• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Trump’s Coup - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
DOJ said:
Inciting or conspiring to foment a violent attack on the United States Congress is not within the scope of employment of a Representative—or any federal employee...
Click to expand...
In the court filing quoted above, the US Department of Justice declined Mo Brooks's request that the DOJ defend Brooks against a civil lawsuit brought by Representative Eric Swalwell. Brooks claimed he was acting as a US government employee when he spoke at the rally preceding the insurrectionist attack on the US Capitol, and should therefore be protected under the Westfall Act. The DOJ disagreed, saying Brooks spoke as part of a "campaign activity", which was not one of his official duties as a member of the US House of Representatives.

The US House of Representatives also declined to represent Brooks in the lawsuit.

Donald Trump is another defendant in that lawsuit. It now seems unlikely that the DOJ will defend Trump either.
 
W.D.Clinger said:
In the court filing quoted above, the US Department of Justice declined Mo Brooks's request that the DOJ defend Brooks against a civil lawsuit brought by Representative Eric Swalwell. Brooks claimed he was acting as a US government employee when he spoke at the rally preceding the insurrectionist attack on the US Capitol, and should therefore be protected under the Westfall Act. The DOJ disagreed, saying Brooks spoke as part of a "campaign activity", which was not one of his official duties as a member of the US House of Representatives.

The US House of Representatives also declined to represent Brooks in the lawsuit.

Donald Trump is another defendant in that lawsuit. It now seems unlikely that the DOJ will defend Trump either.
Click to expand...
If he claims to have been working for the government, wasn't that also illegal?
 
Upchurch said:
I have not been keeping up with the thread, so if this has already been discussed, please let me know and I'll go digging.



Can anyone explain to me how Trump supporters can look at footage from that day and rationalize that it not only wasn't an insurrection but to call it an insurrection is both laughable and a bad faith argument? Is there a rationalization or is it merely an article of faith at this point?
Click to expand...
Selective choice of news sources that conveniently only present them with edits and opinions that suit their prejudices.
 
a_unique_person said:
Selective choice of news sources that conveniently only present them with edits and opinions that suit their prejudices.
Click to expand...

I may be completely off base, but I've long suspected that the reason the US has a particularly large percentage of citizens who are happy to swallow the most blatant and transparent of lies provided they suit their prejudices is the prevalence there of religious belief. A society in which having unevidenced religious beliefs is considered not just acceptable but laudable is surely primed for the spread and acceptance of other unevidenced beliefs. The critical thinking skills which are required to evaluate sources of information and remove the effect of unconscious biases tend to be frowned on rather than taught, because they also undermine faith.
 
Pixel42 said:
I may be completely off base, but I've long suspected that the reason the US has a particularly large percentage of citizens who are happy to swallow the most blatant and transparent of lies provided they suit their prejudices is the prevalence there of religious belief. A society in which having unevidenced religious beliefs is considered not just acceptable but laudable is surely primed for the spread and acceptance of other unevidenced beliefs. The critical thinking skills which are required to evaluate sources of information and remove the effect of unconscious biases tend to be frowned on rather than taught, because they also undermine faith.
Click to expand...

Yes. Critical thinking skills are not held in high esteem by a large part of the American electorate.
 
Pixel42 said:
I may be completely off base, but I've long suspected that the reason the US has a particularly large percentage of citizens who are happy to swallow the most blatant and transparent of lies provided they suit their prejudices is the prevalence there of religious belief. A society in which having unevidenced religious beliefs is considered not just acceptable but laudable is surely primed for the spread and acceptance of other unevidenced beliefs. The critical thinking skills which are required to evaluate sources of information and remove the effect of unconscious biases tend to be frowned on rather than taught, because they also undermine faith.
Click to expand...

I think that's kinda true, kinda not. I do think relige.on pla ys a part. But not in that way. I think it has less to do with irrational beliefs in whatever religion, and more to do with"otherism"
Basically choosing teams. Similar to partisanship. Basically, whatever version suits my team.
 
Pixel42 said:
I may be completely off base, but I've long suspected that the reason the US has a particularly large percentage of citizens who are happy to swallow the most blatant and transparent of lies provided they suit their prejudices is the prevalence there of religious belief. A society in which having unevidenced religious beliefs is considered not just acceptable but laudable is surely primed for the spread and acceptance of other unevidenced beliefs. The critical thinking skills which are required to evaluate sources of information and remove the effect of unconscious biases tend to be frowned on rather than taught, because they also undermine faith.
Click to expand...

I have posted my favourite Voltaire quote (or some version thereof) many times before on this forum. He got it right and it explains much.

“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
I have posted my favourite Voltaire quote (or some version thereof) many times before on this forum. He got it right and it explains much.

“Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”
Click to expand...

Even Voltaire (when he wasn't rigging the lottery...) never accounted for Trolls.

Even that saying, which is 100% true, still only applies to people who are honestly wrong and have been honestly duped.

We're going to need a lot of work with the demographic of army of proudly wrong trolls to get even back to that place.
 
Pixel42 said:
I may be completely off base, but I've long suspected that the reason the US has a particularly large percentage of citizens who are happy to swallow the most blatant and transparent of lies provided they suit their prejudices is the prevalence there of religious belief...
Click to expand...
I share this suspicion.
 
Pixel42 said:
I may be completely off base, but I've long suspected that the reason the US has a particularly large percentage of citizens who are happy to swallow the most blatant and transparent of lies provided they suit their prejudices is the prevalence there of religious belief. A society in which having unevidenced religious beliefs is considered not just acceptable but laudable is surely primed for the spread and acceptance of other unevidenced beliefs. The critical thinking skills which are required to evaluate sources of information and remove the effect of unconscious biases tend to be frowned on rather than taught, because they also undermine faith.
Click to expand...

It's a matter of weekly education for millions of American children. They go to a weekly Sunday or Sabbath Day School where they learn how to believe without empirical and rational foundation.

Of course we already have that proclivity, for hormonal belief has an evolutionary head start. These "schools" also teach very poor reading comprehension.

As for millions of Americans who aren't edjumacated this way, they embrace the New Age wisdom that everyone has hir own truth, and it's a prejudice to 'attack' another's 'right' to believe whatever.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom