i could actually see an argument that trump committed no crimes

There is not a distinct difference between a law that prohibits something and a law that says something is illegal to perform.

illegal means contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law, whereas prohibited means forbidden.

I don't think your conspiracies about the Democratic party stealing an election are comparable to any experience in 1930s Europe.

There's also such a thing as being too paranoid for anyone's good.

So illegal means forbidden, and prohibited also means forbidden. That's what I said. There is no distinction. Thanks for conceding that point! 😃

illegal means contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law, whereas prohibited means forbidden.

WRONG!!! What I was asking for was the law(s) that said he (Trump) could not do X Y and Z. I did not ask for the alleged law(s) he was being charged with allegedly violating. 

There is a distinct difference between laws that explicitly say a president cannot do a thing and laws that say what is wrong and is illegal to perform, which is punishable for all. 

Nevertheless, the difference is still observable in the quote above. One is very specifically prohibited “by law,” specifically criminal law, whereas the other is just merely forbidden. 

There's also such a thing as being too paranoid for anyone's good.

For example, it's too much when it leads a group of people to attack the Capitol because they have a conspiracy theory of a stolen election.

 Pure denialism. And it proves you lack reading comprehension as well. 

You're moving. The goal posts!

All along you have been distinguishing two kinds of laws, but now you claim only one thing is related to law and the other isn't?

@n8nrgim

but if he had the authority to take or keep the documents in the first place

he didn't. He took the documents after he lost the election. He did not have a right to take them. 

WRONG!!! What I was asking for was the law(s) that said he (Trump) could not do X Y and Z. I did not ask for the alleged law(s) he was being charged with allegedly violating. 

There is a distinct difference between laws that explicitly say a president cannot do a thing and laws that say what is wrong and is illegal to perform, which is punishable for all. 

Nevertheless, the difference is still observable in the quote above. One is very specifically prohibited “by law,” specifically criminal law, whereas the other is just merely forbidden. 

The rest of your previous comment also didn't give any context that outlined the difference, because you only provided the definition of one of the two words you were trying to contrast. The whole point of your comment was in the part I quoted.

illegal means contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law, whereas prohibited means forbidden.

prohibition. n. forbidding an act or activity. A court order forbidding an act is a writ of prohibition, an injunction or a writ of mandate (mandamus) if against a public official.

It's also hilarious that you are so desperate to run away from my original criticism that you are trying this hard (and failing) to nitpick the use of some words.

You're moving. The goal posts!

All along you have been distinguishing two kinds of laws, but now you claim only one thing is related to law and the other isn't?

@n8nrgim

but if he had the authority to take or keep the documents in the first place

he didn't. He took the documents after he lost the election. He did not have a right to take them. 

WRONG!!! What I was asking for was the law(s) that said he (Trump) could not do X Y and Z. I did not ask for the alleged law(s) he was being charged with allegedly violating. 

There is a distinct difference between laws that explicitly say a president cannot do a thing and laws that say what is wrong and is illegal to perform, which is punishable for all. 

Nevertheless, the difference is still observable in the quote above. One is very specifically prohibited “by law,” specifically criminal law, whereas the other is just merely forbidden. 

The rest of your previous comment also didn't give any context that outlined the difference, because you only provided the definition of one of the two words you were trying to contrast. The whole point of your comment was in the part I quoted.

illegal means contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law, whereas prohibited means forbidden.

prohibition. n. forbidding an act or activity. A court order forbidding an act is a writ of prohibition, an injunction or a writ of mandate (mandamus) if against a public official.

It's also hilarious that you are so desperate to run away from my original criticism that you are trying this hard (and failing) to nitpick the use of some words.

The courtroom trials haven't begun yet. They are set to happen between the primaries and the general election.

> 

@WillyB

What about all the other crimes? How come they’re not plausible

"I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" - Donald Trump 

For example, it's too much when it leads a group of people to attack the Capitol because they have a conspiracy theory of a stolen election.

That's a very specific standard, hardly useful for 1930s European Jews. Try it again, more abstract this time.

you make the claim that criminal intent isn't a thing here, but i've heard several credible sources that say it is.

You the FBIs story on the data Hilary destroyed was: "It's illegal to do what she did, but she didn't mean any harm"

When a deep stater is the subject the baseless assertion that no criminal intent existed is enough to excuse you from laws that have no intent clause.

How can we know how much paranoia is ideal?

We left the topic of 1930s Europe already, buddy. You asked, in very general terms:

How can we know how much paranoia is ideal?

You just don't like people bringing up Jan 6.

I don't like trite answers with no roots in reason or principle to be utilized.

I'll answer for me and you can keep hiding under a rock.


Reason is man's only means of knowledge. We know what to fear by reason, and when the evidence of history both ancient and contemporary is rationally analyzed patterns of behavior both individual and collective emerge.

I'm not sure why you think I can't learn from history. The attack on the Capitol was unprecedented, not seen before in the history of the US. Sane people have learned from the history of negligible voter fraud in US elections to understand that the last election wasn't stolen. Your level of paranoia about the Democratic party is not preventing the violation of rights. On the other hand, you think Trump should be acquitted on the charge of violating people's rights to vote, which is in the latest indictment. Based on his conspiracy theory that you follow, he tried to disenfranchise millions of people by using fake electors to go against their chosen candidate, and by pressuring officials to overturn the election in his favor. And I don't care about your misinformed opinions about the indictment. As I said, if you know how to show Trump didn't commit any crimes, go defend him in court. He's always looking for legal defense.

The attack on the Capitol was unprecedented

Sane people have learned from the history of negligible voter fraud in US elections to understand that the last election wasn't stolen.

Your level of paranoia about the Democratic party is not preventing the violation of rights.

I don't care about your misinformed opinions about the indictment.

I'll create a debate on a resolution like "The 2020 US Presidential election was stolen from Donald Trump" or similar, if you want to be Pro.

We left the topic of 1930s Europe already, buddy. You asked, in very general terms:

How can we know how much paranoia is ideal?

You just don't like people bringing up Jan 6.

I don't like trite answers with no roots in reason or principle to be utilized.

I'll answer for me and you can keep hiding under a rock.

The ideal level of paranoia is the amount that prevents great violation of rights than it causes.

Reason is man's only means of knowledge. We know what to fear by reason, and when the evidence of history both ancient and contemporary is rationally analyzed patterns of behavior both individual and collective emerge.

One of those patterns is that censorship is never done by people who can win the argument. Another is that when a series of so called coincidences always serve the interests of a particular community it's probably because of a conspiracy.

Want an example? The removal of native Americans. You know they never just said "Well we want this land so get out", always there was some series of events; some complicated story that ends in war that ends in land annexation.

The vast majority of the left-tribe now takes for granted this is a conspiracy, that is they have a conspiracy theory... and in this case they are right because logic rules other possibilities to be unlikely due to the number of simultaneous coincidences.

The conspiracy looks like this: Never waste a crises, use any excuse, distract from your crimes and emphasize the enemy's, never give up what you've taken.

Conspiracies don't have to be complicated. The truth of them often leak out all over the place. Hitler basically outlined his plan in a public book, and people still didn't believe.

You told me it must be terrifying to believe in all the conspiracies I do. Yes, the world is terrifying; and one of the most terrifying things about it is that people like you (for some reason I cannot comprehend) cannot learn from history. You put a barrier up in your mind between the past and present, thinking that somehow the forces which shaped history are no longer present.

Conspiracy has been ever present in our past. To believe it no longer exists is a terrifying act of voluntary ignorance.

I love it when whack job conspiracy theorists talk about reason, and tell us we can't comprehend, it's soooo cute I can hardly stand it.

Inflation is just a conspiracy theory