Jump to content

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)


Simon
 Share

Recommended Posts

I hold the people who actually did the deed responsible in all instances.  However, the POTUS seems to have directly incited (ie., the action of provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully) the proceedings right before they happened.  Also, there seems to be evidence that his administration also may have interfered with, or just ignored, efforts to defend the capitol.  He should bear some responsibility for that and should be punished accordingly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/16/2017 at 9:42 PM, Cancer said:

I drove past someone waving a "Trump 2020" sign today. My reaction was, "No, the old way's better. Use a thirty-thirty."

 

FWIW, I claim a couple of low-grade sagacity points here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Starlord said:

I hold the people who actually did the deed responsible in all instances.  However, the POTUS seems to have directly incited (ie., the action of provoking unlawful behavior or urging someone to behave unlawfully) the proceedings right before they happened.  Also, there seems to be evidence that his administration also may have interfered with, or just ignored, efforts to defend the capitol.  He should bear some responsibility for that and should be punished accordingly.

My bringing the riots up was just an example of allowing the hatred people feel towards him modify their view of his actions.  

 

However, having watched what he said, etc... He told people to do something constitutional (march and cheer on "Their people"), could a reasonable person see that it would lead to violence, debatable, but did he advocate for it, based on what he said, I think no.  If you can find where he told his followers to do anything outside of a constitutionally protected protest, please correct me.

Taking the BLM riots, they lasted longer, cost more in lives and property, and literally took over city blocks, while I respect your opinion that the scale could be worse, a fair argument can be made that the actual consequences were a lot worse for the BLM riots.  As for the rhetoric, we both know how EASY it would be to find BLM comments as terrible.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JmOz said:

However, having watched what he said, etc... He told people to do something constitutional (march and cheer on "Their people"), could a reasonable person see that it would lead to violence, debatable, but did he advocate for it, based on what he said, I think no.  If you can find where he told his followers to do anything outside of a constitutionally protected protest, please correct me.

 

 

His campaign, and the media of the right wing, have been continuously 'joking/not-saying' about 'inevitable' civil war and literal murdering liberals for a while.  From major and official mouthpieces.

 

If you forgive someone for 'joke starting' a civil war, or you know attempted coup, you'll have them try it again.

 

And again.

 

And again.

 

Until they win.

 

It's not hard to be 'emotional' about it when you literally watch his twitter and see what he says and how the Michigan gov 'deserved' having a plot to kill her.

 

So yes, in complete isolation I'm sure you can completely forgive what he did, by ignoring his entire history in accepting the call for murdering politically disagreeable people as fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

His campaign, and the media of the right wing, have been continuously 'joking/not-saying' about 'inevitable' civil war and literal murdering liberals for a while.  From major and official mouthpieces.

 

If you forgive someone for 'joke starting' a civil war, or you know attempted coup, you'll have them try it again.

 

And again.

 

And again.

 

Until they win.

Both sides.  How it is reported is very different....

8 minutes ago, Cygnia said:

Glad I live in the middle of nowhere

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, JmOz said:

Both sides.  How it is reported is very different....

59 minutes ago, Cygnia said:

 

No.  Biden and Obama never, never said "Punch a Protester" at one of his rallies. 

 

They never said an attempted murder of a congressmen was deserved.

 

(deleting my more personal comment. it is too direct and emotionally charged)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JmOz said:

My bringing the riots up was just an example of allowing the hatred people feel towards him modify their view of his actions.  

 

However, having watched what he said, etc... He told people to do something constitutional (march and cheer on "Their people"), could a reasonable person see that it would lead to violence, debatable, but did he advocate for it, based on what he said, I think no.  If you can find where he told his followers to do anything outside of a constitutionally protected protest, please correct me.

Taking the BLM riots, they lasted longer, cost more in lives and property, and literally took over city blocks, while I respect your opinion that the scale could be worse, a fair argument can be made that the actual consequences were a lot worse for the BLM riots.  As for the rhetoric, we both know how EASY it would be to find BLM comments as terrible.  

 

A good article from a constitutional law professor who has the same opinion as you do on "incitement". That charge brings up free speech issues and the exact dictionary meaning of words and whether that's exactly what the president did.

 

He's arguing that they ought to impeach for "seditious conspiracy" which fits the exact definition of what happened and which just happens to carry double the jail sentence that incitement does (if it later goes as far as a criminal prosecution). 

 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/01/10/trump-impeachment-articles-incite-insurrection-seditious-conspiracy-456937

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

No.  Biden and Obama never, never said "Punch a Protester" at one of his rallies. 

 

They never said an attempted murder of a congressmen was deserved.

 

You are literally the neighbor ignoring the signs of a battered wife because you find it easy to excuse yourself.  Then you get to act surprised when you find out the husband beat her to death.

 

As that battered wife in that scenario, I am not happy about this

Nice personal Assualt.  I will not engage further with you on this issue.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, archer said:

Most of them who expressed an opinion and who served in the military claimed to have enough knowledge to make improvised explosives.

 

I've never been in the military. But I have a chemistry degree, and I have enough knowledge to make improvised explosives, should I ever feel the need.

 

Maybe that's why I always end up being 'randomly selected' whenever I fly certain airlines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, archer said:

 

A good article from a constitutional law professor who has the same opinion as you do on "incitement". That charge brings up free speech issues and the exact dictionary meaning of words and whether that's exactly what the president did.

 

He's arguing that they ought to impeach for "seditious conspiracy" which fits the exact definition of what happened and which just happens to carry double the jail sentence that incitement does (if it later goes as far as a criminal prosecution). 

 

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/01/10/trump-impeachment-articles-incite-insurrection-seditious-conspiracy-456937

Just skimmed it, seems to go after the election tampering (Which is shady as shit, and defiantly something that should be tried in court).  Will read it when I have more time

 

My issue however stands, with the core idea that standards should be standards.  IF party A does X and gets consequence Z, then when Party B does X is should not get consequence Y.   The hatred people feel for him should not change the consequences.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, JmOz said:

My bringing the riots up was just an example of allowing the hatred people feel towards him modify their view of his actions.  

 

However, having watched what he said, etc... He told people to do something constitutional (march and cheer on "Their people"), could a reasonable person see that it would lead to violence, debatable, but did he advocate for it, based on what he said, I think no.  If you can find where he told his followers to do anything outside of a constitutionally protected protest, please correct me.

Taking the BLM riots, they lasted longer, cost more in lives and property, and literally took over city blocks, while I respect your opinion that the scale could be worse, a fair argument can be made that the actual consequences were a lot worse for the BLM riots.  As for the rhetoric, we both know how EASY it would be to find BLM comments as terrible.  

 

20 minutes ago, JmOz said:

Both sides.  How it is reported is very different....

Glad I live in the middle of nowhere

 

13 minutes ago, JmOz said:

Nice personal Assualt.  I will not engage further with you on this issue.  

 

I'm sorry, but no.  You don't get to minimize and "both-sides" a literal attempt to overthrow the US Government.  


Which side are you on, exactly?  There is no middle ground with treason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JmOz said:

My issue however stands, with the core idea that standards should be standards.  IF party A does X and gets consequence Z, then when Party B does X is should not get consequence Y.   The hatred people feel for him should not change the consequences.  

 

Correct me if I'm wrong.  The means to accuse a sexual assaulter at a workplace has to do with pattern of behavior as much as anything else.

 

His pattern of behavior is a required key to anything else.

 

Patterns of behavior are highly important for stopping chronic criminal offenders.

 

Which is another way to say, if people let him walk away from this, he will most certainly try again.

 

 

So there is the approach for consequences.  A constant pattern of behavior suggesting and inciting violence.  Culminating in 

 

Guilliani offered trial by combat at that last speech.  Before an armed crowd that was when literally pointed at congress.

 

The chant of kill the traitors and hang mike pence was pretty clear by the people at the building.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler

In 1923, he attempted to seize governmental power in a failed coup in Munich and was imprisoned with a sentence of five years

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/March_on_Rome

 

We've, as a society, continuously and constantly accepted this behavior from major officials and our own government.  We should not be surprised at the consequences of ignoring it.

 

I'm well for fair play.

 

I'm not for pretending there are no limits to fair play.  (edited my last rant out)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but no.  You don't get to minimize and "both-sides" a literal attempt to overthrow the US Government.  


Which side are you on, exactly?  There is no middle ground with treason.

1) Riots in Washington WRONG,  Individuals who did it deserve Jail Time. 

2) BLM Riots WRONG.  Individuals who did it deserve Jail Time.

3) Claims of one side doing or saying something, more often than not, can be made about BOTH SIDES (What I was specifically referring to when I said Both Sides) 

4) A person should be held responsible for what they did, not what we feel they did.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JmOz said:

1) Riots in Washington WRONG,  Individuals who did it deserve Jail Time. 

2) BLM Riots WRONG.  Individuals who did it deserve Jail Time.

3) Claims of one side doing or saying something, more often than not, can be made about BOTH SIDES (What I was specifically referring to when I said Both Sides) 

4) A person should be held responsible for what they did, not what we feel they did.  

 

 

BLM "riots" were people literally asking for cops to stop randomly killing Black people.  

 

The "riot" in Washington was a literal attempt to overthrow the lawful government of the United States of America.  People died.  There is no both sides there.

 

Which side are you on?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Chris Goodwin said:

 

BLM "riots" were people literally asking for cops to stop randomly killing Black people.  

 

The "riot" in Washington was a literal attempt to overthrow the lawful government of the United States of America.  People died.  There is no both sides there.

 

Which side are you on?

If your view is that black and white the answer would be neither

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

Yeah, I've said all I have.

 

I don't think you're wrong. (edit: in the points you had made up to the post I was quoting)

 

But I do think that particular discussion was getting too heated to be able to continue having a discussion without everyone stepping back for a couple of minutes to gather their thoughts.

 

 

I think one thing to keep in mind is that the standards for impeachment and for a criminal trial are intentionally vastly different.

 

Impeachment was set up for some citizen landowners who'd been elected to office but who didn't have any particular legal expertise to call out one of their own then expel him from office. The people bringing the charges might not know much about law. The accused might not know much about law. And the standard for conviction was "that sounds pretty darned reasonable to me" rather than "beyond a reasonable doubt".

 

A criminal trial is a completely different thing.

 

You could for example, see nameless president convicted in the Senate and removed from office for a high crime or misdemeanor then have the criminal prosecution totally fail when presented with even more evidence than was shown in the impeachment trial. And that be a totally legitimate outcome.

 

Impeachment is supposed to protect us from sleazy people holding public office. A criminal trial is supposed to punish the guilty and often to keep them off the streets.

 

When it comes to the equal treatment concerns, our legal system for criminal trial is absolutely supposed to guarantee that. And part of determining guilt is considering patterns of behavior.

 

 

When it comes to equal treatment concerns in impeachment, there's no constitutional guarantee: the system depends on representatives and senators to do the right thing (which has been a huge flaw in the system, IMO).

 

But we ought to strive to treat people the same in impeachment matters IMO. It's just good public policy. 

 

And part of that equal treatment is that the pattern of behavior of each accused person should be considered equally when their case comes up for impeachment and for removal.

 

 

I probably need to bow out of that particular discussion myself, if it remains heated between various combatants. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...