Total posts: 5,890
-->
@Greyparrot
I'd like to think you and Pakman share a lot in common, as you tend to keep your cool in this forum as well.
I take that as a compliment so thanks. I am told I can be quite dismissive and condensing, something I am working on but it's difficult when people make arguments I just can't see themselves taking seriously, so that's my version of losing my cool I guess.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Here’s an honest question for you: why do you think the Whitehouse included Fox News, the pro GOP outlier, in the memo? I don’t actually have a good working theory on that decision…
I don't either. To take a shot in the dark... I'd guess it was a PR move to avoid people like yourself using it to claim this memo proves the MSM and the democrats are working together.
Also, why wouldn’t you issue such a memo?
Because the White House shouldn't be dictating to media outlets what they cover, so the letter is a lose lose. If they cover it because of the letter they've crossed the line, if they cover it regardless of their programming preferences then it didn't make a difference.
the Whitehouse went out of its lane in the memo, and CNN reporter Oliver Darcy not only failed to point this out, he basically spent his entire article validating the memo. Whether media is “in alignment” or not with the Whitehouse should be purely incidental to its central job of reporting “without passion or prejudice.” If the Whitehouse doesn’t stay within its role, the media response should be pushback, not compliance!
If I tell you to tie your shoes before you leave the house tomorrow and you do, is that compliance?
You call it compliance because you seem to disregard the fact that Darcy didn't say anything he nor the network hasn't been saying repeatedly for weeks... because it's true, and reporting the truth is exactly what the media is supposed to do.
I do get what you're saying, and it's true it would have looked better if Darcy included the disclaimer that the Biden WH should not telling media networks what to cover, but again, that's only a concern here and if you already believe there's something nefarious going on in the first place. Without that, your entire gripe is nothing more than a process criticism, which I sincerely doubt you would have found worthy of a whole thread.
I’m finding myself just repeating or rewording what I have already said at length. If you truly don’t get… or align with what I’m saying, then we will have to agree to disagree.
I get what you're saying completely. Again, it all begins with the underlying facts of the story the memo pointed to, if we disagree on that the rest we're going to disagree on.
if you can, cite the stats that show Fox has greater influence than CNN, MSNBC, NYT, ABC, CBS, NBC, and AP combined.
I didn't say Fox alone had higher viewership, I'm talking about right wing media which includes the other networks, podcasts and talk radio.
But to this point, not about to go crazy with Google but here is something I found rather quickly...
"According to Comscore TV Essentials® data, viewership decreased for CNN and MSNBC but increased for Fox News in 2022. The average audience (defined as the average number of TVs tuned to a program throughout a time period) for the prime news time slot (8 to 11 p.m.) decreased by 25% for CNN, from 1.1 million in 2021 to 828,000 in 2022. MSNBC’s audience declined by 6% over this period, from about 881,000 to 827,000. On the other hand, Fox News’ audience increased from 1.9 million in 2021 to 2.1 million in 2022, a 10% increase."
So in the prime time slot on Fox news they had 2.1 million viewers vs 1.6 million viewers on CNN and MSNBC combined.
Point out one of many reasons for the public’s growing mistrust in our institutions, and you get “But Trump tho!” It never seems to occur to them that part (or much) of Trump’s popularity is precisely because of that mistrust.
But that mistrust is not based on facts, that's the point. It's all propaganda, which is a large part of my point here. The fact that the republicans are trying to paint Biden as some crime family mob boss with absolutely no evidence and yet CNN's pointing to this fact is twisted as evidence of media compliance is a perfect illustration of it.
Trump's popularity was a product of Fox News's old "truth teller" strategy; tell it's viewers what they wanted to hear rather than what was true and then tell their audience that they are the only ones willing to tell the truth. It's quite a lucrative deal. You gain a faithful following because no one else is feeding it's audience what they want, and then you lock them in by isolating them by getting them to distrust everyone else. We've seen this strategy play out many times over from Alex Jones to Andrew Tate.
Trump is Frankenstein, Fox news and the republican party are what created him. They made their money and gained their power by manipulating their audience/constituency and now it's outgown them. Mitt Romney said not a single republican talks about Trump any differently behind the scenes than he does publicly. They all understand full well what a jackass he is along with the people who actually think he's some hero fighting for them.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
The Whitehouse memo and CNN article betray a rather “cozy” relationship between government power and the “free and independent”institution charged with keeping that power in check, which undermines the public trust in its institutions.
Does it actually portray a cozy relationship, or just an alignment between them regarding the facts at hand? I would argue the only thing your example demonstrates is the latter which I personally don't find worthy of attention or concern.
The facts aren't really debatable either, republicans have said themselves the whole point of the impeachment inquiry is to give them the power to find the evidence (which itself is not even true). So what are news networks supposed to do with that? There is a difference between objective journalism and neutral journalism. Their job is to be the former, not the latter.
The rest of your post on this part is an extension of this same issue. You are portraying MSM through CNN of not being what it's supposed to be with regards to its role in our political eco system, but the only reason you believe this clip supports that notion is because you already accept that conclusion. So essentially its begging the question. You can easily say the same is true of me, that I reject your notion because of my preconceptions, which I don't disagree with, but that's why we need to begin with the facts at hand. Do the republicans have any evidence to warrant their actions? The answer to that question leads to the rest.
Fox comprises one out of 3 cable networks and one out of… I don’t know… 10 major news outlets?
And yet Fox news is by far the largest out of all of them, so painting it as merely 1 out of 10 Isa fallacious attempt to minimize its impact.
If you believe our country is fairly evenly split between right wing consumers vs left wing consumers, and you believe the vast majority of right wing viewers are not getting their information from CNN or MSNBC, then you cannot argue the other "10 major outlets" comprise of the majority of news consummation.
As I said, you don’t see Fox News as comparable to CNN at all. Doesn’t CNN et al hold themselves to a higher standard? Yet you wish to directly compare them when it suits you.
CNN does hold itself to a higher standard, the issue is that Fox and more importantly it's viewership pretend Fox is right on par. I don't take issue with blasting CNN for being "unjournalistic" provided we all accept that Fox and nearly all of its right wing co-networks are not up to that standard.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Serious people who subscribe to WAPO do not listen to talk radio or political podcasters like Pakman. Because we are intelligent adults, not MAGA MORONS
I think you're confused about who Pakman is. His show is entirely catered to the intelligent left wing viewer. He recently wrote a children's book called "think like a detective" to teach kids critical thinking as a way of fighting back against MAGA type extremism.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The MAGA Morons are always saying the justice department only prosecutes Republicans. So how can a Democrat get investigated by the corrupt FBI?
Next they'll say Mendez was only indicted because of right wing pressure to arrest the Dems too.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
I never said it's irrelevant. The strawman continues.
Unremarkable and irrelevant are two different things.
Saying we have bigger things to focus on does not mean the issue at question is irrelevant.
Basic English.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Saying it's bad while also saying it's irrelevant. That's how nations crumble.
I never said it's irrelevant. The strawman continues.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
would you like to rewrite your initial response?
Let's just try this;
Given the nature of the relationship the prior administration had with the largest cable news network on television, what about this example do you find worthy of our attention?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
History is rife with explanations and justifications for the collapse of previous societal norms and moral codes.
I just explained to you how the Biden memo is no less bad because of anything Trump did. Did you read my post? Did you understand it? Are you even writing these responses, or just copying and pasting quotes you dug up?
Created:
-->
@cristo71
And Fox staffers were livid about it, fyi. Yet you compare them when it is convenient for you.We can add “false equivalencies” to the list.
The fact that staffers at Fox were livid is irrelevant. The staffers are not the ones making decisions as to the direction of the network nor are they the ones who cultivated the environment where a prime time host would not immediately understand that they had no business being on stage at a political rally.
You felt the need to begin aggressively and dismissively with “Your view on the matter is biased because [assumption] and can be disregarded because [fallacy].”
The only part of your original post I showed could be disregarded was your statement that it "must be read to be believed". Do you understand what makes something believable vs what makes something not believable?
My original post implied you were biased, it never attempted to explain why.
So yet again, you are refuting an argument I never made despite repeated examples where I explained it to you in great detail. By this point you have made it obvious that you have no interest in understanding my very simple 2 sentence initial reply.
Setting that aside, I get what you're saying regarding my tone and for whatever it's worth it's not the kind of member I try to be so I don't just brush that off. However, I also feel compelled to point out that this is a debate site. The point isn't to make friends and build relationships, the idea is to find like minded individuals who enjoy the exercise of having their views challenged along with challenging others. I'll never understand why people come here if they're going to take things so personally or refuse to engage on a topic on the basis that they don't think they're going to change someone else's mind.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
If there were a significant number of people on the left that truly believed Trump was a Nazi Fascist, then wouldn't they have a a clear motive and a moral obligation to cheat in the election to prevent Trump from returning as president? I thought that was a pointed take, and it seems to line up with your response.
It doesn't line up with my response at all. I never in any way suggested what Biden did was fine, I even stated that it was in fact problematic earlier in the thread, so you are clearly misrepresenting my position.
If you want a simple line to sum up my point it would be this; "you have to pick and choose your battles". Choosing to neglect issue A because you are busy focusing on issue B cause you find it far more pressing does not mean your position on issue A has changed. It is a simple recognition that we as a society are limited in our capacity when it comes to what problems we are going to solve. We cannot address every issue at once and if we try, we're just going to fail at solving any of them.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
sigh* This is… a tu quoque fallacy! Note: not a LITERAL “you— Cristo71 as in me” but “Biden’s opponent, Trump did it, too!”“Biden did x. Not good.”“So what? Trump did x, but worse.”“Tu Quoque ("You Do it Too!"; also, Two Wrongs...
Ok, let me make things even simpler:
You: "X is unbelievable"
Me: "Here are examples to show why X is actually unremarkable..."
That's not a Tu Quoque. Do you understand the difference?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
When you say it is "unremarkable" do you accept this behavior as the new norm then?
It's certainly a shift in the Overton window. That's not a good thing at all so we need to fight back against it, but right now there are far more important battles to concern ourselves with.
Trump right now is a coin flip away from another term. The guy who tried to end American democracy, the guy who has pledged to go after his political opponents, the guy who wants to gut the entire federal government so he can make loyalty to him the number one job requirement. But we're supposed to be concerned with a WH memo asking media outlets to spend more time on a subject they find pressing. Give me a break.
And the fact that it's the same people who would vote for a second Trump term suggesting this is a worthy focus of our time... That is what I find most remarkable here.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Ok. Please state in one sentence (your “great detail” may actually detract from the clarity) what you are claiming, and… AND make it consistent with your first post to the thread.
Your OP stated the Biden memo and CNN's subsequent coverage "must be read to be believed".
My point, before I brought your personal behavior into the mix, is that it was unremarkable compared to the prior 4 years, therefore, it does not need to be read to be believed.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
You seem to be having problem with making people understand you, so no wonder you prefer pow pow instead of reasonable conversation.
You can't make someone understand you who doesn't want to.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Actually, let me adjust that. It's not entirely bad reasoning in some cases. The idea that's fallacious is the idea that person X's actions are less wrong because of person Y's actions. However, when it comes to what we should be focused on and how much attention should be paid to it... That's a different thing.
Biden's letter to the press would have been a big deal in the Obama years or before. But after 4 years of Trump and a country possibly on the brink of Trump 2.0, we have much bigger things to worry about.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
“Person X doing something wrong can be ignored because Person Y did a similar transgression but to a worse degree.”Does the above constitute sound reasoning to you? YES or NO?
No, it's not sound reasoning. It's also not what I did, which I've explained in great detail at least three times already. Your entire objection is a strawman.
Created:
-->
@ponikshiy
Well, if you eliminate all of the videos that show rioters breaking through police barricades, breaking windows, beating cops and destroying property, J6 wasn't so bad...
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Ah, so now you are saying I was making an argument…
No. Making an argument and stating an opinion are two different things.
after a number of posts where you insisted I wasn’t making an argument in order to weasel out of a highly literal interpretation of one of several possible definitions of an ad hominem tu quoque.
Again, you accused me of a logical fallacy. That would require you to have presented an argument to begin with, or a second option I didn’t initially consider is that a logical fallacy could have also been committed if I used a false means of making an argument of my own. It wasn’t till later in our discussion that I realized this is what you were getting at, so I pointed how if you actually read my post you would see was not the case.
Let me spell it out for you once again. This time I’ll try it differently. Here’s my initial reply with a slight addition (in italics):
In the previous administration we saw prime time cable news anchors appearing on stage with the president at his rallies, one of those anchors was known to have nightly conversations with the president discussing White House strategy.I fail to see what you’re pointing to here that we didn’t see ten fold in the previous administration which by the way you didn’t seem to have any issue with.
Notice how the insertion of “by the way” demonstrates what I just pointed out… That last line was not necessary when it came to discrediting your “argument” because that had already been done. The last half sentence where the “you too” was committed served its own purpose separate from the rest of the post. That purpose was not to discredit your “argument” or position, nor was it intended to lead to any conclusion other than what was plainly implied: that your position is the result of obvious political bias.
So yes, my quote was intended to do everything I said it was intended to do, no you didn’t make an argument in your OP, and no my initial reply was not a logical fallacy.
Not my fault you are so blinded by your preconceptions of me to listen to what I'm actually saying. It isn't sophistry, it's reality.
If my posts are as obviously invalid and pointless as you opine, I have to wonder why you are nevertheless compelled to respond to them so regularly. I can only conclude that my posts threaten your sensibilities in some way which you won’t admit. That, or you are like really, really bored…
Moreso the latter, don't flatter yourself. If there were better posts to respond to that's where i'd be. I do find this oddly amusing though, so not really that bored.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
You are saying that my hypocrisy on a political matter illustrates my political bias. Because of that bias, my position can be ignored.
That’s not what I argued. The position which you hold and the seriousness with which you hold that position are two different things. Pointing to hypocrisy addresses your seriousness, which is absolutely valid.
The position which you originally espoused was already addressed by that point. Here, let me remind you:
Your OP:
Marching orders given; marching orders gladly recieved! Oliver Darcy at CNN dutifully reports on the White House issuing instructions to media and proceeds to follow those instructions in the very same article without even a hint of irony or self awareness. It must be read to be believed:
So he dutifully follows without a sense of irony, which is unbelievable. That was the point made - that it’s so difficult to believe a news anchor would align themselves with a presidential administration.
But is it? Well, here’s my reply:
In the previous administration we saw prime time cable news anchors appearing on stage with the president at his rallies, one of those anchors was known to have nightly conversations with the president discussing White House strategy.I fail to see what you’re pointing to here that we didn’t see ten fold in the previous administration which you didn’t seem to have any issue with.
I fail to see what you’re pointing to here that we didn’t see ten fold in the previous administration… As in, your example is most certainly believable.
Not a single word before the italics addresses you personally in any way, that last half line could have been an after thought. So by the time I engaged in a “you too” there was nothing left to refute (to the extent there was anything there from the start).
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Yes. Yes, you are. I only need to read your meandering, “So, am I guilty of a ‘you too’? Ok, yes, sort of. But is that a fallacy? No, because of the 10x worse aspect I pulled out of the air and you have no argument blah blah blah…” Talk about weasel wording.
You do understand that accusing someone of hypocrisy on its own is not a logical fallacy, right?
Since you need an argument, even though it was initially implied and you failed to pick up on it, here:The Whitehouse memo constitutes a conflict of interests, and Oliver Darcy’s failure to push back on it in any way shows he has no problem with a conflict of interest on behalf of the Biden administration.
Not a single word of your OP suggested a conflict of interest. You talked about a WH memo distributed and a CNN anchor doing what it asked suggesting we should be surprised. That at worst is an alignment of interest, which is completely different. And given the prior 4 years, is not remarkable, which was the point I made in my initial response before you were blinded by being called a hypocrite.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Tu Quoque would have been committed if I were claiming right wing media did the same thing as your example which makes this legitimate. That’s not what I did. I pointed out how what they did during the Trump years was 10x worse and yet you seem to have no issue with it. In other words, you’re being a hypocrite. That’s not an ad hominem BTW because it’s an actual argument with a premises, logic and a conclusion that you yourself seemed to have arrived at if this is where you got that from.In your own defense of your reasoning, you are making what amounts to an appeal to hypocrisy. If you search using the terms “appeal to hypocrisy,” you will also find references to… the tu quoque fallacy! You will also see this fine article, or I did, at least:
Note the part above that I put in bold. Once again, you took the part of my post you thought made your point and ignored the rest. I already acknowledged fully that I was pointing out you are being a hypocrite. I don’t know why you think putting that part in bold proves anything.
Let’s break this down a bit simpler…
The definition you provided gives two basic qualifiers:
A) appeal to hypocrisy
B) That (A) Is committed as a means of discrediting an argument
A is present. I never pretended otherwise.
B is not present.
If one of the two basic qualifiers doesn’t match up, it doesn’t meet the definition.
You act as if this of merely a game of semantics. It’s not. Using an invalid tactic as a means of discrediting an argument is the entire point of why we identify and learn to spot logical fallacies. Pretending to discredit the logic which connects a set of premises to its conclusion when it actually doesn’t - is what makes a logical fallacy… fallacious.
Tu quoque is Latin for “you too” which is where the name comes from. Did I engage in a “you too”? Well, kind of. I mean you can say I did even though my original post pointed out that what Trump did was ten times worse, so the idea was that your apathetic attitude towards Trump’s transgressions by comparison is bad not because he did the same thing, but rather because what he did was far worse. But whatever, for the sake of argument, sure, I engaged in a “you too”.
Does that make it a logical fallacy? No, because once again… you never presented an argument to begin with and discrediting your point whatever that was was not the point. I’ve even acknowledged that there is something wrong with what the Biden WH did so why discredit something I agreed with in the first place? The point was that the only reason you think this warrants attention is because of your political bias.
But here we are, still arguing over whether my first response was a logical fallacy when I’ve already acknowledged and owned the part of the definition you seem to take issue with, have already acknowledged and agreed with the apparent point you were originally making (although still unclear), and wrote an entire breakdown of why the example you provided is not worth our attention.
But I’m the one who tap dances to avoid arguments which conflict with my views. Ok.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Even now, you resort to petty semantics in an effort to weasel your way out of the fallacious nature of your initial rebuttal.
Again, you never presented an argument for me to discredit. That’s not semantics, that’s not sophistry. It’s the most basic qualifier within your own definition of the fallacy you accused me of, which was clearly absent.
I do recall you and RR writhing around in whataboutisms here. Makes me think I hit a nerve or something with this topic.
Actually yes, you did hit a bit of a nerve. In 2016 most of us believed Donald Trump had absolutely no chance of winning, because we never thought for a second that the American populace would be some combination of dumb enough, easily manipulable enough, or just apathetic enough about our politics to vote for this guy. Then in November of that year, we found out we were wrong. Only question was, which was it?
One of the few consolations was that at least now that we have accepted all of the absurdity that went along with a Trump presidency, we could stop pretending to care about things so silly. I mean, how after 4 years of this buffoon could anyone pretend to care about a tan suit? Or a president ordering grey poupon? Or saluting troops with a cup of coffee in his hands? Answer was no way would ever happen again - it would be way too easy to point out the hypocrisy there and those engaging in it would have no voice to hang their head in shame for even trying it.
But yet here we are. It doesn’t even phase the MAGA crowd or it’s sympathizers. After 4 years of watching a president blatantly using the largest cable network on television as an arm of his own political campaign, you are really going to sit here and pretend we’re all supposed to be… what, concerned? Amused? Outraged? Because the Biden White House distributed a memo asking news networks to discuss the facts of this absurd attempt to impeach him? A memo for which there is no evidence the networks felt compelled to adjust their coverage in any way and in fact quite the opposite?
This cannot be serious. This cannot be real life. it’s maddening.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Yours is somewhat of a textbook example:“Tu quoque (/tjuːˈkwoʊkwi, tuːˈkwoʊkweɪ/;[1] Latin Tū quoque, for "you also") is a discussion technique that intends to discredit the opponent's argument by attacking the opponent's own personal behavior and actions as being inconsistent with his argument, therefore accusing hypocrisy.”
It’s not a logical fallacy if you didn’t present an argument to begin with, to which you didn’t. You presented an example of something that you appear to believe warranted our attention. My response pointed out that it didn’t and used your behavior as further support for that narrative. If I am wrong about that assumption of you then I take that last part back, but that hardly addresses the essence of the point I was making. Look beyond the last half sentence.
I did go on to write a few paragraphs in direct response to the point of your op. Any response to that?
Do you see CNN and Fox in a similar light? Yeah, I didn’t think so…
Fox News’s literal founding document shows that the entire point and purpose of the network was to “put the GOP on television”. So no, of course I don’t.
Show me examples of CNN hosts on stage with president Biden, text messages from their hosts proving that they believe the opposite of what they report on a daily basis, or a billion dollar defamation settlement for peddling false claims by the administration and you will have given me something to think about.
Created:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Gavin Newsom can in theory send blue voters from California into battleground states for the pourpose of turning them blue while still giving California be fairly blue (because it is one of the bluest and the biggest state in the country).
How exactly can a Governor “send” american citizens to other states?
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Now get your Fascist controlled pharma drug. Nothing screams life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as forcing a capitalist product into your body at Fascist gunpoint.
Please explain how making vaccines for a deadly and highly contagious virus readily available in your state and encouraging people to get them is fascism.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
In the previous administration we saw prime time cable news anchors appearing on stage with the president at his rallies, one of those anchors was known to have nightly conversations with the president discussing White House strategy.I fail to see what you’re pointing to here that we didn’t see ten fold in the previous administration which you didn’t seem to have any issue with.Your fallacy of choice here is the ad hominem tu quoque. Didn’t see that one coming! Do you see CNN and Fox in a similar light? Yeah, I didn’t think so…
Ad hominem? Seriously? Feel free to enlighten me on where that was committed.
Tu Quoque would have been committed if I were claiming right wing media did the same thing as your example which makes this legitimate. That’s not what I did. I pointed out how what they did during the Trump years was 10x worse and yet you seem to have no issue with it. In other words, you’re being a hypocrite. That’s not an ad hominem BTW because it’s an actual argument with a premises, logic and a conclusion that you yourself seemed to have arrived at if this is where you got that from.
If you really want to focus on this example, there is hardly anything remarkable about this at all. If I were Biden I would not have sent a letter to News outlets telling them what I think they should cover, but to package this as marching orders is just ridiculous.
In the example you cited, they began by telling the world they got this letter. That’s a pretty silly way to follow marching orders aimed at spreading propaganda - by telling people your reporting is propaganda.
The news didn’t need a letter to report on any of this, they’ve been doing so for weeks.
There is not a shred of evidence that the cable news outlets feel compelled to follow Biden’s “marching orders” any more than they would any other politician (yes there’s corruption in media, just like every industry on earth blah blah blah).
What the White House is asking reporters to report on is factually accurate. The republicans have not presented a shred of evidence linking any of this to Biden.
There’s nothing remarkable about any of this.
Created:
-->
@cristo71
Imagine the same situation with the party affiliations switched around.
In the previous administration we saw prime time cable news anchors appearing on stage with the president at his rallies, one of those anchors was known to have nightly conversations with the president discussing White House strategy.
I fail to see what you’re pointing to here that we didn’t see ten fold in the previous administration which you didn’t seem to have any issue with.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
No, it won't, and my biggest fear is the person that replaces Trump, who will have the capacity to be far more dangerous and calculating.
Anyone can replace Trump as the republican standard bearer, no one is going to be able to replicate his cult following which is what allows him to not only get away with telling the most outrageous and frankly stupidest of lies, but have his supporters follow them into intellectual abyss.
Politics is an extremely tough game, Trump was able to bypass all of it because of his fame and notoriety which despite him being a complete buffoon and ignoramus was able to be sold to the public as a successful genius billionaire. It was a perfect storm I don’t see coming again.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Which you could have had instead of Biden
No, it’s not clear that we can, that’s the point. Do you have another democrat that matches up head to head with Trump as well as Biden? Especially taking into account historical trends which favor the incumbent president?
Convince me that there Is a better option to ensure Trump loses and you may yet change my mind. Absent that, any policy or even competence concerns I have with Biden pale in comparison to the prospect of another Trump term which our democracy may not survive.
New York Democrats are furious with the present shadow of a real president.
Really? Who?
The only people out there pretending senile Biden is being controlled by his puppet masters get their information from Fox News, OANN or Newmax. They’re not voting democrat.
Even if Biden doesn't end up on the ballot for whatever reason, I fully expect no upgrade to a candidate that actually solves real world problems for real Democrats because there's no narrative on any outlet giving voice to anything other than "anti-Trump"...That will make 12 straight years of Democrat voter concerns being kicked down the road. And for what reason???
Because our government is a reflection of our country, which is deeply divided. No one party gets to pass legislation on their own, they have to compromise but the days where politicians are rewarded for solving problems appear to be gone. This isn’t a democratic problem, it’s a national problem and it stems from the fact that we live in two separate realities. Getting rid of Trump won’t solve that, but it will make a tremendous difference because he is the catalyst for the bulk of it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Not from the left. Biden has ridiculously low support among the left compared to just about any other serious Democrat candidate.
His lack of support is based mostly on his age and the concerns that his age will make him a poor candidate to defeat Trump this time around.
He is also getting a lot of flack because he hasn’t been progressive enough in many areas, like on border policy where many of Trump’s policies have remained in place. One could easily argue that the left should have a better representative than that, but that critique is pretty absurd if it’s coming from someone on the right.
So again, if you’re asking me whether the left should have went with someone “better” I think it’s a flawed question and I honestly don’t care at this point. When we can get to a point where we are debating policy as opposed to reality, then I’ll worry about that. Right now I just want the candidate who ensures we stay in reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
It's no secret here that I hate Trump
BTW, I would be remiss to not comment on this. You’re all over this site disparaging others of having TDS. For someone who hates Trump you sure have a problem with others who hate Trump, not to mention a propensity for being aligned with those who fully support him.
So why pretend?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
See this is the problem when the bar is set that low. Democrats should have demanded more than just being able to beat Trump, which just about any competent Democrat could have easily done in 2020. But the Democrats chose the one that could barely get it done over one that could have done oh so much more if the people demanded it. What happened in Hawaii where Biden sent Billions of dollars overseas but only a one time check of 700 dollars to Americans in Maui...Democrats could have done much better than that and they should have demanded someone who could do more than simply "beat Trump"Who is at fault for these low standards?
It’s the fault of the people who stood behind the greatest embarrassment the nation has ever seen. I would have loved for the 2020 election to have been focused on whether more could have been done to prevent deaths from COVID and how best to get vaccines distributed, instead we focused on whether it was all just a plot to hurt Donald J Trump or whether COVID was even real at all. I would have loved to have been debating which measures were best when it came to balancing safety vs security with regards to election integrity, instead we focused on whether any measures to ensure voter safety were really just a plot by the evil democrats to steal the election.
The distance between Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, etc… is not comparable in the slightest to the distance been any viable democratic candidate and Trump. They’re two entirely different universes, so if there is clear data showing that anyone in the left is a safer bet to beat Trump (which there absolutely was) it would be stupid to go with another candidate.
As it turns out, I believe the choice was absolutely the right one. The election was far closer than it should have been, and amazingly even most people on the left including myself agree that of not for COVID Trump would have gotten a second term. So yeah, it was that serious.
But setting all that aside, you seem to be suggesting that there was a much better choice than Biden. Well sure, I would have taken Bernie easily or even Warren over Biden, but they would have gotten the same treatment Biden is getting now. You act as of the reason the political right hates Biden so much has anything to do with reality, it doesn’t. They just make shit up and their voters don’t care. I was watching a Hannity interview yesterday and the congressman being interviewed actually used the “cocaine in the White House” incident as part of the justification to proceed with the impeachment inquiry. That’s just a sample of the bullshit being peddled daily over in MAGAville. They would have done this to anyone.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
4 > 1
4 [dead voters] > 1 [investigation uncovering only 4 dead voters].
ADreamOfLiberty Logic.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
What about the second part? That the exclusion of all other talk allows for apathy and atrophy of everything else political.
I don’t concern myself with it because that isn’t a decision any individual made, it’s a social force. Trump is a different kind of character so that garners attention, he’s also incredibly buffoonish so he’s a comedian’s dream. People are going to talk about someone like this, so there’s no sense in asking what if people didn’t.
What do you think could have changed to get someone better than Biden to represent the left tribe?
Biden won the democratic nomination because he was best suited to defeat Trump which he did. I have mixed feelings about him running again, but my concerns there are mostly political. At this point I would gladly take President Chris Christy if it means getting rid of Trump.
I honestly don’t think it matters when it comes to who represents the left right now. Seems kind of pointless to argue about what the top tax rate should be when the alternative is to elect someone who’s pretty much running on a platform of using the government for political retribution. The political right doesn’t live in reality, so they don’t need real world reasons to attack whoever is the left’s standard bearer.
Created:
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
If we've come to a point where any major segment of the population is willing to say that they can simply declare individuals traitors and ineligible then the inevitable next step is for all opposing factions to start claiming the same thing, perhaps tongue in cheek; but no less earnest.That's the last step before secession or war.Watch: Biden committed insurrection by having the biggest voter fraud network in history (his own words). Therefore he "shall not be" president (or hold any other office). Therefore he's not the president.
We haven’t came to a point where any major segment is willing to make such silly and ridiculous claims, only one. Because for this one segment, we’ll call them MAGAville, up is down, left is right, and black is white.
In MAGAville, an NYC billionaire who has spent his entire life desperately seeking approval from all the elites and celebrities from his 68th floor gold chandeliered penthouse, who refuses to pay the people who have done work for him, who checks every single box off of the narcissistic personality disorder checklist… is actually a selfless America loving patriot who is running for president to fight for the forgotten little guy.
In MAGAville, a guy who told 30k lies in 4 years in office, who can’t even tell the truth about things so simple, inconsequential, and easily verifiable as the weather and crowd size at his inauguration, whether he was ever Michigan’s man of the year, or whether he got a phone call from the Boy Scouts of America boasting about his speech… is actually the most honest president we’ve ever seen.
In MAGAville, a man who thinks clean coal is when they take it out and scrub it with a brush, the answer to California’s wildfire problem is a rake, that it might be a good idea to drop a nuclear warhead inside a hurricane, and still to this day brags about “acing” a test for dementia… Is actually a competent genius.
In MAGAville, the guy who spent 4 years as president fawning over and boasting about Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Recep Erdoğan, while feuding with and alienating himself from Angela Merkel, Justin Trudeau, and Theresa May, the same guy who when president Xi effectively made himself president for life “joked” that we should give that a try, is actually the guy who loves democracy and is just fighting to ensure the people’s wishes are respected.
It really wasn’t that hard to see this coming. We should have known the country was headed down this absurd anti reality path when we elected the guy who thought Ted Cruz’s dad killed JFK to be our president.
Truth is this was always part of the playbook. It’s why we all gasped when president Trump continued calling the free press the enemy of the people. As he himself admitted at the time, he did that to ensure that whenever they wrote negative stories about him his supporters wouldn’t believe them. Such foresight is a very clear indicator of what we were dealing with; a man who didn’t give a damn about his responsibilities to the country he was elected to serve and a man who would burn the country down to save his own ass.
Well here we are, and that’s exactly what he is doing. And people like you are exactly who he recognized he could manipulate from the start to be used as a pawn in his war against everything this country was founded to be.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You asked why people here on this site talk about him so much. That has nothing to do with whatever the Tonight Show is joking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
what is the basis of the dopamine rush for continuing the 7 straight years of TDS analysis
He incited an attack on the US Capitol, stole the country’s nuclear secrets and tried to hide them from the FBI, tried to steal an election, and is right now pledging to effectively turn the US into a dictatorship, among so many other things. And yet, right now he stands about a 50/50 shot of taking the White House in 2025. I think that’s worth talking about.
Created:
@TWS1405_2,
Two different circumstances can dictate different meanings of the same word you dumbass!!!
Yes genius, words can have more than one definition. But you are the one comparing the 2020 riots to January 6th, so using distant definitions to compare to things is incoherent. Here, let me remind you of the comment you made that started this entire part of the conversation:
“Proportionality makes a huge difference when establishing when an action is merely a riot vs an insurrection. Which is precisely why none of the 2020 riots were ever declared an insurrection despite the glaring fact they targeted government buildings, offices, policies, procedures and threatened the lives of civil and federal employees. The disparity between the St Floyd Violent (Burn Loot Murder) riots and J6 convictions are astounding and in your face. Tarrio getting 22 years for circumstantial evidence of a loosely described conspiracy is asinine given that actual arsonists and murderers of the 2020 Floyd riots got less than half the sentencing Tarrio did, who wasn't even present on J6.” - Post 139
So if these two things get two different definitions your entire argument for a double standard goes out the window since you yourself are not even evaluating them against the same definition.
If I were you I would drop this conversation (well, when you are unbanned I guess).
What I rebutted stands factually accurate. You cannot say with absolutism that not a single person would not be present J6 and protest and voice their grievances in redress to the government of their own accord.
Wow, the thing you said that I agreed with and that no one is disputing stands unrebutted. Congratulations.
About time you admitted they had their own motives and were not following Trump's "orders." Glad that's put to rest.
Do you understand what the word “incitement” means?
Still a walk in the park compared to the 2020 St Floyd Riots. Over 60,000 officers attacked and more than 30% sustaining injuries.
Every time someone like yourself tries to compare the property damages of the 2020 riots to January 6th you only demonstrate how remarkably ignorant you are on what the issue is that we’re discussing.
Even in the comment you replied to, this has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation. You made the absurd charge that J6 was a government conspiracy perpetrated in part by the Capitol police officers themselves - the same ones who got beaten the by the rioters they were purposefully egging on. That’s just plain stupid for so many reasons not worth getting into right now. Do you understand that?
That’s not how incitement worksNeither does giving a speech defending and asserting the 1A informing American voters that they have a right to voice their grievances to the government and to do so peacefully.
That wasn’t the message of his speech, it’s called a false exculpatory. I’ve explained this to you before.
You consistently accuse me of sophistry,Yeah, and I am not the only one either who sees through your bullshit.
What you see is someone who can respond to your bullshit with actual rational responses and it drives you crazy. If you could figure out and explain why my responses are so full of shit you wouldn’t need to take up 70% of your space with childish insults and bragging about your “credentials”.
It’s when you have no valid response that you resort to calling it sophistry - it’s nothing more than being confronted with arguments you can’t handle so instead of recognizing there’s something wrong with your position you just project your dishonesty and unwillingness to hear alternative viewpoints onto me, then rationalize that it’s all a game I must be very good at, cause how else could that be explained?
Simple. You’re wrong. That’s how.
Created:
-->
@prefix
The 14th amendment does not negate the foundation of the presumption of innocence found in other amendments and case law.
Again, this isn’t a criminal trial. Presidential candidates are being vetted for the most powerful position on earth, that is a level of trust that must be earned, not presumed.
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Citing my credentials gives away personal information.LOL, yeah, that's why I never mention that I'm a Nobel Prize winner, an Olympic Gold Medalist, and an astronaut....I just don't want to give away too much personal information.
He reminds me a bit of Trump, even when he tries to restrain himself and sound like a reasonably intelligent person, it’s only a matter of time till his natural self comes back out with the cursing all caps insults in place of any substantive response.
But this is a guy who has demonstrated the ability to present powerful legal arguments and win cases based on merit. Ok bro.
It’s absolutely pathetic.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
WASHINGTON (AP) — Three days before supporters of President Donald Trump rioted at the Capitol, the Pentagon asked the U.S Capitol Police if it needed National Guard manpower. And as the mob descended on the building Wednesday, Justice Department leaders reached out to offer up FBI agents. The police turned them down both times, according to senior defense officials and two people familiar with the matter.
Setting aside that this, even if fully accurate, does not refute anything I previously said, I have a question…
Do you believe Trump was concerned with Capitol security heading into J6 and do you believe he did or tried to do anything about it beforehand? Yes or No?
Created:
-->
@prefix
To disqualify Trump at this point in time, one must make a presumption of guilt. This country is founded on the presumption of Innocence. Until it is adjudicated otherwise, he is innocent, and therefore qualified.
We all have the right to our freedom, no one has a right to hold public office. Criminal trial standards to do not apply to the 14th amendment.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Sure, out of context. The definition I used was provided within the context of the discussion about J6, NOT the St. Floyd Riots of 2020. Big fucking difference. Both events are mutually exclusive, therefore the same definition given (#163) of insurrection does not apply
This is the most transparently hypocritical rebuttal I’ve ever heard. I can’t believe you actually wrote this.
So the 2020 riots were an insurrection because it fits the definition of insurrection you provided for the 2020 riots, and J6 was not an insurrection because the definition of insurrection you provided for J6 says it’s not an insurrection. Wow.
Please, enlighten us with your command over the English language and explain why each occurrence gets its own separate definition and how language is supposed to work when we use different definitions with completely different standards in order to compare two different things.
you cannot say with absolutism that not a single person would not be present J6 to rightly protest and voice their grievances in redress to the government.
Plenty of people were there for only this purpose. That’s irrelevant to this conversation. Remember when liberals argued that the 2020 riots were “mostly peaceful” and you flipped your shit because you didn’t care about the peaceful protesters, all you wanted to focus on were the burners and looters? Now apply that same standard here.
January 6th was committed by thousands of rioters, each with their own specific purpose and goal. Some were there to commit seditious conspiracy, some were there to hang the VP, some were there to fight with DC police, some were just going with the flow… you’re always going to have someone you can point to who didn’t fit the characterization of that day. That doesn’t take away from the overall picture of what happened.
What makes it an insurrection are the motivations behind it. Specifically, the motivations of the person who organized and cultivated it. That would be Donald Trump. Every single person involved was following his lead. If he announces on November 8th that the election was won by Biden fair and square and prepares for a peaceful transition, no one shows up to Washington, there is no rally, the Capitol is never breached, January 6th is yet another day no one remembers just like every other election cycle. They were there because he very clearly signaled to them that he wanted them there. It was all part of his plot to stop the certification and send it back to the states so they would chose his fake electors over the real ones. Violence as a means of gaining power over a government… yeah, I would say the framers of the 14th amendment certainly had this in mind.
And they breached the Capitol due to the egging on by undercover FBI agents and others in the crowds, and Capitol Police moved barricades, opened doors, and just stood around after the breach happened. All of this is documented in video evidence that you cannot refute.
The Capitol police stood down once the Capitol was breached and they realized they were clearly outmanned. It was the best decision they could make given the circumstances, further resistance would have only lead to more people getting hurt.
Look at the time stamps. All of the videos you see of rioters being escorted around took place well after the videos of Capitol police getting pummeled by the rioters. This pis common knowledge and common sense to anyone who has actually looked at what happened that day, not just watched Tucker Carlson.
The idea that this was somehow organized by the FBI as some plot to take down Trump is egregiously stupid. 140 Capitol police officers were injured that day, I would really love to know what you think that meeting looked like as they sat there planning how they were going to egg on thousands of people to attack themselves and then proceeded to get hurt in the process and then none of them ever spoke about it since. This is 9/11 - Sandy Hook level of absurdity.
Trump did not hold a gun to anyone's head and forced them to breach the Capitol
That’s not how incitement works
Not one rioter in 2020 burned or looted because Maxine Waters told them to.Sure, they did, and in every other riot thereafter. She gave them carte blanche to do it going forward.
Now you’re not even pretending to be serious.
Provide a shred of evidence that a single rioter was doing so because Maxine Waters told them so. Go.
No, they did not. Saying so doesn't make it so. Especially with a so-called committee ran entirely by democrats suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome locking out any and all Republican input. It was an entirely one-sided shit show that didn't even include contradictory video evidence that refuted much of their asinine assertions.
The committee was co-chaired by a conservative republican who voted with Trump over 90% of the time.
They didn’t block out all republican input, only input from a select group of republicans who had no intention of seriously investigating the events and in some cases were themselves key witnesses to the heart of the investigation. Republicans decided afterward to not participate, except the ones that did.
There is no evidence which contradicts the committee’s general findings, only snippets of information that might appear so at first but ignore the greater story.
I have the academic and professional training/experience that equips me with the requisite knowledge, intellect and experience with the subject matter.
I have always been skeptical of this, now I know it’s bullshit. It’s not only that you are ignorant of basic concepts in how the law works, it’s more importantly that you demonstrate an inability to engage in productive rational conversation.
You consistently accuse me of sophistry, implying that this is a reason to not engage with me, but anyone who has ever presented a legal a argument knows that this is what the legal arena is all about. For anyone to thrive in that arena they need to expect it and know how to deal with it. You don’t. When presented with anything you consider sophistry you immediately engage in insults followed by chest pumping. No qualified professional would ever conduct themselves in this way.
So no, you are clearly not what you claim. I’m so sorry life didn’t work out the way you hoped. Get over it.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
Wrong. Trump offered the National Guard to protect the Capitol and Pelosi said no.
This is a complete lie, and a stupid one at that.
The speaker of the house does not make decisions with regards to national guard deployment. That has to come from the White House.
Trump never offered anything. His own Secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff both testified under oath that Trump gave no such order. This is yet another example of Trump just lying repeatedly because he knows people like you will cultishly believe him despite the very clear evidence to the contrary.
But what really make this claim so absurd is how self defeating this ultimately is. To hide behind this claim you have to first accept that Trump was well aware of how dangerous the situation was heading into January 6th is in the first place, something you emphatically deny. And then you have to disregard your own premise as you acknowledge that despite Trump recognizing the danger and knowing the Capitol did not have the security it needed, that he continued to hold his J6 rally where after telling the crowd to “fight like hell” along with Rudy’s “let’s have trial by combat” remarks, he then told the protesters to March on down to the Capitol, again, knowing it did not have the security it needed.
Your arguments refute themselves.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
The definition of insurrection that you provided is factually inaccurate where the 2020 St Floyd Riots are concerned.
And yet I provided the exact same definition from the exact same source you did earlier in post 163.
So when you needed to make your argument this definition was fine, but now that it’s inconvenient for you it’s inaccurate.
But I’m the dishonest denialist eh?
The riots of 2020 were directed specifically at civil authority and the established government in each respective state affected by said violent uprising/revolt against said authority and government(s). "No Justice, No Peace!" Remember.
Yes I do, which is irrelevant to the definition of insurrection we both agreed on till it no longer worked for you.
It really doesn’t matter though. If the only qualifiers are that they are violent and directed at government, then every violent protest is an insurrection. Either way, J6 was still an insurrection.
They didn't need a cult leader to do what they organized and executed. You're pulling straws out of thin air with the Maxine Waters reference
The reference and point clearly went over your head. The rioters on J6 would have never been out there let alone have breached the Capitol without Trump’s months long campaign to convince these people the election was stolen and his telling them to be there in J6. Again, they’ve all said this themselves.
Not one rioter in 2020 burned or looted because Maxine Waters told them to.
Do you understand this difference? If not let me try an analogy… Waters might have thrown gasoline on the fire, but Trump chose the space, set up the wood, poured gasoline, and then lit the match. Both are bad, but these are not the same.
There is no basis in fact to substantiate such an asinine claim as "an organized plot driven by the president of the United States."
The J6 committee already established this.
What part of this did you fail to comprehend?The entirety of the left are emphatically arguing both as a reason to disqualify Trump from 2024. Insurrection AND giving aid or comfort to the enemy.
The part where what “the entire left” is doing has anything to do with our discussion of your legal argument.
But I'm glad that's settled, you can now stop arguing that Trump is excluded because he is not a foreigner.What in the flying fucktard special needs crap are you babbling on about here!??!
The part where you said this genius:
The entire point of this amendment was to stop americans who engaged in rebellion from holding office in our government…No, double dumbass, it was meant for both Americans AND foreigners from infiltrating our government to destroy it.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
so do you agree that the real issue is 'proximate v general' causation?
No. The only issue here is whether Trump's responsibility for J6 meets the legal criteria.
you argue that trump in some detached sense caused the riot therefore he should be responsible for it. should the policeman that murdered george floyd also be responsbible for all the riots that happened afterwards? you have to draw a line some where. the rioters did their own thing.
The rioters absolutely were not doing their own thing, and Trump is not responsible in some detached sense, he is directly responsible.
The J6 rioters were not there by chance. They didn't all just look at the calendar and decide January 6th would best great day to go to DC and protest. They were there because Trump told them to be, and this was part of a months long concerted effort to actualize this very outcome.
- It began months before the election with Trump telling his supporters that the democrats were going to rig the election
- Continued on election night as Trump declared victory stating that they were in the process of rigging it
- In the weeks following the election Trump would go on to push every conspiracy theory out there
- Finally after months of telling his supporters that their country was being stolen from them, he tells them all to come to the capitol on J6
By this point, there was no reasonable person who was not deeply concerned about the prospect of violence.
- Then on J6 Trump holds a rally telling his supporters to March down to the capitol and fight like hell. His speech was preceded by Rudy Giuliani among others telling the crowd "let's have trial by combat"
This is when the violence began. It would already be absurd to suggest Trump was unaware of the prospect of violence yet decided to proceed anyway. Bit let's just assume for a second he really was that dumb and didn't think it would come to that... What would he have done over the next 3 hours as the country watched in horror? Not what he did...
- Over the next 3 hours as the attack unfolded Trump did absolutely nothing to stop the attack. He did however have Rudy call a few senators trying to get them to align themselves with the J6 rioters cause and stop the certification.
And that's just the basics. You cannot possibly pretend Trump was just some got on the outside of this. And let me say it again...
The J6 rioters themselves told everyone they were there because Trump Todd them to be.
Please explain what part of all of this refutes that Trump was directly responsible.
it's pretty clear on this issue you are too covered in bias, to think objectively.
I think you need to ask yourself which one of us this applies to.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
WRONG! It was NOT my definition. It was a LEGAL definition provided by "TheFreeDictionary" for rebellion
Genius, "your" definition doesn't mean you wrote it, it means you provided it and are more importantly using it to make your case.
You do not have to be a law professor or constitutional scholar to recognize basic plain English.And yet the law is never written in "basic plain English."
That part wasn't about the law, I was breaking down your definition.
You do believe basic English applies to English definitions right?
Proportionality makes a huge difference when establishing when an action is merely a riot vs an insurrection. Which is precisely why none of the 2020 riots were ever declared an insurrection despite the glaring fact they targeted government buildings, offices, policies, procedures and threatened the lives of civil and federal employees.
The 2020 riots were never declared an insurrection because they don't meet the definition.
"insurrection. noun [ C/U ] /ˌɪn·səˈrek·ʃən/ an organized attempt by a group of people to defeat their government or ruler and take control of the country, usually by violence."
It had nothing to do with proportionality. Whether it is an insurrection depends on the motivations and goals of the offenders. The 2020 rioters had no intentions of "defeating their government" or to "take control of the country". They weren't out there because their cult leader told them to be, not one single person who was arrested for their actions tried to claim they were only listening to Maxine Waters. This was a matter of civil unrest sparked by a viral video, not an organized plot driven by the president of the United States. Two entirely different things.
The entirety of the left are emphatically arguing both as a reason to disqualify Trump from 2024. Insurrection AND giving aid or comfort to the enemy.
"shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof"
Do you know what "or" means?
it was meant for both Americans AND foreigners from infiltrating our government to destroy it.
The point, or inspiration for the amendment was to stop Americans, of course they would not exclude foreigners.
But I'm glad that's settled, you can now stop arguing that Trump is excluded because he is not a foreigner.
Your ignorant sophistry proves you an ignorant narcissist. That's all.Live with that.Loser.
You haven't proven a thing except how childish you are. Not one argument you made stands.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Trump watched the insurrection on TV from the White House. Many people in person and by phone implored him to take action to stop it, He did nothing for 3 hours.It is not a question that he helped the insurrection with his inaction. He should be banned from office under Article 14.He was impeached and should have been convicted by the Senate but there were too many cowards who put their own political careers ahead of the country.
I agree with every word of this. Again, my issue is the mechanism for it isn't in place, so at this point the question is who gets to decide. Secretaries of state cannot just unilaterally decide their voters don't get to pick Trump and even if they do, all that's going to happen is Trump will get left off the ballot in the states he had no chance of winning anyway, giving him and his crazy supporters more of a reason to pretend the next Democratic candidate is guilty of the same. This will only send us further down the path of ruin as a country. And a 6-3 conservative SC is not going to vote to keep Trump off the ballot.
It's too late in the game to set the rules. This needs to be litigated in the court of public opinion, culminating in November 2024.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
then it boils down to originalism v living constitution.
That's not at all what I just argued.
It doesn't matter whether we look at this from an originalist approach or not, the amendment does not restrict it's own usage anywhere near as specifically as TWS is claiming. And ironically, he is the one arguing for a living document with his ever evolving definition of arms.
Again, the passage as written is extremely vague and it is so on purpose. No constitutional amendment is intended to be all encompassing and/or to have the foresight to consider every possible circumstance. That's what laws are for. Anyone who has ever written a law or a policy would know this.
The point of a constitution and it's amendments is to convey ideas. TWS's entire argument is based on the notion that the amendment was intended to be all encompassing and using that notion to justify absurd techinal disqualifications regardless of whether the idea in question applies. That's not how it works. He claims to have the credentials to argue the law yet he doesn't understand it's most basic concepts.
again, it depends on if you think he should be responsible for that or not.
It's not debatable whether he was responsible. The rioters themselves all said they were there because Trump told them to be there, and we had been saying his actions were going to result in something like this for months beforehand. Arguing he's not responsible is no more logically defensible than arguing the earth is flat.
Created: