Split Thread A second impeachment

metacristi said:
You are specifically trying to claim that what Trump said is not covered by the First Amendment as free speech. That you may not accept the other parts of the 'progressive' tactics is immaterial, it's enough that the Democrats and many others do it plenty.
Click to expand...

Beautiful. You got nothing, so the actual, specific thing you accused me of is now "immaterial," but, by implication, I still get lumped in with others who "do it plenty." That's some nice dilution you got going on there...

And you're missing the whole point. What I'm saying, at least, is that the fact that the First Amendment is a limit on the government doesn't make it an inexhaustible license for the speaker- there can be consequences for any speaker if he shows no regard for any foreseeable consequences from his speech. And for someone in a position like the US Presidency, the consequences from what he says can be so much more significant than from the average citizen's speech that "high crimes and misdemeanors" as a description of such complete disregard on Trump's part for anything but his own political profit is completely applicable.

It's not that what he said isn't covered by the First Amendment- it's that blatting "First Amendment!" doesn't excuse it. There's a difference between "free speech!" as something that will fit on a bumper sticker and "free speech" as a fact in real life.
 
Last edited:
pgwenthold said:
How do we know Trump incited the insurrectionists?

Easy.

Ask them.

"Why did you go and storm the Capitol?"

And they have been asked that question. And their answer is, "Because the President told us to."

We don't have to speculate about whether Trump incited them to act. They have affirmed the fact that he did.
Click to expand...


As i quoted in my first post here Trump also told them to make their voices heard peacefully, if I criticize something without inciting to violence I cannot be hold responsible for all sort of radicals which can go to the extremes. Trump is not without guilt of course but let's punish without resorting to eroding free speech, half truths and all the other tenets of 'progressive' thought which can lead to all kind of abuses. Isolating him politically would be a better idea, I understand that he can be barred from holding office with simple majority, I cannot agree more with the Congress doing just that after Biden takes office. But don't tell me that the (sometimes unconscious) 'progressive' thought popular now is the way ahead.
 
metacristi said:
As i quoted in my first post here Trump also told them to make their voices heard peacefully, if I criticize something without inciting to violence I cannot be hold responsible for all sort of radicals which can go to the extremes. Trump is not without guilt of course but let's punish without resorting to eroding free speech, half truths and all the other tenets of 'progressive' thought which can lead to all kind of abuses. Isolating him politically would be a better idea, I understand that he can be barred from holding office with simple majority, I cannot agree more with the Congress doing just that after Biden takes office. But don't tell me that the (sometimes unconscious) 'progressive' thought popular now is the way ahead.
Click to expand...

Which eroding of free speech?
 
metacristi said:
Err they try now to punish for example "high crimes and misdemeanors" and so on even if no incitement to violence is clear in Trump's speeches. If all is let like that I will not be surprised if the First Amendment ceases to protect free speech effectively. As I said this is a much better idea.
Click to expand...

Er.. that is still not widening the 1st amendment which was your claim.
 
pgwenthold said:
We don't have to speculate about whether Trump incited them to act. They have affirmed the fact that he did.
Click to expand...

Well not really. They affirmed that some people can take it as that. Some quite stupid people, who did want to storm something anyway.

For the impeachment it's kinda irrelevant though. It will be decided by vote of the lawmakers.
 
metacristi said:
As i quoted in my first post here Trump also told them to make their voices heard peacefully, if I criticize something without inciting to violence I cannot be hold responsible for all sort of radicals which can go to the extremes.
Click to expand...
Once again... context is important. And the word "peaceful" is not some sort of talisman that absolves Trump of his responsibility.

If you talk in front of a group where you KNOW violence is a strong possibility (they did find one planned attendee with weapons before hand), then a rational person should know that your 'peaceful' rally could turn violent

If you say the word 'peaceful' but then also sprinkle in the word 'fight', and other speakers talk of 'combat' then you should recognize that your talk of 'peace' may be overlooked by the use of violent rhetoric.

If the only reason people are at the rally is because you have been lying for months about the election results, you are culpable.

If your first reaction after violence breaks out is to express 'love' for the terrorists, you should be seen as accepting of the violence
 
Dr.Sid said:
Well not really. They affirmed that some people can take it as that. Some quite stupid people, who did want to storm something anyway.

For the impeachment it's kinda irrelevant though. It will be decided by vote of the lawmakers.
Click to expand...

No, Pwengthold is right. He definitely incited them. What you are getting at is whether he intentionally incited them.

Malevolence or incompetence? it's a question that has come up over and over these last four years.
 
Meadmaker said:
No, Pwengthold is right. He definitely incited them. What you are getting at is whether he intentionally incited them.

Malevolence or incompetence? it's a question that has come up over and over these last four years.
Click to expand...

No, what I meant is that they were in fact not incited by Trump, even if they say so. They would do it even if Trump said 'don't do that'.
 
"It's not my fault I told the violent mob to burn down the orphanage, they would have done it anyway"

Yeah airtight defense that.
 
Dr.Sid said:
No, what I meant is that they were in fact not incited by Trump, even if they say so. They would do it even if Trump said 'don't do that'.
Click to expand...

Oh. I see.

But I don't think it's accurate. If Trump had not called the rally and made that speech, I do not think the Capitol would have been attacked.

ETA: And, to repeat an earlier point, it wasn't just that speech. That speech was part of a months long campaign. It is conceivable that even without that speech, they would have stormed the Capitol anyway, but only because of two months of previous incitement.
 
Last edited:
metacristi said:
As i quoted in my first post here Trump also told them to make their voices heard peacefully, if I criticize something without inciting to violence I cannot be hold responsible for all sort of radicals which can go to the extremes. Trump is not without guilt of course but let's punish without resorting to eroding free speech, half truths and all the other tenets of 'progressive' thought which can lead to all kind of abuses. Isolating him politically would be a better idea, I understand that he can be barred from holding office with simple majority, I cannot agree more with the Congress doing just that after Biden takes office. But don't tell me that the (sometimes unconscious) 'progressive' thought popular now is the way ahead.
Click to expand...

Then your understanding here is no better than it has been elsewhere in this thread. In order to be barred from office by that simple majority vote in the Senate, he must first be convicted by a 2/3 Senate majority of the charges brought by the impeachment. You getting this? What you "cannot agree more" should be done cannot be until after what you think should not be is. (Ok, but I like that sentence!)

And isn't it just a little inconsistent on your part to agree that he should be barred from office for an offense that you think he shouldn't be convicted for? The barring from office would be for the same thing- you're effectively saying he should do the time without any necessity of conviction for the crime.
 
Also they were what, 2 or 3 blocks from the Capitol specifically to see his speech?
 
“You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” Schumer to Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
 
metacristi said:
Err they try now to punish for example "high crimes and misdemeanors" and so on even if no incitement to violence is clear in Trump's speeches. If all is let like that I will not be surprised if the First Amendment ceases to protect free speech effectively. As I said this is a much better idea.
Click to expand...

Impeachment is not a First Amendment issue, unless you want to claim that you could only impeach a president for what they do, and never for anything they say.
 
I like how fascist degenerates whine about free speech (or rather their strawman of it), though it would be one of first things to go if they had any say.

Newsflash: borders of free speech were already determined long ago, like in famous "shouting fire in theatre" example. You tell people stupid things that lead to their death, you are responsible for that. No, winking while saying "be peaceful" won't absolve your fuhrer from that.
 
metacristi said:
As i quoted in my first post here Trump also told them to make their voices heard peacefully, if I criticize something without inciting to violence I cannot be hold responsible for all sort of radicals which can go to the extremes.
Click to expand...

Maybe he said that on Wednesday Jan 6, in one speech, but we don't have to restrict our analysis of his role to just that speech.

Do you think the insurrectionists are lying when they said they believe that Trump sent them to storm the Capitol?

Irrespective of what words you want to parse, his message was very clear to them. They were not confused about what he meant.

He spent 2 months on the attack. You can't just excuse him because he said "oh and be peaceful" at the last minute.
 
Meadmaker said:
Oh. I see.

But I don't think it's accurate. If Trump had not called the rally and made that speech, I do not think the Capitol would have been attacked.

ETA: And, to repeat an earlier point, it wasn't just that speech. That speech was part of a months long campaign. It is conceivable that even without that speech, they would have stormed the Capitol anyway, but only because of two months of previous incitement.
Click to expand...

The ETA is important.

I think they absolutely would have done it if he hadn't called the rally and made the speech. That's why they showed up to DC prepared for storming the Capitol. They have statements on social media boasting that they were going to do it.

And it's because he sent them the message to do it.
 
BTW, regarding "you can't impeach him because he has free speech"

How many Trump employees have been fired because they said something in opposition to Dear Leader?

The head of Cyber Security was fired because he had the audacity to say that the election was secure.

Where were all these wonderful free speech warriors then?

So take your free speech crap and shove it. We can see it's a lie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom