DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

A forum for all things Cardiff City

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby ealing_ayatollah » Sun Feb 14, 2021 3:24 pm

CCFCJosh75 wrote:That does read like 'we had more possession and more shots so we deserve to win'. If only the hundreds of law suits he's started in courts packed with republicans could prove anything.

For the mail in voter fraud, didn't trump reject laws for tightening votes?


You're missing the point though Josh.

I'm not commenting on whether or not the vote was fraudulently stolen. This is why I avoided things that are unproven like the whole dominion stuff, overnight spikes in Georgia, dead voters, voters whose addresses were empty parking lots etc. That is an entirely different conversation and I left it to the side deliberately as to not confuse the matter.

What I am saying is that there were enough verifiable anomalies to warrant closer scrutiny especially given the introduction of mail-in voting which does of course open the possibility of widespread voter fraud.

As sitting President, Trump given the amount of these anomalies not only had a right but also it could be argued, a constitutional duty to challenge the election findings through the US legal system - which is what he did.

Taking this into account, the legitimate legal challenges he made cannot logically be used as evidence of inciting insurrection which is what the impeachment trial focused on.

The point I was responding to was when you suggested "perhaps the hundreds of times he called the election rigged and that people were stealing it might have played a part" [in encouraging the rioters that entered the capital building so, therefore, he is guilty of incitement]

The added bit in square brackets is my understanding of your inference so feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that.

If that is what you are suggesting though, then just step back away from the tribal nature of the discussion for a minute and think that through.

It is an insane leap of logic to suggest that the evidence for him inciting insurrection is the fact that he challenged the incredibly unusually results of an election through the legal system available to him.

That just doesn't add up in any way shape or form the moment it goes under the slightest bit of logical scrutiny.
I'm just a wine drinking monkey that has a penchant for fine bannanas. You can check out my human alter-ego singing and speaking nonsense on the you tube if you like @ https://www.youtube.com/user/sibaronimusic
User avatar
ealing_ayatollah
 
Posts: 1851
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:29 pm

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Advertisement

Advertisement
Login or Register to remove this ad.

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby ealing_ayatollah » Sun Feb 14, 2021 3:29 pm

skidemin wrote:on your last but one point Ted Cruz claims he asked Trumps lawyers to go easy as they had already won but there was a chance they could p155 people off...


Interesting. Cruz is certainly seeming to be the Republican thinking the furthest down the line at the minute...
I'm just a wine drinking monkey that has a penchant for fine bannanas. You can check out my human alter-ego singing and speaking nonsense on the you tube if you like @ https://www.youtube.com/user/sibaronimusic
User avatar
ealing_ayatollah
 
Posts: 1851
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:29 pm

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby skidemin » Sun Feb 14, 2021 3:46 pm

ealing_ayatollah wrote:
skidemin wrote:on your last but one point Ted Cruz claims he asked Trumps lawyers to go easy as they had already won but there was a chance they could p155 people off...


Interesting. Cruz is certainly seeming to be the Republican thinking the furthest down the line at the minute...



yep , Cruz take on it was an absolute max 57 votes with 67 needed... so the defence should be go through the motions without rattling cages... im puzzled what it was all about tbh mate... and seeing how josh has brought football into it ,the dems look like a bunch of jacks... win , top of the league BUT far more importantly hope Cardiff lost....
on that note, poor result for your boys team...
skidemin
 
Posts: 4703
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 7:45 pm

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby ealing_ayatollah » Sun Feb 14, 2021 4:05 pm

skidemin wrote:
ealing_ayatollah wrote:
skidemin wrote:on your last but one point Ted Cruz claims he asked Trumps lawyers to go easy as they had already won but there was a chance they could p155 people off...


Interesting. Cruz is certainly seeming to be the Republican thinking the furthest down the line at the minute...



yep , Cruz take on it was an absolute max 57 votes with 67 needed... so the defence should be go through the motions without rattling cages... im puzzled what it was all about tbh mate... and seeing how josh has brought football into it ,the dems look like a bunch of jacks... win , top of the league BUT far more importantly hope Cardiff lost....
on that note, poor result for your boys team...


He's a smart operator Cruz and I think he knows there is a massive Trump base to build on but also knows currently things need to simmer down while the Dems and their friends in media are on the hunt for who can fill the big Trump-shaped whole for them to direct their anger at.


Yeah, poor day at the office for the Bees. Me saying Toney will hit 30 this season has probably been the kiss of death! To be honest with their playoff record (they've lost 4 out of 4 finals!) they better sort their shit out and go up in the autos! Am sure they'll be fine to be fair, they're a very, very good side this year.
I'm just a wine drinking monkey that has a penchant for fine bannanas. You can check out my human alter-ego singing and speaking nonsense on the you tube if you like @ https://www.youtube.com/user/sibaronimusic
User avatar
ealing_ayatollah
 
Posts: 1851
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:29 pm

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby CCFCJosh75 » Sun Feb 14, 2021 4:29 pm

ealing_ayatollah wrote:
The point I was responding to was when you suggested "perhaps the hundreds of times he called the election rigged and that people were stealing it might have played a part" [in encouraging the rioters that entered the capital building so, therefore, he is guilty of incitement]

The added bit in square brackets is my understanding of your inference so feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that.

If that is what you are suggesting though, then just step back away from the tribal nature of the discussion for a minute and think that through.

It is an insane leap of logic to suggest that the evidence for him inciting insurrection is the fact that he challenged the incredibly unusually results of an election through the legal system available to him.

That just doesn't add up in any way shape or form the moment it goes under the slightest bit of logical scrutiny.

I know he never told people to go and shoot people but if you have a look at what he said at the 'Save America' rally:

"We took them by surprise and this year, they rigged an election.

They rigged it like they’ve never rigged an election before. By the way, last night, they didn’t do a bad job either, if you notice. I’m honest. I just, again, I want to thank you. It’s just a great honour to have this kind of crowd and to be before you. Hundreds of thousands of American patriots are committed to the honesty of our elections and the integrity of our glorious republic. All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical left Democrats, which is what they’re doing"

"We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved."

"we will stop the steal. Today I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election, and we won it by a landslide"

"
I was told by the real pollsters, we do have real pollsters. They know that we were going to do well, and we were going to win. What I was told, if I went from 63 million, which we had four years ago to 66 million, there was no chance of losing. Well, we didn’t go to 66. We went to 75 million and they say we lost. We didn’t lose."

" What an absolute disgrace, that this could be happening to our constitution.’ "

" We’re supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our constitution and protect our constitution. States want to revote. The states got defrauded. They were given false information."

" Although with this administration, if this happens, it could happen. You’ll see some really bad things happen.

They’ll knock out Lincoln too, by the way. "

"
We’re gathered together in the heart of our nation’s Capitol for one very, very basic and simple reason, to save our democracy. "

Imagine being in a crowd of passionate trump supporters hearing that and a lot more (that was just some selections and I wasn't even a third of the way through) standing outside the building where all the 'stealing' was happening, can you see why that might have riled them to commit that terrorism?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/1 ... ary-speech
CCFCJosh75
 
Posts: 763
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2014 1:27 pm

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby ealing_ayatollah » Sun Feb 14, 2021 5:03 pm

CCFCJosh75 wrote:
ealing_ayatollah wrote:
The point I was responding to was when you suggested "perhaps the hundreds of times he called the election rigged and that people were stealing it might have played a part" [in encouraging the rioters that entered the capital building so, therefore, he is guilty of incitement]

The added bit in square brackets is my understanding of your inference so feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that.

If that is what you are suggesting though, then just step back away from the tribal nature of the discussion for a minute and think that through.

It is an insane leap of logic to suggest that the evidence for him inciting insurrection is the fact that he challenged the incredibly unusually results of an election through the legal system available to him.

That just doesn't add up in any way shape or form the moment it goes under the slightest bit of logical scrutiny.

I know he never told people to go and shoot people but if you have a look at what he said at the 'Save America' rally:

"We took them by surprise and this year, they rigged an election.

They rigged it like they’ve never rigged an election before. By the way, last night, they didn’t do a bad job either, if you notice. I’m honest. I just, again, I want to thank you. It’s just a great honour to have this kind of crowd and to be before you. Hundreds of thousands of American patriots are committed to the honesty of our elections and the integrity of our glorious republic. All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical left Democrats, which is what they’re doing"

"We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved."

"we will stop the steal. Today I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election, and we won it by a landslide"

"
I was told by the real pollsters, we do have real pollsters. They know that we were going to do well, and we were going to win. What I was told, if I went from 63 million, which we had four years ago to 66 million, there was no chance of losing. Well, we didn’t go to 66. We went to 75 million and they say we lost. We didn’t lose."

" What an absolute disgrace, that this could be happening to our constitution.’ "

" We’re supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our constitution and protect our constitution. States want to revote. The states got defrauded. They were given false information."

" Although with this administration, if this happens, it could happen. You’ll see some really bad things happen.

They’ll knock out Lincoln too, by the way. "

"
We’re gathered together in the heart of our nation’s Capitol for one very, very basic and simple reason, to save our democracy. "

Imagine being in a crowd of passionate trump supporters hearing that and a lot more (that was just some selections and I wasn't even a third of the way through) standing outside the building where all the 'stealing' was happening, can you see why that might have riled them to commit that terrorism?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/1 ... ary-speech


But Josh, there isn't a single line in there that qualifies as incitement and this is the point I am making.

You can read into it what you want, others can and will read it another way, but it is all 100% subjective

All the above quotes and every other quote I have seen used in such arguments fall outside of the very clearly defined legal parameters of the US legal definition of incitement (which I posted earlier.)

Impeachment is a legal procedure, it is a political one but ostensibly it is still operating within a legal framework. The article of impeachment was the incitement of insurrection.

You've suggested by simply questioning the validity of election results and challenging that through the US legal system that Trump was establishing a narrative that encouraged the insurrection. That just isn't correct.

Now, you've listed a bunch of quotes and not one of them would fall within the legal definition of incitement.

Perhaps Trump was genius and spoke incredibly deliberately to tread the line just carefully enough to whip up the crowd and still claim there is no incitement. Perhaps he is a bombastic buffoon and didn't realise what he was saying and just got lucky.

Either way, there is nothing, literally nothing that can firmly tie him to the charge of incitement of insurrection.

Given that it was an impossible charge to prove, and that the likelihood of convincing enough Republicans to cross the aisle to convict him without such evidence is non-existant, and that the Democrats would have known all of this themselves - the question remains what was the whole point in this political theatre?
I'm just a wine drinking monkey that has a penchant for fine bannanas. You can check out my human alter-ego singing and speaking nonsense on the you tube if you like @ https://www.youtube.com/user/sibaronimusic
User avatar
ealing_ayatollah
 
Posts: 1851
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:29 pm

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby Big Hill Blue » Sun Feb 14, 2021 5:07 pm

Didn't he say...

"When the looting starts, the shooting starts".

Kinda catchy but absolutely not condoning or encouraging it.

;)
Big Hill Blue
 
Posts: 1353
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 5:27 pm

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby Blue78 » Sun Feb 14, 2021 5:19 pm

ealing_ayatollah wrote:
CCFCJosh75 wrote:That does read like 'we had more possession and more shots so we deserve to win'. If only the hundreds of law suits he's started in courts packed with republicans could prove anything.

For the mail in voter fraud, didn't trump reject laws for tightening votes?


You're missing the point though Josh.

I'm not commenting on whether or not the vote was fraudulently stolen. This is why I avoided things that are unproven like the whole dominion stuff, overnight spikes in Georgia, dead voters, voters whose addresses were empty parking lots etc. That is an entirely different conversation and I left it to the side deliberately as to not confuse the matter.

What I am saying is that there were enough verifiable anomalies to warrant closer scrutiny especially given the introduction of mail-in voting which does of course open the possibility of widespread voter fraud.

As sitting President, Trump given the amount of these anomalies not only had a right but also it could be argued, a constitutional duty to challenge the election findings through the US legal system - which is what he did.

Taking this into account, the legitimate legal challenges he made cannot logically be used as evidence of inciting insurrection which is what the impeachment trial focused on.

The point I was responding to was when you suggested "perhaps the hundreds of times he called the election rigged and that people were stealing it might have played a part" [in encouraging the rioters that entered the capital building so, therefore, he is guilty of incitement]

The added bit in square brackets is my understanding of your inference so feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that.

If that is what you are suggesting though, then just step back away from the tribal nature of the discussion for a minute and think that through.

It is an insane leap of logic to suggest that the evidence for him inciting insurrection is the fact that he challenged the incredibly unusually results of an election through the legal system available to him.

That just doesn't add up in any way shape or form the moment it goes under the slightest bit of logical scrutiny.


Trump had every right to challenge results - even CNN acknowledged that. But his approach to it, his stirring up, his rhetoric was not right from a ‘leader’ of a government.

He had the courts open to challenge - they all threw the cases out though due to a lack of evidence. Yet still he continued to claim fraud.

As I said in an earlier post, people like Trump and Farage call ‘foul play in the system’ when they think something isn’t going their way...but suddenly the system is robust when they won...until they lose again and once again they call the system into question. In 2016 despite losing the popular vote, he won a number of previously democratic states by Uber slim margins allowing him the electoral college victory - where was his claim of ‘rigged votes’ then?

It’s inconceivable to think that the rhetoric, language and aggression of Trump and his team (Rudy especially) over months, didn’t do anything to encourage the actions of Jan 6th. The pictures, the interviews with rioters and frankly his complete inaction on the day should be enough to show this. Even McConnell said he was guilty of incitement last night.

Why did they push the protest for Jan 6th, why was Rudy caught on tape saying they need the confirmation slowed down, why was Trump calling out Pence before and during the riot?
Blue78
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:45 pm

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby ealing_ayatollah » Sun Feb 14, 2021 8:22 pm

Blue78 wrote:Trump had every right to challenge results - even CNN acknowledged that. But his approach to it, his stirring up, his rhetoric was not right from a ‘leader’ of a government.

He had the courts open to challenge - they all threw the cases out though due to a lack of evidence. Yet still he continued to claim fraud.

As I said in an earlier post, people like Trump and Farage call ‘foul play in the system’ when they think something isn’t going their way...but suddenly the system is robust when they won...until they lose again and once again they call the system into question. In 2016 despite losing the popular vote, he won a number of previously democratic states by Uber slim margins allowing him the electoral college victory - where was his claim of ‘rigged votes’ then?

It’s inconceivable to think that the rhetoric, language and aggression of Trump and his team (Rudy especially) over months, didn’t do anything to encourage the actions of Jan 6th. The pictures, the interviews with rioters and frankly his complete inaction on the day should be enough to show this. Even McConnell said he was guilty of incitement last night.

Why did they push the protest for Jan 6th, why was Rudy caught on tape saying they need the confirmation slowed down, why was Trump calling out Pence before and during the riot?

Hypothetically, the protest was on Jan 6th as they were to peacefully march on the Capital while the senate was in session to make a powerful, non-violent political demonstration. You could also argue it was an evil plan to storm the capital - but there's no proof of that, it is until proven, by its very definition, a conspiracy theory.

Rudy wanted the confirmation slowed down because the judicial system ran out of time, in many cases the judiciary didn't actually review the evidence because of time constraints so cases were rejected as they couldn't' be completed in time, rather than dismissed because of a lack of evidence. Again not really that contentious

Trump called, I think unfairly on Pence, to do something I don't think he could have done and reject the votes, but it was as the American like to say a final hail Mary pass. Dick move, but again not incitement to insurrection.

None of these or anything else listed in the thread so far is more than circumstantial evidence though. The American judicial system, just like our own, is based around proof of guilt not proof of innocence being required.

Just because you and a lot of other people, feel the way he behaved and 'his rhetoric was not right from a ‘leader’ of a government.' doesn't make it an impeachable offence.

It is not incitement to insurrection to talk like an arrogant prick or even a whiny little bitch, it's just being a dick.

Being a dick is not an impeachable offence (they'd have had him when he was actually president if it were).

People can hate him and his style all they want, but it doesn't change the fact Trump never in a million years came anywhere close to anything that could be viewed as incitement to insurrection which again has a very, very specific legal definition.

Whatsmore, the burden of proof was on the democrats to prove Trump willfully incited an insurrection and just to say it one more time - the evidence that proves his guilt under the parameters of the US legal definition of incitement just doesn't exist, it never has.

Like I said in an earlier post, perhaps Trump is just a bombastic buffoon who got lucky by not saying the right words. Perhaps he is an evil mastermind and knew exactly how to sail close enough to the wind without setting himself up.

Either way, it really doesn't matter.

There was no solid evidence for incitement and without that, there was ZERO chance of impeachment going through as not enough Republicans would cross the aisle without an obvious smoking gun.

The bigger question that people seem to keep overlooking is why was the whole charade put on in the first place when it was obvious from the start that impeachment would never go through?

Was it a distraction to look the other way while Biden ushers in record numbers of first month Executive orders? possibly. Perhaps to keep the anger focused in one direction so it isn't turned on themselves? possibly. Was it just petty vengeance? Again possibly.

It was always an empty gesture so why go through the whole expensive charade? That is the only point I'm making here.
I'm just a wine drinking monkey that has a penchant for fine bannanas. You can check out my human alter-ego singing and speaking nonsense on the you tube if you like @ https://www.youtube.com/user/sibaronimusic
User avatar
ealing_ayatollah
 
Posts: 1851
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:29 pm

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby TheHangedMan » Sun Feb 14, 2021 11:05 pm

ealing_ayatollah......will you please stop stating facts, telling the truth and exposing the US "democracy" for what it is.....it just confuses people!!! :clap: :occasion5:
Not a shred of evidence exists in favour of the idea that life is serious........
User avatar
TheHangedMan
 
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:48 pm
Location: Bere Regis, Dorset

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby CCFCJosh75 » Sun Feb 14, 2021 11:22 pm

ealing_ayatollah wrote:
CCFCJosh75 wrote:
ealing_ayatollah wrote:
The point I was responding to was when you suggested "perhaps the hundreds of times he called the election rigged and that people were stealing it might have played a part" [in encouraging the rioters that entered the capital building so, therefore, he is guilty of incitement]

The added bit in square brackets is my understanding of your inference so feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that.

If that is what you are suggesting though, then just step back away from the tribal nature of the discussion for a minute and think that through.

It is an insane leap of logic to suggest that the evidence for him inciting insurrection is the fact that he challenged the incredibly unusually results of an election through the legal system available to him.

That just doesn't add up in any way shape or form the moment it goes under the slightest bit of logical scrutiny.

I know he never told people to go and shoot people but if you have a look at what he said at the 'Save America' rally:

"We took them by surprise and this year, they rigged an election.

They rigged it like they’ve never rigged an election before. By the way, last night, they didn’t do a bad job either, if you notice. I’m honest. I just, again, I want to thank you. It’s just a great honour to have this kind of crowd and to be before you. Hundreds of thousands of American patriots are committed to the honesty of our elections and the integrity of our glorious republic. All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical left Democrats, which is what they’re doing"

"We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved."

"we will stop the steal. Today I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election, and we won it by a landslide"

"
I was told by the real pollsters, we do have real pollsters. They know that we were going to do well, and we were going to win. What I was told, if I went from 63 million, which we had four years ago to 66 million, there was no chance of losing. Well, we didn’t go to 66. We went to 75 million and they say we lost. We didn’t lose."

" What an absolute disgrace, that this could be happening to our constitution.’ "

" We’re supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our constitution and protect our constitution. States want to revote. The states got defrauded. They were given false information."

" Although with this administration, if this happens, it could happen. You’ll see some really bad things happen.

They’ll knock out Lincoln too, by the way. "

"
We’re gathered together in the heart of our nation’s Capitol for one very, very basic and simple reason, to save our democracy. "

Imagine being in a crowd of passionate trump supporters hearing that and a lot more (that was just some selections and I wasn't even a third of the way through) standing outside the building where all the 'stealing' was happening, can you see why that might have riled them to commit that terrorism?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/1 ... ary-speech


But Josh, there isn't a single line in there that qualifies as incitement and this is the point I am making.

You can read into it what you want, others can and will read it another way, but it is all 100% subjective

All the above quotes and every other quote I have seen used in such arguments fall outside of the very clearly defined legal parameters of the US legal definition of incitement (which I posted earlier.)

Impeachment is a legal procedure, it is a political one but ostensibly it is still operating within a legal framework. The article of impeachment was the incitement of insurrection.

You've suggested by simply questioning the validity of election results and challenging that through the US legal system that Trump was establishing a narrative that encouraged the insurrection. That just isn't correct.

Now, you've listed a bunch of quotes and not one of them would fall within the legal definition of incitement.

Perhaps Trump was genius and spoke incredibly deliberately to tread the line just carefully enough to whip up the crowd and still claim there is no incitement. Perhaps he is a bombastic buffoon and didn't realise what he was saying and just got lucky.

Either way, there is nothing, literally nothing that can firmly tie him to the charge of incitement of insurrection.

Given that it was an impossible charge to prove, and that the likelihood of convincing enough Republicans to cross the aisle to convict him without such evidence is non-existant, and that the Democrats would have known all of this themselves - the question remains what was the whole point in this political theatre?

I'm not passing comment on his impeachment or whether he does the dictionary definition of anything, the point I'm trying to make is that his speech and his comments in the preceding year will have been a huge factor in the peoples decision to attack the capitol.

If the leader of isis or Al qaeda did a similar speech and then a couple of hours later there was an attack on the same building and I brought up the fact that he didn't do the legal definition of incitement so its fine there'd be hell on here.
CCFCJosh75
 
Posts: 763
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2014 1:27 pm

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby TheHangedMan » Mon Feb 15, 2021 12:16 am

CCFCJosh75 wrote:I'm not passing comment on his impeachment or whether he does the dictionary definition of anything, the point I'm trying to make is that his speech and his comments in the preceding year will have been a huge factor in the peoples decision to attack the capitol.

If the leader of isis or Al qaeda did a similar speech and then a couple of hours later there was an attack on the same building and I brought up the fact that he didn't do the legal definition of incitement so its fine there'd be hell on here.

Jeez Josh, please get a grip of reality, just for once.

Essentially your first paragraph inference is the same as saying if I told somebody to incite violence a year ago, and they did it today I am culpable! seriously??? And on that point you are assuming it was Trump supporters who actually walked into that building........the building that should be so protected, but for some strange reason wasn't on that particular day.

Then you go on to compare the President of the United States to a couple of terrorist groups!!! You scraped the barrel on your first paragraph, on your second you are seriously digging so low you might get to Oz.
Not a shred of evidence exists in favour of the idea that life is serious........
User avatar
TheHangedMan
 
Posts: 1631
Joined: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:48 pm
Location: Bere Regis, Dorset

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby skidemin » Mon Feb 15, 2021 12:42 am

CCFCJosh75 wrote:
ealing_ayatollah wrote:
The point I was responding to was when you suggested "perhaps the hundreds of times he called the election rigged and that people were stealing it might have played a part" [in encouraging the rioters that entered the capital building so, therefore, he is guilty of incitement]

The added bit in square brackets is my understanding of your inference so feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that.

If that is what you are suggesting though, then just step back away from the tribal nature of the discussion for a minute and think that through.

It is an insane leap of logic to suggest that the evidence for him inciting insurrection is the fact that he challenged the incredibly unusually results of an election through the legal system available to him.

That just doesn't add up in any way shape or form the moment it goes under the slightest bit of logical scrutiny.

I know he never told people to go and shoot people but if you have a look at what he said at the 'Save America' rally:

"We took them by surprise and this year, they rigged an election.

They rigged it like they’ve never rigged an election before. By the way, last night, they didn’t do a bad job either, if you notice. I’m honest. I just, again, I want to thank you. It’s just a great honour to have this kind of crowd and to be before you. Hundreds of thousands of American patriots are committed to the honesty of our elections and the integrity of our glorious republic. All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical left Democrats, which is what they’re doing"

"We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved."

"we will stop the steal. Today I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election, and we won it by a landslide"

"
I was told by the real pollsters, we do have real pollsters. They know that we were going to do well, and we were going to win. What I was told, if I went from 63 million, which we had four years ago to 66 million, there was no chance of losing. Well, we didn’t go to 66. We went to 75 million and they say we lost. We didn’t lose."

" What an absolute disgrace, that this could be happening to our constitution.’ "

" We’re supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our constitution and protect our constitution. States want to revote. The states got defrauded. They were given false information."

" Although with this administration, if this happens, it could happen. You’ll see some really bad things happen.

They’ll knock out Lincoln too, by the way. "

"
We’re gathered together in the heart of our nation’s Capitol for one very, very basic and simple reason, to save our democracy. "

Imagine being in a crowd of passionate trump supporters hearing that and a lot more (that was just some selections and I wasn't even a third of the way through) standing outside the building where all the 'stealing' was happening, can you see why that might have riled them to commit that terrorism?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/1 ... ary-speech



seriously ? ive read it before but did again and no, and i doubt even someone with previous for reacting OTT like yourself would be incited to attack the building... and on that note.. did any of them really expect to be wondering around inside ? was way too easy...
skidemin
 
Posts: 4703
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 7:45 pm

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby ealing_ayatollah » Mon Feb 15, 2021 12:45 am

CCFCJosh75 wrote:I'm not passing comment on his impeachment or whether he does the dictionary definition of anything, the point I'm trying to make is that his speech and his comments in the preceding year will have been a huge factor in the peoples decision to attack the capitol.

If the leader of isis or Al qaeda did a similar speech and then a couple of hours later there was an attack on the same building and I brought up the fact that he didn't do the legal definition of incitement so its fine there'd be hell on here.

OK...

But I did specifically say

The added bit in square brackets is my understanding of your inference so feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that.

Before you doubled down and went to the effort of grabbing all those quotes and I was quite clear that I was referring to there being no legal case across all my posts in this thread so you could have saved yourself a bit of effort there.

So based on what you've put above, I assume you would hold AOC, Kamala Harris and Maxine Waters equally accountable as they all supported the notion that rioting is a valid form of protest?
I'm just a wine drinking monkey that has a penchant for fine bannanas. You can check out my human alter-ego singing and speaking nonsense on the you tube if you like @ https://www.youtube.com/user/sibaronimusic
User avatar
ealing_ayatollah
 
Posts: 1851
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:29 pm

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby Bobby banks » Mon Feb 15, 2021 11:21 am

Ted Cruz would win the competition to find the world's most spineless man. He whimpered to a man who made disgusting comments about his wife and blackened his dead fathers name. Cruz is unfit to run for any type of government office.

https://www.showbiz411.com/2018/04/19/s ... assination
Bobby banks
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2020 6:57 pm

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby ealing_ayatollah » Mon Feb 15, 2021 11:29 am

Bobby banks wrote:Ted Cruz would win the competition to find the world's most spineless man. He whimpered to a man who made disgusting comments about his wife and blackened his dead fathers name. Cruz is unfit to run for any type of government office.

https://www.showbiz411.com/2018/04/19/s ... assination


Or alternatively, maybe he's putting the good of the people he is elected to serve above the petty bickering that passes for politics these days.

“The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally – not a 20 percent traitor.”
— Ronald Reagan
I'm just a wine drinking monkey that has a penchant for fine bannanas. You can check out my human alter-ego singing and speaking nonsense on the you tube if you like @ https://www.youtube.com/user/sibaronimusic
User avatar
ealing_ayatollah
 
Posts: 1851
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:29 pm

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby Bobby banks » Mon Feb 15, 2021 12:19 pm

ealing_ayatollah wrote:
Bobby banks wrote:Ted Cruz would win the competition to find the world's most spineless man. He whimpered to a man who made disgusting comments about his wife and blackened his dead fathers name. Cruz is unfit to run for any type of government office.

https://www.showbiz411.com/2018/04/19/s ... assination


Or alternatively, maybe he's putting the good of the people he is elected to serve above the petty bickering that passes for politics these days.

“The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally – not a 20 percent traitor.”
— Ronald Reagan


Nothing to do with the greater good. The mans a coward.


https://news.yahoo.com/ted-cruz-is-just ... 07266.html
Bobby banks
 
Posts: 55
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2020 6:57 pm

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby CCFCJosh75 » Mon Feb 15, 2021 12:39 pm

ealing_ayatollah wrote:
CCFCJosh75 wrote:I'm not passing comment on his impeachment or whether he does the dictionary definition of anything, the point I'm trying to make is that his speech and his comments in the preceding year will have been a huge factor in the peoples decision to attack the capitol.

If the leader of isis or Al qaeda did a similar speech and then a couple of hours later there was an attack on the same building and I brought up the fact that he didn't do the legal definition of incitement so its fine there'd be hell on here.

OK...

But I did specifically say

The added bit in square brackets is my understanding of your inference so feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that.

Before you doubled down and went to the effort of grabbing all those quotes and I was quite clear that I was referring to there being no legal case across all my posts in this thread so you could have saved yourself a bit of effort there.

So based on what you've put above, I assume you would hold AOC, Kamala Harris and Maxine Waters equally accountable as they all supported the notion that rioting is a valid form of protest?

Well as I have already said, I'm not talking about his impeachment, only that his actions will have been a factor in the terrorist attack.

'So based on what you've put above, I assume you would hold AOC, Kamala Harris and Maxine Waters equally accountable as they all supported the notion that rioting is a valid form of protest?'
I don't really pay any attention to what they say so have quickly looked it up. Correct me if I'm wrong but AOC said "we need rapid and real de escalation and we need it now. We cannot descend into the chaos of violence." I'm fine with that statement.

Harris said that it was "critically important" for the PROTESTS to continue. I'm not priti Patel so I do believe protests can happen.

I can't find waters saying anything about riots, the only thing that comes up is when she said to tell Congressmen that they aren't welcome in 2018 after the child detainment camps were revealed.
CCFCJosh75
 
Posts: 763
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2014 1:27 pm

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby Blue78 » Mon Feb 15, 2021 12:44 pm

TheHangedMan wrote:
CCFCJosh75 wrote:I'm not passing comment on his impeachment or whether he does the dictionary definition of anything, the point I'm trying to make is that his speech and his comments in the preceding year will have been a huge factor in the peoples decision to attack the capitol.

If the leader of isis or Al qaeda did a similar speech and then a couple of hours later there was an attack on the same building and I brought up the fact that he didn't do the legal definition of incitement so its fine there'd be hell on here.

Jeez Josh, please get a grip of reality, just for once.

Essentially your first paragraph inference is the same as saying if I told somebody to incite violence a year ago, and they did it today I am culpable! seriously??? And on that point you are assuming it was Trump supporters who actually walked into that building........the building that should be so protected, but for some strange reason wasn't on that particular day.

Then you go on to compare the President of the United States to a couple of terrorist groups!!! You scraped the barrel on your first paragraph, on your second you are seriously digging so low you might get to Oz.



If you repeat a message (in Trumps case over 4/5 years) it breeds familiarity with that message. If that message is ‘easy to understand’ and ‘fits the bias of an individual or group’ it becomes the ‘truth’ in the eye of the individual or group. It’s called the illusion of truth - a pretty well tested and proven process. When that message gets said by another person or by a higher profile person it gains more and more momentum.

Trump didn’t say something once and only a year ago - he has repeated it time and time again about rigged systems, elections steals etc with no actual evidence of proof (according to the courts). His team also delivered the same message time and time again. Pre the 2016 election according the Trump the system was ‘rigged’...he won, it was no longer rigged. Fast forward to 2020 again and the system is rigged.

On Jan 6th when Trump is using messages like ‘assault on our democracy’ or ‘you’ll have to fight much harder’ or ‘we will never take our country back with weakness’ and his paid lawyer uses the term ‘trial by combat’ what message would you say that is sending?

Are you saying it wasn’t Trump supporters in the building? Maybe they got in easy because it was Trump supporters that let them in or maybe when faced with a massive crowd they couldn’t have controlled they stepped aside.
Blue78
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 8:45 pm

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby englishbluebird » Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:17 pm

I wonder how many accounts this Josh kid has :lol:
"Like we give a f**k about the Carling Cup"-6Bysedd
User avatar
englishbluebird
 
Posts: 4709
Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2011 12:16 am
Location: caerphilly

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby ealing_ayatollah » Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:26 pm

CCFCJosh75 wrote:Well as I have already said, I'm not talking about his impeachment, only that his actions will have been a factor in the terrorist attack.


OK, so next time maybe read what you were replying to because you were responding to posts that were talking about impeachment, on a thread about his impeachment.

You can see how that would confuse those like me who are a wee bit slow on the uptake. :thumbup:

CCFCJosh75 wrote:I don't really pay any attention to what they say so have quickly looked it up.

In fairness, maybe you should pay more attention to both sides because if you are going to hold one side of the political aisle to a fairly extreme standard, then it is only fair to apply that on an equal basis and if you're not paying attention to one side that's not really possible.

CCFCJosh75 wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but AOC said "we need rapid and real de escalation and we need it now. We cannot descend into the chaos of violence." I'm fine with that statement.

Harris said that it was "critically important" for the PROTESTS to continue. I'm not priti Patel so I do believe protests can happen.

I can't find waters saying anything about riots, the only thing that comes up is when she said to tell Congressmen that they aren't welcome in 2018 after the child detainment camps were revealed.


Kamala Harris reflecting on BLM protests/riots:

"They're not going to stop, they're not going to stop and everyone beware. This is a movement. They're not going to stop before election day in November and they're not going to stop after and everyone should take note of that on both levels. They're not going to let up and they should not."

https://www.air.tv/watch?v=0UyYUVWbQhiJzagCCtI6Jw

Maxine Waters advocating physical harassment of political adversaries:

"Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJCDe7vdFfw

Ocasio Cortez on why political activism is all about making people uncomfortable:

The thing that critics of activists don’t get is that they tried playing the “polite language” policy game and all it did was make them easier to ignore. It wasn’t until they made folks uncomfortable that there was traction to do ANYTHING even if it wasn’t their full demands.

The whole point of protesting is to make ppl uncomfortable. Activists take that discomfort w/ the status quo & advocate for concrete policy changes. Popular support often starts small & grows. To folks who complain protest demands make others uncomfortable... that’s the point.


https://twitter.com/aoc/status/13341846 ... 80?lang=en



By your standards, not mine, any and each of these could be seen as a veiled threat and a call to incitement.

Certainly, each is an example of legitimising and thus normalising political violence. The problem is you (not you specifically talking in general) cannot support political violence on one side and then denounce it on the other without showing yourself up to be a partisan hypocrite with a complete lack of conviction in your beliefs.

To put put the context back in your own (slightly edited) words:

Imagine being in a crowd of passionate ANTIFA or BLM 'protestors' hearing that and a lot more (that was just some selections off the top of my head) standing outside the building where all the "fascists" were. Can you see why that might have riled them to burn down the homes of hardworking and completely innocent members of the local community whose only crime was to have achieved something and been in the wrong place at the wrong time?


Personally, I'll hold the same moral line for the Demns as I do for Trump and and would say that of course none of these is incitement, it is politicians doing what politicians do in use hyperbolic and bombastic rhetoric. There is a degree of common sense that should be applied and we all have our own agency and sense of responsibility to not burn, loot, murder and riot.

All I ask is others be equally consistent in their logic as well :thumbup:
I'm just a wine drinking monkey that has a penchant for fine bannanas. You can check out my human alter-ego singing and speaking nonsense on the you tube if you like @ https://www.youtube.com/user/sibaronimusic
User avatar
ealing_ayatollah
 
Posts: 1851
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:29 pm

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby CCFCJosh75 » Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:38 pm

englishbluebird wrote:I wonder how many accounts this Josh kid has :lol:

Just the 1, I don't care enough about you to create another.
CCFCJosh75
 
Posts: 763
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2014 1:27 pm

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby CCFCJosh75 » Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:48 pm

ealing_ayatollah wrote:

CCFCJosh75 wrote:I don't really pay any attention to what they say so have quickly looked it up.

In fairness, maybe you should pay more attention to both sides because if you are going to hold one side of the political aisle to a fairly extreme standard, then it is only fair to apply that on an equal basis and if you're not paying attention to one side that's not really possible.

CCFCJosh75 wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but AOC said "we need rapid and real de escalation and we need it now. We cannot descend into the chaos of violence." I'm fine with that statement.

Harris said that it was "critically important" for the PROTESTS to continue. I'm not priti Patel so I do believe protests can happen.

I can't find waters saying anything about riots, the only thing that comes up is when she said to tell Congressmen that they aren't welcome in 2018 after the child detainment camps were revealed.


Kamala Harris reflecting on BLM protests/riots:

"They're not going to stop, they're not going to stop and everyone beware. This is a movement. They're not going to stop before election day in November and they're not going to stop after and everyone should take note of that on both levels. They're not going to let up and they should not."

https://www.air.tv/watch?v=0UyYUVWbQhiJzagCCtI6Jw

Maxine Waters advocating physical harassment of political adversaries:

"Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJCDe7vdFfw

Ocasio Cortez on why political activism is all about making people uncomfortable:

The thing that critics of activists don’t get is that they tried playing the “polite language” policy game and all it did was make them easier to ignore. It wasn’t until they made folks uncomfortable that there was traction to do ANYTHING even if it wasn’t their full demands.

The whole point of protesting is to make ppl uncomfortable. Activists take that discomfort w/ the status quo & advocate for concrete policy changes. Popular support often starts small & grows. To folks who complain protest demands make others uncomfortable... that’s the point.


https://twitter.com/aoc/status/13341846 ... 80?lang=en



By your standards, not mine, any and each of these could be seen as a veiled threat and a call to incitement.

Certainly, each is an example of legitimising and thus normalising political violence. The problem is you (not you specifically talking in general) cannot support political violence on one side and then denounce it on the other without showing yourself up to be a partisan hypocrite with a complete lack of conviction in your beliefs.

To put put the context back in your own (slightly edited) words:

Imagine being in a crowd of passionate ANTIFA or BLM 'protestors' hearing that and a lot more (that was just some selections off the top of my head) standing outside the building where all the "fascists" were. Can you see why that might have riled them to burn down the homes of hardworking and completely innocent members of the local community whose only crime was to have achieved something and been in the wrong place at the wrong time?


Personally, I'll hold the same moral line for the Demns as I do for Trump and and would say that of course none of these is incitement, it is politicians doing what politicians do in use hyperbolic and bombastic rhetoric. There is a degree of common sense that should be applied and we all have our own agency and sense of responsibility to not burn, loot, murder and riot.

All I ask is others be equally consistent in their logic as well :thumbup:


Firstly, I don't think I'm on an extreme side of American politics. I just disagree that trump is a god like some on here. I'm also not bothered about the health secretary of Canada, the sports minister of France, or the home Secretary of Benin.

Secondly: this movement won't stop, tell people you're not welcome, or saying protesting should make people uncomfortable has nothing to do with violence let alone riots. They aren't even in the same ballpark as each other.
CCFCJosh75
 
Posts: 763
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2014 1:27 pm

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby ealing_ayatollah » Mon Feb 15, 2021 2:57 pm

Blue78 wrote:
TheHangedMan wrote:
CCFCJosh75 wrote:I'm not passing comment on his impeachment or whether he does the dictionary definition of anything, the point I'm trying to make is that his speech and his comments in the preceding year will have been a huge factor in the peoples decision to attack the capitol.

If the leader of isis or Al qaeda did a similar speech and then a couple of hours later there was an attack on the same building and I brought up the fact that he didn't do the legal definition of incitement so its fine there'd be hell on here.

Jeez Josh, please get a grip of reality, just for once.

Essentially your first paragraph inference is the same as saying if I told somebody to incite violence a year ago, and they did it today I am culpable! seriously??? And on that point you are assuming it was Trump supporters who actually walked into that building........the building that should be so protected, but for some strange reason wasn't on that particular day.

Then you go on to compare the President of the United States to a couple of terrorist groups!!! You scraped the barrel on your first paragraph, on your second you are seriously digging so low you might get to Oz.



If you repeat a message (in Trumps case over 4/5 years) it breeds familiarity with that message. If that message is ‘easy to understand’ and ‘fits the bias of an individual or group’ it becomes the ‘truth’ in the eye of the individual or group. It’s called the illusion of truth - a pretty well tested and proven process. When that message gets said by another person or by a higher profile person it gains more and more momentum.

Trump didn’t say something once and only a year ago - he has repeated it time and time again about rigged systems, elections steals etc with no actual evidence of proof (according to the courts). His team also delivered the same message time and time again. Pre the 2016 election according the Trump the system was ‘rigged’...he won, it was no longer rigged. Fast forward to 2020 again and the system is rigged.

On Jan 6th when Trump is using messages like ‘assault on our democracy’ or ‘you’ll have to fight much harder’ or ‘we will never take our country back with weakness’ and his paid lawyer uses the term ‘trial by combat’ what message would you say that is sending?

Are you saying it wasn’t Trump supporters in the building? Maybe they got in easy because it was Trump supporters that let them in or maybe when faced with a massive crowd they couldn’t have controlled they stepped aside.


You realise that exact argument can be completely flipped on its head.

When half a country is demonised for their political beliefs for half a decade,

when their businesses are burnt down and the politicians glorify the criminals who did it as a civil rights movement,

when one by one their voices are taken away as they all dissenting voices are shut down from the modern town square of social media,

when cancel culture reaches the point where they can no longer be open about there political beliefs in the workplace,

when their votes are seemingly worthless and rather than an investigation, the media tell them to shut up and just get over it,

when they are told they are the ignorant and hateful ones by people who scream in their faces all while the politicians and media smile their endorsements at their insane blue heard pet foot soldiers,

when the only man who ever seemed to fight on their behalf is let down by the legal system they hold so dear,

when there was open talk of lists being drawn up of Trump supporters, re-education programs and never forgiving their support for Trump...

Do you really think that just Trump is to blame for a pushing a group of people (including BLM activist John Sullivan who was stupid enough to document it) to enter the Capital building because they were broken, beaten down and desperate?

If you want to lean on rhetoric from the last five years then there are a lot more people than just one man who can take the blame and they belong on both sides of the tribal divide.
I'm just a wine drinking monkey that has a penchant for fine bannanas. You can check out my human alter-ego singing and speaking nonsense on the you tube if you like @ https://www.youtube.com/user/sibaronimusic
User avatar
ealing_ayatollah
 
Posts: 1851
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:29 pm

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby ealing_ayatollah » Mon Feb 15, 2021 3:05 pm

CCFCJosh75 wrote:Firstly, I don't think I'm on an extreme side of American politics. I just disagree that trump is a god like some on here. I'm also not bothered about the health secretary of Canada, the sports minister of France, or the home Secretary of Benin.

Secondly: this movement won't stop, tell people you're not welcome, or saying protesting should make people uncomfortable has nothing to do with violence let alone riots. They aren't even in the same ballpark as each other.


:lol:

it was so obvious you were going to say that. You have the moral conviction of a turnip.

Also, if this thread proves anything it is that you really, really should learn to read the posts before replying because you've just done it again.

I didn't say you are on the extreme side of American politics. I said if you are going to hold one side of the political aisle to a fairly extreme standard, which is what you are doing.

It is extreme to hold someone accountable for another person's actions based on their words which could have multiple interpretations. That's kinda why there are legal definitions for things like incitement and holding someone to a higher standard than the law would be a fairly extreme position.
I'm just a wine drinking monkey that has a penchant for fine bannanas. You can check out my human alter-ego singing and speaking nonsense on the you tube if you like @ https://www.youtube.com/user/sibaronimusic
User avatar
ealing_ayatollah
 
Posts: 1851
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:29 pm

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby ealing_ayatollah » Mon Feb 15, 2021 3:15 pm

englishbluebird wrote:I wonder how many accounts this Josh kid has :lol:

I dunno but I don't think any of them like me :lol:
I'm just a wine drinking monkey that has a penchant for fine bannanas. You can check out my human alter-ego singing and speaking nonsense on the you tube if you like @ https://www.youtube.com/user/sibaronimusic
User avatar
ealing_ayatollah
 
Posts: 1851
Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 5:29 pm

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby Nuclearblue » Mon Feb 15, 2021 4:59 pm

CCFCJosh75 wrote:
ealing_ayatollah wrote:
CCFCJosh75 wrote:
ealing_ayatollah wrote:
The point I was responding to was when you suggested "perhaps the hundreds of times he called the election rigged and that people were stealing it might have played a part" [in encouraging the rioters that entered the capital building so, therefore, he is guilty of incitement]

The added bit in square brackets is my understanding of your inference so feel free to correct me if I am wrong on that.

If that is what you are suggesting though, then just step back away from the tribal nature of the discussion for a minute and think that through.

It is an insane leap of logic to suggest that the evidence for him inciting insurrection is the fact that he challenged the incredibly unusually results of an election through the legal system available to him.

That just doesn't add up in any way shape or form the moment it goes under the slightest bit of logical scrutiny.

I know he never told people to go and shoot people but if you have a look at what he said at the 'Save America' rally:

"We took them by surprise and this year, they rigged an election.

They rigged it like they’ve never rigged an election before. By the way, last night, they didn’t do a bad job either, if you notice. I’m honest. I just, again, I want to thank you. It’s just a great honour to have this kind of crowd and to be before you. Hundreds of thousands of American patriots are committed to the honesty of our elections and the integrity of our glorious republic. All of us here today do not want to see our election victory stolen by emboldened radical left Democrats, which is what they’re doing"

"We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved."

"we will stop the steal. Today I will lay out just some of the evidence proving that we won this election, and we won it by a landslide"

"
I was told by the real pollsters, we do have real pollsters. They know that we were going to do well, and we were going to win. What I was told, if I went from 63 million, which we had four years ago to 66 million, there was no chance of losing. Well, we didn’t go to 66. We went to 75 million and they say we lost. We didn’t lose."

" What an absolute disgrace, that this could be happening to our constitution.’ "

" We’re supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our constitution and protect our constitution. States want to revote. The states got defrauded. They were given false information."

" Although with this administration, if this happens, it could happen. You’ll see some really bad things happen.

They’ll knock out Lincoln too, by the way. "

"
We’re gathered together in the heart of our nation’s Capitol for one very, very basic and simple reason, to save our democracy. "

Imagine being in a crowd of passionate trump supporters hearing that and a lot more (that was just some selections and I wasn't even a third of the way through) standing outside the building where all the 'stealing' was happening, can you see why that might have riled them to commit that terrorism?

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/1/1 ... ary-speech


But Josh, there isn't a single line in there that qualifies as incitement and this is the point I am making.

You can read into it what you want, others can and will read it another way, but it is all 100% subjective

All the above quotes and every other quote I have seen used in such arguments fall outside of the very clearly defined legal parameters of the US legal definition of incitement (which I posted earlier.)

Impeachment is a legal procedure, it is a political one but ostensibly it is still operating within a legal framework. The article of impeachment was the incitement of insurrection.

You've suggested by simply questioning the validity of election results and challenging that through the US legal system that Trump was establishing a narrative that encouraged the insurrection. That just isn't correct.

Now, you've listed a bunch of quotes and not one of them would fall within the legal definition of incitement.

Perhaps Trump was genius and spoke incredibly deliberately to tread the line just carefully enough to whip up the crowd and still claim there is no incitement. Perhaps he is a bombastic buffoon and didn't realise what he was saying and just got lucky.

Either way, there is nothing, literally nothing that can firmly tie him to the charge of incitement of insurrection.

Given that it was an impossible charge to prove, and that the likelihood of convincing enough Republicans to cross the aisle to convict him without such evidence is non-existant, and that the Democrats would have known all of this themselves - the question remains what was the whole point in this political theatre?

I'm not passing comment on his impeachment or whether he does the dictionary definition of anything, the point I'm trying to make is that his speech and his comments in the preceding year will have been a huge factor in the peoples decision to attack the capitol.

If the leader of isis or Al qaeda did a similar speech and then a couple of hours later there was an attack on the same building and I brought up the fact that he didn't do the legal definition of incitement so its fine there'd be hell on here.

Sorry Josh selective memory. How about the rhetoric coming from the Dems especially the governors and mayors who encouraged the riots and destruction of cities last June ? They encouraged it told the police to stand down and refused the National guard.
Many more deaths than happened at the congress and those were due to heart attack etc and one lady shot by the police and it was proved that attack was started by Antifa dressed up with American flags and Trump signs. Trump did not encourage this attack which horrified the likes of you whilst you stay silent to the riots looting and murder of BLM.
User avatar
Nuclearblue
 
Posts: 23105
Joined: Sat Nov 28, 2009 9:35 am

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby skidemin » Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:31 pm

Bobby banks wrote:
ealing_ayatollah wrote:
Bobby banks wrote:Ted Cruz would win the competition to find the world's most spineless man. He whimpered to a man who made disgusting comments about his wife and blackened his dead fathers name. Cruz is unfit to run for any type of government office.

https://www.showbiz411.com/2018/04/19/s ... assination


Or alternatively, maybe he's putting the good of the people he is elected to serve above the petty bickering that passes for politics these days.

“The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally – not a 20 percent traitor.”
— Ronald Reagan


Nothing to do with the greater good. The mans a coward.


https://news.yahoo.com/ted-cruz-is-just ... 07266.html



not really an unbiased piece...
skidemin
 
Posts: 4703
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 7:45 pm

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby skidemin » Mon Feb 15, 2021 5:32 pm

CCFCJosh75 wrote:
englishbluebird wrote:I wonder how many accounts this Josh kid has :lol:

Just the 1, I don't care enough about you to create another.



:laughing5: :laughing5: :laughing5: :laughing5:
skidemin
 
Posts: 4703
Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2020 7:45 pm

Re: DONALD TRUMP defies the ESTABLISHMENT again...

Postby Jock » Mon Feb 15, 2021 6:25 pm

CCFCJosh75 wrote:
ealing_ayatollah wrote:

CCFCJosh75 wrote:I don't really pay any attention to what they say so have quickly looked it up.

In fairness, maybe you should pay more attention to both sides because if you are going to hold one side of the political aisle to a fairly extreme standard, then it is only fair to apply that on an equal basis and if you're not paying attention to one side that's not really possible.

CCFCJosh75 wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but AOC said "we need rapid and real de escalation and we need it now. We cannot descend into the chaos of violence." I'm fine with that statement.

Harris said that it was "critically important" for the PROTESTS to continue. I'm not priti Patel so I do believe protests can happen.

I can't find waters saying anything about riots, the only thing that comes up is when she said to tell Congressmen that they aren't welcome in 2018 after the child detainment camps were revealed.


Kamala Harris reflecting on BLM protests/riots:

"They're not going to stop, they're not going to stop and everyone beware. This is a movement. They're not going to stop before election day in November and they're not going to stop after and everyone should take note of that on both levels. They're not going to let up and they should not."

https://www.air.tv/watch?v=0UyYUVWbQhiJzagCCtI6Jw

Maxine Waters advocating physical harassment of political adversaries:

"Let's make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they're not welcome anymore, anywhere.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJCDe7vdFfw

Ocasio Cortez on why political activism is all about making people uncomfortable:

The thing that critics of activists don’t get is that they tried playing the “polite language” policy game and all it did was make them easier to ignore. It wasn’t until they made folks uncomfortable that there was traction to do ANYTHING even if it wasn’t their full demands.

The whole point of protesting is to make ppl uncomfortable. Activists take that discomfort w/ the status quo & advocate for concrete policy changes. Popular support often starts small & grows. To folks who complain protest demands make others uncomfortable... that’s the point.


https://twitter.com/aoc/status/13341846 ... 80?lang=en



By your standards, not mine, any and each of these could be seen as a veiled threat and a call to incitement.

Certainly, each is an example of legitimising and thus normalising political violence. The problem is you (not you specifically talking in general) cannot support political violence on one side and then denounce it on the other without showing yourself up to be a partisan hypocrite with a complete lack of conviction in your beliefs.

To put put the context back in your own (slightly edited) words:

Imagine being in a crowd of passionate ANTIFA or BLM 'protestors' hearing that and a lot more (that was just some selections off the top of my head) standing outside the building where all the "fascists" were. Can you see why that might have riled them to burn down the homes of hardworking and completely innocent members of the local community whose only crime was to have achieved something and been in the wrong place at the wrong time?


Personally, I'll hold the same moral line for the Demns as I do for Trump and and would say that of course none of these is incitement, it is politicians doing what politicians do in use hyperbolic and bombastic rhetoric. There is a degree of common sense that should be applied and we all have our own agency and sense of responsibility to not burn, loot, murder and riot.

All I ask is others be equally consistent in their logic as well :thumbup:


Firstly, I don't think I'm on an extreme side of American politics. I just disagree that trump is a god like some on here. I'm also not bothered about the health secretary of Canada, the sports minister of France, or the home Secretary of Benin.

Secondly: this movement won't stop, tell people you're not welcome, or saying protesting should make people uncomfortable has nothing to do with violence let alone riots. They aren't even in the same ballpark as each other.

Nobody on here thinks Trump is a God and you forgot to mention Trump told his followers to be peaceful.
Jock
 
Posts: 2796
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2016 7:37 pm

PreviousNext


Return to General Chat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bluebina, Bluebird1949, bowler2177, epping blue, Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], nubbsy, skidemin and 177 guests

Disclaimer :
The views and comments entered in these forums are personal and are not necessarily those of the management of this board.
The management of this board is not responsible for the content of any external internet sites.
cron