Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
Oh then you better not prosecute anyone who ever violates US laws and democracy. Just in case someone might do it again sometime in the future...
Split Thread A second impeachment
- Thread starter JoeMorgue
- Start date
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
His speech is not being looked at stripped of all context. It's being looked at in the context that he has tried for months to discredit the 2020 elections, starting well before they even happened, in an attempt to undermine the result; that he has persuaded his supporters to believe that the Democratic Party, the judiciary and the legislature are conspiring to deny him a victory; that he as made it clear to them that simply following the rule of law has not redressed the situation. And it's also being looked at in the context of Trump's well-known modus operandi of hinting that people should do illegal things for him clearly enough that they understand that there will be rewards from him if they do them and penalties if they don't, while avoiding a direct order to break the law so as to protect himself from the consequences.
No, the truth is that Trump is an anti-democratic authoritarian with a large following, and as such is an immediate danger to the survival of democracy in the US. And next time a more rational President, of whatever party, gives a speech which results directly in his audience trying, however incompetently, to overthrow the government and install him as dictator, then if this precedent is used to remove him from office that will be a very good thing.
Dave
Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
You are taking Trump at his word. You are allowing that what he said is exactly what he meant, no more, no less.
What he really said was "Nice Congress ya got there. Shame if some mob happened to 'walk over and protest', eh, guys? Heh heh, know what I mean!"
Susheel
Illuminator
Leaving aside the right-wing fascist Trumpian apologetics of the post, could you tell me what your understanding of the highlighted word is and also why you think it is problematic? Also, your use of the quote function is wrong.
Last edited:
Bad people!
Fast Eddie B
Philosopher
Re: Republicans announcing their votes for impeachment...
On the one hand, what took them so long?
On the other hand, this stance shows some degree of bravery - they’ve exposed themselves to no small amount of risk, both political and personal, from Trump loyalists. I guess “We’ll see what happens”!
On the one hand, what took them so long?
On the other hand, this stance shows some degree of bravery - they’ve exposed themselves to no small amount of risk, both political and personal, from Trump loyalists. I guess “We’ll see what happens”!
The behind the scenes scuttlebutt (as always take with a grain of salt) is that unlike the last impeachment is that McConnell isn't pushing nearly as hard for the GOP to be a "single" voice and encouraging Senators to just vote how they want.
I half wonder if something similar changed in the House. If the "We all have to speak as one" thing is less pronounced this time.
I half wonder if something similar changed in the House. If the "We all have to speak as one" thing is less pronounced this time.
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
Example #1 of many, many:
The evening of the attack, one of my very conservative friends on Facebook posted about how this attack should make everyone understand how wrong the BLM protests/riots were. Yes, conservatives physically attacked the US government and his takeaway is that liberals are bad.
Example #Zillion:
Is there anyone on the right who looks at this situation and says, "maybe we did something wrong? Maybe we should do something different in the future?" Others have talked about the Republicans claiming to be the party of personal responsibility, but it's usually said in a reactive sense (punishing people who've done wrong), rather than proactive.
Is there not the slightest bit of introspection?
The evening of the attack, one of my very conservative friends on Facebook posted about how this attack should make everyone understand how wrong the BLM protests/riots were. Yes, conservatives physically attacked the US government and his takeaway is that liberals are bad.
Example #Zillion:
Is there anyone on the right who looks at this situation and says, "maybe we did something wrong? Maybe we should do something different in the future?" Others have talked about the Republicans claiming to be the party of personal responsibility, but it's usually said in a reactive sense (punishing people who've done wrong), rather than proactive.
Is there not the slightest bit of introspection?
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 29,873
McConnell is trying to figure out what the New Center of the GOP is.
Dragon
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2002
- Messages
- 1,639
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
This exactly, and I don't know why it's so hard to understand. That Trump used the word "peacefully" in his speech doesn't drown out everything else he has said which, whether he intended it or not, foreseeably contributed (at least) to the opposite effect. You cannot, over a period of two months, tell people they've been robbed, that they need to fight for their rights, then realistically expect a mob of them to ignore all that because now you're saying "be nice."
Last edited:
Again both the tiresome pedants and the Trump sycophants see themselves as the mob lawyer, standing in front of the jury and going "My Client didn't threaten the little shop in a shakedown scheme for protection money. He just walked into the defendant's store with his two associates Johnny 'The Fixer' and Marco 'The Heavy' and engaged him in casual conversation about what a nice shop it was and what a shame it would be if anything happened to it. Surely there is no law against that?"
Again the tiresome internet rule that inference is the same thing as "mind reading" is just stupid.
Again the tiresome internet rule that inference is the same thing as "mind reading" is just stupid.
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through
We are also allowed to use events that happened after his speech to try and determine what his intent was. Given how he didn’t do anything when the building was initially breached we can infer that they were doing what he expected and/or wanted. If it wasn’t what he wanted to happen he could have taken a range of actions to try and stop it - he didn’t.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
You are of course cherry-picking Trump's speech and events of the day, ignoring his actions in a wider context.
If a person says both "be nice... and here's a rock to bash someone's skull in", the fact that they said the 'be nice' part does not absolve the person of the effects of the "bash skulls" comment.
The fact is:
- Trump was speaking at a rally that claimed voter fraud. Even if no violence resulted, the fact that he was trying to delegitimize the election is harmful to the U.S. (Note: This is in addition to him doing thins like trying to pressure Georgia to change election results, which may have been a violation of election laws.)
- It was well known that there was a potential for violence at the rally... one of the Proud Boys was arrested before hand and was found to be carrying illegal weapons. Yet he decided to go ahead with speaking at the rally anyways
- While Trump did use the word 'peaceful' at the rally, he also used the phrase 'fight'... multiple times. While the term 'fight' can be used metaphorically, it is still a rather... loaded term
- During the same rally, another speaker associated with Trump called for 'trial by combat'... a statement Trump did not disavow or criticize at the time
- During / following the terrorist acts, Trump was initially slow to respond, and when he did react, one of his first statements was not to call for the prosecution of those involved, but to express 'love'
So no, simply using the word "peaceful" does not absolve Trump from the part he played in the sedition.
The fact that you don't understand what "censorship" is immediately calls into attention your understanding of basic concepts in society.
The first amendment and the right to free speech protects people from interference from the government. It does not require any newspaper, media outlet, or Twitter/Facebook to carry that speech. They have the legal right to set their own terms and conditions for using the service, and Trump violated them. There is no "censorship".
Trump still has the right of free speech. He can call a press conference. He can set up his own web site. Or stand outside the white house wearing a tinfoil hat and scream his opinions at the top of his lungs. But nobody is legally required to broadcast those opinions.
The following comic is relevant. I suggest you read it:
XKCD
Last edited:
Fine Republican House members going all in for peace and unity on the floor.
Jason Smith (R-MO): "This is a reckless impeachment. This will only bring up the hate and fire more than ever before."
Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA): "The measure before us today sets a dangerous precedent."
Needless to say that both of these fine gentlemen, concerned about hate and dangerous precedents, voted last week to block the electoral votes from Arizona and Pennsylvania. Both also supported the Texas AG lawsuit trying to get SCOTUS steal the election.
Jason Smith (R-MO): "This is a reckless impeachment. This will only bring up the hate and fire more than ever before."
Guy Reschenthaler (R-PA): "The measure before us today sets a dangerous precedent."
Needless to say that both of these fine gentlemen, concerned about hate and dangerous precedents, voted last week to block the electoral votes from Arizona and Pennsylvania. Both also supported the Texas AG lawsuit trying to get SCOTUS steal the election.
Hlafordlaes
Disorder of Kilopi
Following the proceedings live, or was, but I don't cotton to groveling toadies. Had to get out of there.
Time was being a ring-kissing Redcoat was out of fashion. Nowadays, the Orwellian double speak in vogue among these detestable GOP butt lampreys is shocking only in that it indicates a minimally functioning intellect -- mild surprise! -- but one that is willingly in service of a noodle-spined court jester. They might as well don powered wigs and sniff their hankies.
Willingly, eagerly, expectantly, visibly quivering at the thought of the next virtual insertion from a man of power. "Oh, joy, rapture!"
"Republican" is the term I'll now use when I wish to call a someone a yeller-bellied snot unworthy of the gutter he floats in. Republican. Gutter. 'Nuf said.
Time was being a ring-kissing Redcoat was out of fashion. Nowadays, the Orwellian double speak in vogue among these detestable GOP butt lampreys is shocking only in that it indicates a minimally functioning intellect -- mild surprise! -- but one that is willingly in service of a noodle-spined court jester. They might as well don powered wigs and sniff their hankies.
Willingly, eagerly, expectantly, visibly quivering at the thought of the next virtual insertion from a man of power. "Oh, joy, rapture!"
"Republican" is the term I'll now use when I wish to call a someone a yeller-bellied snot unworthy of the gutter he floats in. Republican. Gutter. 'Nuf said.
Last edited:
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 18,095
If I gathered a crowd a mile and a half from someone's house and lying told them this person was a sex trafficker who was in the process of raping children in their basement, and that we were going to march to their house, my also saying 'let's be peaceful' would not be a lick of mitigation for my crime. Violence was the eminently predictable and sought outcome, even if I deny it.
This is as close to yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater as it gets.
This is as close to yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater as it gets.
dasmiller
Just the right amount of cowbell
"Your Honor, when my client yelled, 'Fire,' he was merely expressing his opinion that there may have been a fire present. Was there actually a fire? Who knows? But he has a First-Amendment right to freely express his opinion. Yes, it's a tragedy that so many people died in the panic, but my client certainly didn't tell anyone that they should panic and crush or trample others. And yet, the district attorney is persecuting my client for merely expressing an opinion."
Tero
Philosopher
Since Trump made a perfect speech and has no regrets, GOP defense will be weak. Susan Collins saying, later, that once more Trump has learned from his mistake will be laughed at.