only public evidence, that it was not stolen I am certain I can debunk your arguments.
A much more important debate to have, and one that can reach a deductive result, is the resolution: The 2020 election could have been stolen, and knowing whether it was after the fact was rendered effectively impossible by the interaction of long standing flaws and changed practices pushed by democrats.
If that statement is true, then the future course of action is the same whether 2020 was stolen or not.
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I don't do debates with votes.
- I get it- debate requires a whole different level of sophistication than mere harangue
Logic is not a democracy.
- No- but to the the extent that logic is always dangerous to tyrannies, pure logic doesn't enjoy the freedom of expression that only healthy democracies guarantee. Logic depends on democracy for validation and correction for public policy applications. Strictly logical decision-making is unsustainable in a democracy because not all logic is reasonable. Infinity is logical but not reasonable. The Sermon on the Mount is not logical but it is reasonable.
Pro will show that nobody with the authority to act acted in an official capacity as if it was stolen
- False. PRO will show that a disturbing number of officials, from the god-damned President of the United States on down, were willing to claim fraud. But then when the time for showing evidence came, every single sheepish one of them was so easily debunked and made foolish before the quiet sobriety of dozens of judges. Some lawyers were actually disbarred because their fraud was so manifest. The principle claimant's lawyers quickly swore under oath that no reasonable citizen would have believed their claims. As early as late November, Giuliani was advising Republicans that he had no evidence of any kind.
That if it was stolen or the Jews were mistreated the people who should have done something about it would necessarily have done something about it.
- Sorry, bud. I know MAGA feeds on feelings of persecution but trust me when I tell you that you are miscasting MAGA as the Jews of Europe, however thoroughly Trumpists are suited to pantomime a different role in any narrative involving Beer Hall Putsches and Kristallnachts.
-->
@oromagi
because not all logic is reasonable.
please explain
Infinity is logical but not reasonable.
no, no it is not logical
The Sermon on the Mount is not logical but it is reasonable.
please explain
-->
@3RU7AL
-->@oromagibecause not all logic is reasonable.please explainInfinity is logical but not reasonable. The Sermon on the Mount is not logical but it is reasonable.please explain
That was the explanation.
Tell you what, we are so far off topic now I'll start a new TOPIC for you in philosophy.
-->
@oromagi
No- but to the the extent that logic is always dangerous to tyrannies, pure logic doesn't enjoy the freedom of expression that only healthy democracies guarantee. Logic depends on democracy for validation and correction for public policy applications. Strictly logical decision-making is unsustainable in a democracy because not all logic is reasonable. Infinity is logical but not reasonable. The Sermon on the Mount is not logical but it is reasonable.
Logic has no dependencies, non-contradiction is an axiom at the root of identification. All relational conceptualization requires it. In other words it is not possible to think without it. All one can do is think one thought and then be contented thinking another contradicting thought.
It makes more sense to say orbital mechanics or addition depends on democracy.
It is reminiscent of the monotheist's appeal to faith or the subjectivist appeal to perception. Logic is the god of thinking, and placing anything above it is little more than disguised rejection of it. Like them you will no doubt be content to repeat that I can't make you do anything, if you want to accept a contradiction by damn you can do it!
Avoiding wasting time with people like you is one of the excellent reasons to not give the slightest nod to democracy in the context of debate, if you want a poll post a poll. Don't waste my time if you don't care what is true.
Let the honest observer try to reconcile:
oromagi: PRO will show that a disturbing number of officials, from the god-damned President of the United States on down, were willing to claim fraud.
oromagi: PRO will argue the consensus of the local, state, and Federal governments of the United States of America.
oromagi: Sorry, bud. I know MAGA feeds on feelings of persecution but trust me when I tell you that you are miscasting MAGA as the Jews of Europe, however thoroughly Trumpists are suited to pantomime a different role in any narrative involving Beer Hall Putsches and Kristallnachts.
You can't even follow a thought experiment without fabricating simplistic propaganda....
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Let the honest observer try to reconcile:oromagi: PRO will show that a disturbing number of officials, from the god-damned President of the United States on down, were willing to claim fraud.oromagi: PRO will argue the consensus of the local, state, and Federal governments of the United States of America.
Unsurprisingly, Dreamof does not understand the concept of consensus