Total posts: 5,890
-->
@Greyparrot
Unless you are a woman from the left-tribe. Then you can go on every propaganda show and stalk DJT with baseless accusations and that won't be put "under the microscope" because her accusations objectively do not "carry any weight."
They don't carry any weight, objectively speaking. He's a former president and current presidential frontrunner, not to mention the most controvetsial political figure in our lifetimes (and I would argue the country's history). EJC's accusations were barely worth a mention when they were new, by now no one gives a shit about them at all.
The fact that you don't get this is beyond headscratching.
And in your TDS rant you also missed the entire point of the quote you responded to explaining why the microscope scrutiny applies to one and not the other.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Just did, same result.Unfortunate, this is basic English after all.
Yeah, which is why it's so unfortunate you don't understand the points I've made.
The people who decided no one should be able to vote for him are the framers of the 14th amendmentThey died a long time ago. If they left it up for you to decide who is disqualified, then they left it up to me as well; and that means the document resolves nothing between us.
It's not supposed to resolve anything between us, that's the point.
What the framers decided is that anyone who engages in insurrection or rebellion is disqualified from holding office again. That by definition means it's not up to the "American people" which we are both a part of.
What has to be determined is whether he did in fact engage in the conduct the 14th describes, that's a question of fact and law which takes individuals who have the qualifications in both the facts and the law to determine.
That aside, we will both have our own opinions on the matter. One would think we would be able to come together to resolve those differences but we seem to be working with completely different operating systems when it comes to how we determine what the facts are and how we connect the dots. So if we are trying to resolve those differences then it's our operating systems themselves which the conversation should focus on, yet everytime I try you avoid that conversation. That's what I find most telling.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You can't cry about not getting an insurrection trial before an election when the people you support refuse to charge DJT with the crime.
What a silly post.
Supporting someone does not mean agreeing with everything they do, nor does it rob anyone of their rhetorical right to be upset at any particular decision they made.
But that's fine, not like I was expecting a serious answer from to you on the very basic question of whether you think the people should know what evidence the DOJ has before deciding whether the defendant should be the next person to carry the nuclear codes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
which upon review turns out it was her partner who lives at the same address whom the poll worker mixed up the voter ID's for.No review you are capable of. That is an implausible excuse.
Nonsense. What would be implausible in a country of over 300 million people is that no such errors occurred. Human beings make mistakes from time to time. That's not news.
This is why we study allegations such as voter fraud based on statistics, not anecdotes.Statistics don't exist without data sets. Data sets don't exist when data is hidden.
There is plenty of information publicly available on voter fraud statistics, and of the information that isn't publicly available there are institutions run by both democrats and republicans that have for decades audited votes and found nothing. The fact that you do not have evidence for something is not evidence of that something.
It's a typical tactic of the right when arguing for "voter integrity" to use piles of anecdotesWhen there are piles, it no longer becomes anecdotal.
When your pile is 30 examples long in a state where millions of ballots were cast... They're still anecdotes.
The difference is there are comprehensive datasets about deaths resulting from police action. At some point it became 'undemocratic' to publish such lists for election integrity.
It's not the act, it's the intent. You do not have evidence that any of the things you claim to be happening are actually happening on the scale needed to support your position, so the implication is very clear that the driving force here is disdain over the fact that you are outnumbered by people who disagree with you and rather than combatting that by changing people's minds you're just trying to deligitimize the process altogether.
To anyone who pretends to care about democracy and the integrity of our elections, that's not how that works.An election whose integrity is in reasonable doubt has disenfranchised the entire body politic.
The doubts are not reasonable, not a single thing you point to wouldn't be expected in a country with over 300 million people and 50 different states all conducting their own elections.
What is also to be expected is that in a country where the social groups who over the course of centuries have grown very used to being in charge suddenly start seeing other groups catch up to them would make them feel like everything is being stolen from them, which makes them ripe for a strongman to come in and comfort them by telling them he will turn back the clock and make sure they are in charge again. It's all predictable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Piles of anecdotes are the only way to catch a series of small scale voter frauds that all stack up since voting is anonymous and you can never backtrack each vote to the authentic voter.
If the anecdotes are stacking up then we're no longer dealing with anecdotes, now we're dealing with data, which is an entirely different conversation.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Looking at someone with an evil eye is not murder because you were convicted of murder (for looking at someone mean) before.
This is not analogous to anything we're talking about.
An example that would be analogous is harassment. Everyone knows how it works on a basic level. If you are found to be harassing someone and were told to stop, and the next day you see that person and make some kind of snarking sound around them, that's clearly a continuation.
Is making those kinds of sounds on their own harassment? No. But the context here makes very clear that your intention was to send a message to that person that you have no intention of leaving them alone. When your behavior gets to a point where intervention is necessary, your actions are rightly placed under a microscope because they carry far more weight at that point. This is how it works anywhere and always has. It's really basic stuff.
I have a really serious question for you... What exactly do you think was the take away from Trump's remarks there about EJC?
As you ponder this question, let's not forget that he's making them at a political rally in front of supporters which he's been telling for years that he's under attack from evil people who hate our country and are just trying to take him down because they want to stop him from "fighting for you".
Because one of the elements of defamation is that people care what you say.No it is not. One of the elements is damages
...which follows from people caring what you say.
So back to your question... What you said about EJC is not defamation in part because you do not have the power to cause her reputational harm... since no one cares what you have to say about her.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Well now comes MSNBC and their "legal experts" to make it very clear, that denying wrongdoing is in fact defamation (so long as you're orange).
It's defamation when it's a continuation of the same behavior from the previous two lawsuits which you have already been ruled against, the last one in particular where $65 million of your judgement was punitive all because you wouldn't stfu about it.
EJC lied. She was not raped.Why have I not just defamed her?
Because one of the elements of defamation is that people care what you say.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So you provided an example where a voter goes to vote and is told she already voted, which upon review turns out it was her partner who lives at the same address whom the poll worker mixed up the voter ID's for.
You are correct, these individual pieces fail to impress, because because they're merely individual examples but becsuse that's exactly what is to be expected in a country of over 300 million people. This is why we study allegations such as voter fraud based on statistics, not anecdotes.
It's a typical tactic of the right when arguing for "voter integrity" to use piles of anecdotes (again, out of over 300 million people) to claim these anecdotes justifies taking action that will result in the practical disenfranchisement of thousands of voters. To anyone who pretends to care about democracy and the integrity of our elections, that's not how that works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I never suggested anything about deciding other people's votes for them.Review the context.
Just did, same result.
Not voting for someone is an individual choice. Preventing others from voting for him because you've decided he's an insurrectionist is not.
The people who decided no one should be able to vote for him are the framers of the 14th amendment
Again, if they intended for the qualifications to be so strict they would have used more than 8 words to define it.8 words are better than the zero words used to justify abortion being a right or the privacy of one's bedroom being a justification for anything that may happen there.
And it's still 8 words.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Everyone who was on the fence about Jan 6 has seen the leaked footage. Everyone on the fence got a chance to see the draconian political sentences handed out for trespassing and misdemeanors.
I asked you how you felt about the public voting for a man for president without being able to see the full evidence against him showing what he did leading up to and on January 6th and your answer is to talk about leaked footage at the Capitol and trial sentencing, two things that have absolutely nothing to do with him.
How telling.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
5) All the polls saying Biden might win if Trump is convicted before November are now meaningless and irrelevant, since there is no path for this to happen now.
Curious to know what your thoughts were on this... Do you find it a good thing that the American pubic will potentially be voting this man into office for a second term without seeing the full evidence gathered showing what he did leading up to January 6th as well as while the US Capitol was under attack?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
No, a voter decides what his vote will be. Not what other people's votes will be.
I never suggested anything about deciding other people's votes for them.
This is the same mistake you people make about taxes and the consent of the governed.
And what mistake is that?
As it is famously said, high crimes and misdemeanors means whatever Congress says it means.The law is also whatever congress says it is.
Yes... Before the conduct takes place, which means the question of whether one's actions violate it is objective. That's how the law works. Politics is inherently subjective, so the trigger if we're talking about a political trial (impeachment) is whatever Congress says. These are two different things.
Congress has full constitutional reign to decide after the fact that your conduct is not acceptable.That is a theory, one without constitutional merit. If they had wanted congress to be able to remove at will there was no need to say "treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors".
And yet they can. Some republicans tried to pass articles of impeachment on Biden's literal first day on office. Again, if they intended for the qualifications to be so strict they would have used more than 8 words to define it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What a nonsense statement. No sane person would claim "politics" can't be misapplied.
To be misapplied is to be used the wrong way.
To be used the wrong way implies that there is a right way.
Politics is inherently about opposing sides determining what the right way is.
Politics is therefore definitionally excluded from misapplication (in a broad sense).
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, you always have to fall back on your "context" when cornered.
These aren't fall backs, they are facts. Sorry, I know it's frustrating when you don't know what you're talking about.
The fact that high crimes and misdemeanors was never defined tells you everything you need to know. No criminal law is anywhere near that vague, because criminality is not up to the whims of 2/3rds of an inherently politically motivated group.
Of course it's whatever Congress says. Congress creates criminal law.
Yes, they create laws beforehand, and the only way to be a criminal is to violate those laws once they have already been written. An office holder can be impeached for anything. Unlike the rule of law, Congress has full constitutional reign to decide after the fact that your conduct is not acceptable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yeah, that's called being a voter.Okay, so now you are backpedaling hard on section 3.
WTF?
This conversation is about the difference between a political trial vs a criminal trial. Sec 3 has nothing to do with that debate.
Voters can decide whatever they want. Application of the law has rules. Entirely different things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Being convicted in a Senate impeachment trial does not make you a criminal in any sense of the word.It most certainly does. Removal from office is the punishment for a convicted crime.
No, it's not. A crime is a violation of the law. You do not need to violate the law to be impeached and convicted.
A person can be convicted in an impeachment trial for violating the law, but that's irrelevant because that is not what the trial is set up to determine. As it is famously said, high crimes and misdemeanors means whatever Congress says it means.
There are no appeals and the punishment is immediate and irreversible. Nowhere in the judicial system has such a severe penalty with no hope of reprieve.
The penalty is that one loses the privilege of making huge decisions that will shape our society. That penalty does not compare to the penalty of losing your freedom or in some cases, being put to death.
The fact that there is no appeals process or hope of reprieve only further makes my point. Unlike politics, the rule of law can be misapplied. That's why we have these systems, to ensure the integrity of it.
Impeachment is the highest bar in our entire legal system of holding crime accountable.
Complete nonsense. Conviction only requires a two thirds majority. Conviction in a criminal trial requires a unanimous verdict.
And if you really want to keep going down this path, there is a reason Trump's double Jeopardy claim was tossed out without argument, because it was absurd. It is not a legal process.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Trump had not been found guilty in a legal proceeding then his conduct is essentially irrelevant to whether he should be considered by us to be disqualified from holding public office.And as ADOL said, if this is truly the case, then ADOL can simply declare any Democrat as unfit to run for any political office. At will.
Yeah, that's called being a voter.
Whether you decide to apply common sense, like the notion that a lack of conviction in a criminal trial should not be enough to earn your trust, is entirely up to you.
You cannot impeach someone who is not in office.Well you better inform the 2020 Congress that they cannot do what they actually did on Feb 13.....
They impeached him while he was still in office. The trial is what took place afterward, which my position is that it's constitutional because the trial is a continuation of that process.
But whatever, you and ADOL seem to be going even further than I am here, someone go tell ILikePie5.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Just because you use the phrase "criminality at all" doesn't mean you're addressing all shades of meaning of "criminality"... oh wait that's exactly what it means.
Impeachment doesn't address criminality at all because it is a purely political process. The fact that the allegations being put on trial can also be criminal is irrelevant to that fact.
Being convicted in a Senate impeachment trial does not make you a criminal in any sense of the word.
The legal bar is far higher and for good reason.That is a theory, one with no constitutional merit.
It's common sense. When you're deciding whether one should be able to enjoy their most basic constitutional freedom, you need an extremely high bar proving wrongdoing to take it away. When you're trying to decide if an individual should be able to control the nuclear codes, not only does the bar proving wrongdoing not need to be anywhere near as high, but the burden of proof shifts onto them as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
As much as you guys insult the intelligence of Trump supporters, it's a real head-scratcher that you also consider the same people to be masters of nuance and are motivated by someone or something other than the primal base motivations of poverty and loss of both liberty and security.
No one is claiming the "masters of nuance" are motivated by anything other than base primal instincts. The difference between intelligent people vs those who are unintelligent is an ability to assess what exactly are the threats to those base motivations, and how do we go about achieving the things we say we want.
This is where Trump supporters fascinate me. I've never seen a more blatantly obvious con in my life, but they love it, follow it off the cliff, and deny there ever was a cliff even as they are plummeting to the bottom of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So when they said Donald Trump was guilty of a crime, that was inciting violence against the government?
No. Because as I have laid out repeatedly in this thread and as you have repeatedly ignored throughout this thread... You have to look at the full picture. 1 does not equal 3. Neither does 1 plus 1. You have to take all three 1's into account if you want to legitimately assess whether you have 3.
So when you look at the other examples, did these individuals charge an allegation for which there was no other remedy? Did they call for people to meet in a certain place? Did they imply (in totality) that they were for violence as a remedy? Did they provide the target for their violence? Did anyone actually commit violence in their name as a result of the above?
Assess the entire picture, when you have a picture that shows incitement by the same standards I've been explaining for weeks now, I will grab the pitchfork and torch along side you.
And no, this doesn't work by piecemeal. You don't get to charge "the democratic establishment" or even worse "the left" with incitement. You need to point to an individual or a coordinated group. That's how it works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Impeachment is again, an inherently political process. It doesn't address criminality at allExcept for the "high crimes" and "conviction" part.
Criminal trials address whether and to what extent the individual charged can enjoy his or her freedom. Impeachment trials determine whether the individual charged can enjoy the privilege of holding a public office. Just because you can point to a word that is used in both doesn't mean they are the same thing.
Except the impeachment clause is for POTUS and the 14th amendment disqualification is for senators, congressmen, electors, and rando bureaucrats....
The difference has nothing to do with who it's for. Impeachment is a process by which an office holder is removed from that office for their conduct. You cannot impeach someone who is not in office. The disqualification clause takes place only after an impeachment conviction.
The 14th amendment apples to anyone who has ever taken an oath to serve, current or former.
If Trump engaged in insurrection after he left office, impeachment would have nothing to do with that because impeachment is political and he is not in politics. That's where the legal process comes in.
So by default to this date, Trump is legallyinnocent. Your weeks of contribution to this thread is pure partisan fanfiction.It always amuses me how Trump supporters cannot tell the difference between a court of law and the court of public opinion.Except the bolded part of GP's statement.
That is irrelevant to my point. This has never been a debate over whether Trump is legally guilty - that would be an incredibly stupid conversation because of course no criminal trial has convicted him. The debate has always been over whether the evidence shows that Trump did what he's being accused of. Us coming to the same conclusion here on debateart has no bearing on Trump's criminal liability.
The reason I point out the distinction Trump defenders routinely fail to recognize here between the court of law vs the court of public opinion is because the fallacious logic being applied as GP did here - that because Trump had not been found guilty in a legal proceeding then his conduct is essentially irrelevant to whether he should be considered by us to be disqualified from holding public office. The legal bar is far higher and for good reason.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So if he told people to be violent in every context for every purpose and then said "Do X peacefully" that would be a contradiction. It would be mixed messaging.
Yes it is, as I've acknowledged from the start of this conversation, which is why I keep arguing that it doesn't cancel everything else out. We're not disagreeing on the opposing direction of his "peaceful" statement, we're disagreeing on whether this statement is significant enough to have any meaningful impact on the greater message. My point is that it doesn't.
So again, nothing you have said address the argument I have been making for weeks now. If you aren't willing to engage in a serious discussion about the scale of Trump's incindieary words vs the scale of Trump's attempt to deescalate the violent implications behind his words and how all of this works with regards to the message he was ultimately sending... you aren't arguing the point.
The only remedy for crimes in general is violence.
Correct. So when the authorities appointed to deal with those crimes are actively working to commit them, who is left to carry out said violence?
You could only be basing that on "it will be wild", and yet when pressed on that you say "it's not just that". Wherever I push, you retreat and reaffirm another assertion that you had previously retreated on. Like wack-a-mole
This is the problem with trying to argue nuance to people who only seem to deal with bullet points. I am not retreating when I point to other factors, I'm pointing out that in order to understand the ultimate point you have to understand how multiple points are related. It's logic 101; one premise doesn't equal a conclusion. A conclusion is formed by adding multiple premises together, so if you are going to continue pretending as if each premise stands alone, then you are only pretending the conclusion is not valid.
"Will be wild" doesn't mean violence. By itself. Add in the fact that we're talking about a protest. Now it points more in that direction because "wild" is in no way a reasonable way to describe a peaceful protest. Add in the fact that the allegation behind the protest is that the election is literally being stolen, a crime for which there is no remedy other than violence. Now it points in that direction far more clearly. Add in the fact that the person calling for this "wild" protest had spent the prior 4 years dehumanizing the people he is now accusing of carrying out this heist... At this point any other conclusion is absurd.
We know "fight like hell" isn't incitement because if it was democrats would be in prison over it.
We know it wasn't incitement for the democrats because if you follow the same exercise I just laid out, it doesn't get there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
So high crimes and misdemeanors are some of those "context" words that don't mean what they seem. Pure fanfiction.
Do you think being convicted in a Senate trial goes on your criminal record?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Peaceful doesn't transmute into violent under any context
Nor was this my argument, so you keep refuting points I never made.
The argument has always been that Trump's usage of one word in the middle of an hour long speech does not cancel out everything else he had been conveying to his supporters for the prior two months, as well as afterward.
The only remedy for the crimes Trump was alleging to be actively taking place was violence, he strongly implied in his calling for this rally that it would be violent, he proceeded to give a very negative and incendiary speech which he then ended with "fight like hell or you're not going to have a country anymore".
No one in their right mind would chuck all of that in the garbage because Trump smuggled in one word in the middle of an hour long speech, and certainly no one who flew all the way to DC to be a part of this.
The closest you have came to addressing any of this is to just repeat that he said peaceful. You've done absolutely nothing to compare the scale of Trump's violence implications to his implications to be peaceful - because they don't compare. His desires were clear.
It's almost like people have a brain of their own and don't need to be told to act a certain way in order to act that way.
Then you don't believe it's possible to incite violence. Why not start with that? If that's really what you believe why sit here for weeks wasting time on all these other sub points?
This was to defeat the assertion you implied that he must have been inciting because he must have known what he was supposedly causing.
Whether it was reasonable to expect the protesters would accomplish what they did is irrelevant to whether Trump knew what he was doing when he called them to the Capitol and told them to fight like hell. The point was never that it was obvious they overtake the Capitol police, it was always that he knew many in his rally would try, and carried on anyway.
When you decide to play with fire you run the risk of getting burned. So if you play with fire and end up burning someone else, it's not an excuse to say "I didn't know that would happen", especially when it was your job to keep that person safe in the first place.
He had the duty to fan those flames under is oath to the constitution.
I missed the part of the constitution where it tasks the president with inciting am attack on the US Capitol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Impeachments are THE lawful way to deal with the crime of insurrection for a president.
Impeachment is again, an inherently political process. It doesn't address criminality at all, so your statement is just factually wrong.
Also, Impeachment was already in the constitution when the 14th amendment was written. If that was the official way to deal with this issue there would have been no need for it.
The 14th amendment was written for any current or former office holder seeking office again. It's a legal question just as it's a legal question on whether someone's place of birth disqualifies them from running for office. You are deeply confused.
Trump undeniably won that trial in the Senate and you lost.
Trump lost the vote 59-41 with 7 republican senators joining the democrats to disqualify him. Of those who voted against disqualification many of them stated their reason being that impeachment was not the process to do it - that the courts would have to decide this (and we see how that turned out). So if you want to consider that some big victory for Trump go right on and celebrate, the rest of us sane and rational people will easily see the problem here.
So by default to this date, Trump is legally innocent. Your weeks of contribution to this thread is pure partisan fanfiction.
It always amuses me how Trump supporters cannot tell the difference between a court of law and the court of public opinion.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is a rational standard when the consequence is for one to lose their freedom. No halfway intelligent person would apply that standard with regards to whether one's actions should disqualify them from being handed the nuclear codes.
This isn't a court of law, it's a debate site. And what we're ultimately debating is whether this moron should be entrusted by us to be our commander in chief. The fact that no one was able to meet the legal standard for criminal conviction before November is irrelevant to any sane and rational consideration of that question.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
which given that Congress has never legislated a process for this effectively means the 14th amendment doesn't exist. That's a far cry from the ridiculous claim you're making.Lol, you can't be this ignorant. Congress has a process for it. The 2020 Congress literally had a trial over it.
That was an impeachment trial genius, which is inherently political. The 14th amendment is a question of law. These are not the same thing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The problem isn't the concept of context has you have endlessly tried to gaslight me with. It's that you have utterly failed to make an argument showing that the actual context leaves your absurd interpretation as the best one.
I gave you the dots repeatedly and held your hand as I connected them. The core of those arguments you even agreed with me on...
I agreed that it follows that if elections are rigged violence is the only remaining option.
...until you decided that that combination of words no longer means what the English language says it means.
But instead of addressing whether the dots connect, you decided to focus entirely on isolating words and arguing that those words mean something different. 'but he said peaceful!' you said. 'Wild =/= violent' you said. So I had to shift my focus onto basic communication and how context works.
And now that after all this time I finally got you to acknowledge that words spoken don't always mean strictly what their dictionary definitions say...
Now you want to pretend that the problem is that I never connected the dots.
Ok, continue to play this ducking and dodging game all you want. You wouldn't have to if you had a real argument but you know you don't.
Your interpretation isn't the plain meaning of his words. It's not how they were taken in the moment by his supporters...
And yet they stormed the Capitol in the name of Donald Trump.
If the capitol police (and the entire left-tribe) thought that there were only going to be one or two trouble makers and they could handle that, then Trump gets to make that assumption too.
You are still trying to compare the Capitol police's failure to anticipate the full scale of the threat to Donald Trump's incitement of it. Wow.
Even if I grant you that Donald Trump didn't expect his mob to overtake the Capitol, that doesn't magically excuse his concious decision to continue fanning the flames he created. Not only are you fallaciously arguing that two wrongs make a right, you're also acting as if Trump was just some bystander who wasn't directly responsible for protecting the nation and by extension, the US Capitol when he decided to do the exact opposite and put all of those police officers as well as Congress in danger. "I didn't know they would succeed in overtaking the Capitol" is not an excuse.
So yes, the blade cuts both ways, which is why they were both wrong. The problem is that the Capitol police did in fact anticipate violence, so even by your own fallacious logic Donald Trump should have as well.
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
not one of the 9 SCOTUS members ruled that Trump did commit insurrection and had to be removed from the ballot.
Because they never even bothered to adjudicate it. Section 3 has been adjudicated in multiple legal levels in multiple states and many have in fact ruled that Trump committed insurrection and is therefore barred from holding public office, not one legal arbiter yet has sided with Trump on the basis that he did not commit insurrection.
By handing it over to Congress they were in essence saying "Hey look, you guys try to impeach each other and whatnot for partisan reasons all the time. This is one such instance and it has nothing to do with us." Which, the way I see it, is a damning indictment of the supposedly slam-dunk case for Trump committing insurrection if I've ever seen one.
It's not an indictment in any sense of the word. The supreme court's decision was essentially that this is Congress's decision, yet when this very question was put before Congress and their final answer was that it's the court's decision.
The fact that no one wants to make this decision as opposed to just saying "he did not commit insurrection" is amazing. As the saying goes, the silence is deafening.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Correct. So when a word is spoken, it's meaning is not determined merely by the typical usage of that one word, but by looking at the words that were used before and after and putting it all together a full picture based off of that... Right?I think the phrase you're looking for is "complete sentences".
No, that's not even close to anything I've said.
Is it your position then that the meaning of words can only be determined by those words spoken before or after it so long as there is no period sepperating them?
Failure to stop someone from committing an atrocity is not the same thing as taking part in (by providing the source of motivation for) the carrying out of an atrocity.Funny, because it seems like your case for participation is failure to prevent.
No, that's not even close to anything I've said for the past few weeks that we've been arguing this, and you know that (assuming you've read a single word of it).
Do you have an actual response on the point? Do you agree? Disagree? Do you have any thoughts?
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
Nope. Just the facts
The supreme court did not "debunk" the claim that Trump committed insurrection, they didn't even address it.
Do you understand that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
I support the effort, ban them all. As soon as you can present actual facts and valid logic connecting the dots showing your claim to have merit...
*Holding my breath... And I'm dead now*
Created:
-->
@Amber
You clearly haven't watched any of the video segments of the trial against him for it where his attorney played video after video of Democrats using the exact same language he used encouraging American citizens to exercise their 1st Amendment right to protest and address their grievance to the government. In fact, some of the videos used showed some Democrats, like Maxine Waters and Kamala Harris, using far more incendiary language than what Trump used. The level of proven hypocrisy comparing those videos to the innocuous language Trump used.
None of those examples are analogous. To understand someone's message you have to put their words in context, when you do that you find a glaring difference between what Trump did vs what any other democratic official did, which is why it's no surprise that Trump's mob stormed the Capitol in Trump's name while no one stormed anything in the name of Kamals Harris or Maxine Waters.
To put Trump's words in context consider the following:
- Trump spent months telling his followers that the election (and by extension their voices) had been stolen from them.
- He then called on them to come to DC on January 6th saying it "will be wild"
- He then gave a speech telling them to "fight like hell or you're not going to have a country anymore"
- He then pointed them towards the very building where he alleged their voices were being stolen
- He then watched as the entire riot played out from 1:24 till 4:03 until finally getting off of his ass to tell the mob to go home. During this time not a single call was placed by Trump to anyone in the government authorizing any action that could have helped.
Q1: if the election was actually being stolen through the legal system, what remedy is left other than violence?
Q2: How do you make your voice heard by people who are in the middle of stealing it, and why would anyone listen to that message?
Q3: How exactly is a peaceful protest "wild"?
Q4: If Trump's intention was not to incite violence, why did it take 3 hours before he decided to tell the crowd to leave the Capitol?
Created:
-->
@Swagnarok
It is over. The "big lie"propagated by Dems since the 2020 election, which is that Trump committed or attempted insurrection, has been unanimously debunked by the most authoritative court in the United States
This is satire, right?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
9 SCOTUS Judges and the 2020 Congress disagrees with you. Feel free to incite a rebellion though.
You aren't this stupid, please stop trolling.
They decided that the states couldn't decide this, only Congress - which given that Congress has never legislated a process for this effectively means the 14th amendment doesn't exist. That's a far cry from the ridiculous claim you're making.
Moreover, it's notable that of all the cases in the states where this has actually been adjudicated not one single arbiter has ruled against disqualification on the basis that Trump did not commit insurrection.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Dictionaries contain words, not phrases.
Correct. So when a word is spoken, it's meaning is not determined merely by the typical usage of that one word, but by looking at the words that were used before and after and putting it all together a full picture based off of that... Right?
They did prepare for violence, they failed to anticipate the scale of violence and the size of Trump's mob.but that excuse doesn't work for Trump because?
Because it's a categorically different thing.
Failure to stop someone from committing an atrocity is not the same thing as taking part in (by providing the source of motivation for) the carrying out of an atrocity.
And what makes it far worse then that for Trump is that it was in fact his responsibility to protect the nation, so not only did he encourage the mob to feel empowered to do this, but he used the platform he was entrusted with to do it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
It happened while he was in the oval office, does that not make him responsible?Obviously it doesn't.
Ah, ok then. So it sounds like you're suggesting that when someone rambles off a list of good things that happened while one person was president and bad things that happened while someone else was president, that absent an argument explaining the connection from the occurrences and the president's actions, it can be rationally dismissed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
I do think the shutdowns were avoidable but I doubt any democrat would have or could have avoided them.
How's is that relevant? Trump was president wasn't he? Does that not make him responsible?
I was thinking before it hit american shores we should have a policy of nobody in or out of the country until this blows over and when exceptions are made do a quarantine offshore before allowing reentry. I believe this was suggested before covid hit american shores and there was a lot of backlash at the suggestion.
As there should have been. COVID wasn't something that would have ever "blown over" so not allowing anyone in our out of the country would have had catastrophic consequences with no serious chance at preventing the virus from penetrating our borders.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
What they didn't forget was that his admin suggested 2 weeks to slow the spread and never used the threat of force to create a lockdown.
It happened while he was in the oval office, does that not make him responsible?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I find it slightly amusing that the left tribe deeply and religiously believes half of America is caught up in an 8 year long delusional cultish worship of Trump when the reality is that people are simply done with the establishment oligarchy.
Being "simply done" with the establishment does not translate into increasing support for a candidate on the basis of that candidate being indicted on 91 felony counts.
In Trump world a Manhattanite billionaire and clinical narcissist is the one person in American politics who truly cares about the little guy. In Trump world the guy who tried to overthrow the American experiment is the guy fighting to save democracy. In Trump world the guy who feuds with all of our democratic allies while worshipping the world's dictators is the guy who values the rule of law. That is what being in a cult looks like.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I don't have to argue anything. The polls are the default position.
I'm right because other people say I'm right. Ok. By that logic Joe Biden was clearly the better choice in 2020.
Still never addressed my original point, because you clearly have no refutation for it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@WyIted
This would be a lot easier to believe if it werent for the fact that when trump was in office food was cheap, gas prices low and rent affordable and biden being in office has harmed this.
Half the country got laid off from their jobs while Trump was in office. Funny how Trump supporters seem to forget about that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I asked AI, and AI said to simply use confidence, passion and repetition.
AI is correct. People are remarkable in their intellectual laziness. They're not looking for someone to explain things, they just want someone who makes them feel good.
I haven't looked much at Hitler's speeches but after living through Trumpism I don't think I need to. People say Trump is really good marketing, I don't see it that way. I don't think it takes much talent to appeal to stupid people, just a level of cravenness most people don't have. So unless that's what you're trying to accomplish, I wouldn't try to learn anything useful from Hitler.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
As usual, you have hot a single coherent argument, just repeated assertions of your original point while accusing others of TDS.
What's maddening is not the blatant disregard for facts, logic, and reason of people like you, it's knowing how many more people like you are out there making decisions on the direction of this country.
What's maddening is not the blatant disregard for facts, logic, and reason of people like you, it's knowing how many more people like you are out there making decisions on the direction of this country.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tarik
Career totals in other categories are still celebrated, it's just that points gets the highest recognition because it's the single category most indicative of a great player.
When considering who the all time greats are. Averages are a better metric in many ways but the longevity aspect is crucial as well. Anyone can have a great game and some could have a great season. Doing it year in and year out leaves no doubt at to ones pure abilities, and perhaps more importantly the human body can only retain so much of it's abilities as one ages, so for LeBron to still be doing what he is doing at the age of 40 speaks volumes to how good he truly was in his late 20's. You cannot get to 40k without being an unquestionable legend.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
When a mob boss tells you "eh, that's a nice family you got there, would be a real shame if something happened to them"... Is he:A) threatening youB) expressing concern for the well being off your family?A or B? Or are you going to dodge this?A
So words when put together a certain way don't always mean what the dictionary says then, right?
The threat of violence was obvious.but lack of preparing for violence was inexplicable ('excuse' only valid for the left-tribe)
They did prepare for violence, they failed to anticipate the scale of violence and the size of Trump's mob.
I've explained this to you three times already. Normally the way it works is that you acknowledge the point and move on from there. When you just keep repeating the same thing as if the previous point wasn't made it only gives further confirmation you know you're wrong
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lying about your financial records is not a process violation, it's fraud. That's not a weaponization, that's how the rule of law actually works.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mall
What do you think keeps faith going in those that reject the existence of God?
I have no idea what you're asking. If someone is keeping their faith going then that by definition means they aren't rejecting the existence of God. Please clarify your definitions.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Is there a reason you are denying the OP of this thread?
Yes, because the point made was nonsense. I just haven't had time to respond to it in detail, so I responded to one point you made by pointing out an obvious logical flaw. Any reason you continue to tap dance around having to acknowledge it?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
At this point you're not making an argument you're just saying "everybody sees it that way", which they don't
When a mob boss tells you "eh, that's a nice family you got there, would be a real shame if something happened to them"... Is he:
A) threatening you
B) expressing concern for the well being off your family?
A or B? Or are you going to dodge this?
Alternate theory: Wild = exciting, peaceful = peaceful, you have to fight like hell = you have to be proactive and engaged, one on one duels = joke
You forgot the last part: "context is irrelevant"
Yeah, that's about right.
I agreed that it follows that if elections are rigged violence is the only remaining option.You did agree to it. It's right there ^.Nope. Learn English.
You can piss on my leg and tell me it's raining all you want, I can still see you're pissing on my leg.
NPR from a reporter on the morning of J6 talking about the rally and talking about the violent mood of the crowd.That is a red herring. It is not enough for violence or a violent mood to exist to prove it was incited or that it was incited by primarily one thing (or person).
It's not a red herring. You are pretending that there was no real indication of violence before January 6th. Reality says there was. Anyone who didn't want violence was concerned about it, this is just one example of it.
There is a reason I was plugged in to this while I was at work. It's not because I was so captivated by Congress casting votes. The threat of violence was obvious.
So any angry politician is making it clear that he or she wants people to commit violence. Got it.
No, you don't. Not because it hasn't been explained to you but because you don't want to.
I wasn't trying to prove Trump can be trusted, I succeeded at proving the lying hypocrites who are after him are worse than him and that their supporters are worse than his supporters.
Well it was always obvious that you were never interested in a good faith conversation about the facts and reality of this topic and instead were just playing a silly little game of "own the lib", so thank you for at least being honest.
Created: