I do agree that routine censorship and the violation of rights might lead to violence, especially in a country like the United States. The premise I disagree with is that the president of the United States incited them to do it.

As for contesting the results of an election, no, violence is not the answer.

The “incitement to insurrection” is a fake, made up crime, like everything the House democrats and their media fellow travellers have been selling since Trump started. It’s unconstitutional because Trump’s speech is protected speech. No investigation, no due process, no defendant allowed to defend himself, just pure show trial in a kangaroo court. As such they are not defending and supporting the constitution, they are violating it, just like they violate their oaths of office.

All of this might make some foreigner drool with glee because he was raised cradle-to-the-grave in some backwoods nanny-state, but in a country that prides itself on freedom this is an utter disaster.

Crystal clear. Thanks again.

The hypothesis does apply to those running the simulation, but the hypothesis isn’t that we are living in a simulation, only that we are almost certainly living in a simulation (or that civilisations are almost certain to not run simulations, either by choice or extinction).

Consider that one person on Earth will be picked at random to receive a prize. For every person “I am almost certain to not win” is true, but someone will nonetheless win. And for every civilisation “I am almost certain to be a simulation (or civilisations are almost certain to not run simulations)” is true, but that allows that there could be at least one non-simulation.

Thanks for the clarification. But why wouldn’t the hypothesis apply to those running the simulation?

I don't understand how he can condemn a violent insurrection, considering the will of the people was subverted when the election, which wasn't even close, was stolen. Isn't democracy worth dying for?

Or maybe he's full of shit, never actually believing the election was stolen, but never anticipating the rabble he was rousing would nut up and cost him all his influence, so now he's trying a new approach. It apparently is working with you, so good for him.

Was Democracy worth dying for when Stacy Abrahms or Elizabeth Warren or Al Gore said the election was stolen? Was it worth dying for when we were told for years that the president was a manchurian candidate? Was Clinton or Carter guilty of inciting violence, or some other species of malicious action, when they said the president was illegitimate or installed by Russia? The answer is no. Sorry, I still don't see how anyone can come to the conclusion that violence is the answer.

He never invited any such thing, and has always called for law and order, so anyone not burying their face in anti-Trump laps might come to a different conclusion.

I don’t understand, how did he publish that video? I thought the radical left muzzled the mad king.

I've heard that argument going around. It's kind of like saying that because Lenny Bruce could still do comedy shows he was never censored.

In fact you are really the one suffering from Trump derangement syndrome. If you have the President constantly, repeatedly lying that the election would be and was stolen, the logical conclusion of those who truly believed him would be to storm the Capital. Perhaps you cannot see the long obvious reason why it has come to this, but you can easily see it with Trump supporters starting to carry last year guns quite openly in demonstrations. That's a telling sign that the country was going to more like Weimar Germany or Yugoslavia before it's breakup.

I don’t care what is normal or not. There is no strand of chewing gum connecting Trump’s election claims and fiery rhetoric to any violence, and in fact these strange conclusions contradict anything else he has said on the matter of violent protest and riots, which he has opposed throughout the entirety of his term.

I do see why it has come to this. No rally goer or protester would need to carry guns and to wear riot gear to protest if they weren’t routinely set upon by violent mobs of delusional soy drinkers. No citizen would need to stock up on weaponry if his business wasn’t burned to the ground, or if some Antifa pedophile didn’t seize entire blocks of their city. No patriot would need to exercise 2nd amendment rights if he wasn’t locked down by state order, only to find out that those who made the order are allowed to flout their very own rules. Trump isn’t telling them to do any of this.

That was an opinion poll. It has nothing to do with elections or how people voted. So I’m not sure of your point.

The House has certainly proven its disregard for the rule of law and the United States constitution, and thus their oaths. The article of impeachment is contrary to the 1st amendment of the constitution, does not pass the test of “immanent lawless action”, and thus does not raise to “incitement” according to any American law. In other words, they are impeaching him based on something they made up, a clear weaponization and abuse of power.

Again, all evidence of “incitement” comes from that stuff in your skull, or worse, propaganda. That it closely resembles the Democrat’s articles of impeachment is no comfort.

Some may have came to the same perverse “logical conclusion” of yours, I admit, but to believe Trump is guilty for making you come to those conclusions, or in the protester’s case, to come to those conclusions and storm Congress, then that is something you’ll have to prove from evidence outside of your skull. It’s just that simple.

It’s “problematic” to have someone who espoused racist pseudoscience lead the civil rights division. The appeals to hypocrisy only confirm that your principles, if you had any, move like a windsock.

What do Britons think of the “health passport” idea? Could it pose an ethical concern, for instance if it is used to discriminate?

Thousands of Britons who have received their coronavirus vaccine are set to be offered a health passport as part of a government-funded trial taking place this month.

https://archive.is/SUIHK

It seems to me that if Bostrum’s hypothesis applies to us, it must also apply to those running the simulation, and so on to infinity. It’s simulations all the way down.

Why would you care?

A woman in Texas was just arrested for voter fraud. Yikes.

Rodriguez is accused of election fraud, illegal voting, unlawfully assisting people voting by mail and unlawfully possessing an official ballot, according to Paxton. She could face up to 20 years in prison if she is convicted.

https://dfw.cbslocal.com/2021/01/13/rachel-rodriguez-arrested-alleged-election-fraud-illegal-voting-texas/

These are things they cannot explain. They can only explain it away.

The President just got busted inciting peace and calm.

In light of reports of more demonstrations, I urge that there must be NO violence, NO lawbreaking and NO vandalism of any kind. That is not what I stand for, and it is not what America stands for. I call on ALL Americans to help ease tensions and calm tempers. Thank You.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/statement-from-the-president-011321/

Do you think it’s OK for the the assistant attorney general of the civil rights division to have held, at any point in their lives, beliefs of racial supremacy?

That’s all she is to you, eh? “some black people”?

She’s the Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights division.

Here more of what she wrote:

"Please use the following theories and observations to assist you in your search for truth regarding the genetic differences between Blacks and whites [sic]," Clarke wrote. "One: Dr Richard King reveals that the core of the human brain is the 'locus coeruleus,' which is a structure that is Black, because it contains large amounts of neuro-melanin, which is essential for its operation.

"Two: Black infants sit, crawl and walk sooner than whites [sic]. Three: Carol Barnes notes that human mental processes are controlled by melanin -- that same chemical which gives Blacks their superior physical and mental abilities.

"Four: Some scientists have revealed that most whites [sic] are unable to produce melanin because their pineal glands are often calcified or non-functioning. Pineal calcification rates with Africans are five to 15 percent [sic], Asians 15 to 25 percent [sic] and Europeans 60 to 80 percent [sic]. This is the chemical basis for the cultural differences between blacks and whites [sic].

"Five: Melanin endows Blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities -- something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards."

What principle would that be? The presumption of innocence?

What? You believe that pseudoscience? Figures.

You should see Biden’s pick for Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, Kristen Clarke. Early writings reveal her to be a legit racial supremacist in her younger days.

BSA President Kristen Clarke '97 wasn't here for the Jeffries lecture. But in a letter to the editors of The Crimson, Clarke made a series of assertions cerily reminiscent of the CUNY professor's racist theories. Among them, was the following: "Melanin endows Blacks with greater mental, physical and spiritual abilities--something which cannot be measured based on Eurocentric standards."

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1994/11/4/clarke-should-retract-statements-pbtbwo-years/

Sick shit.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-kristen-clarke-doj-civil-rights-division

It’s been tried many times before. But times are strange.

So the true purpose/meaning of America is to have an electoral college? I'm curious as to how you would rationalize that America evaporates with the electoral college...

Do you mean to say that since the Democrats would foreseeably win the next few election cycles, the sky would fall? Are you just making a partisan quip with no supporting argument or premise?

It is my view that this is a precursor of things to come.

The Electoral College is a pivotal part of the Madisonian model, which shouldn’t be altered on some whim, apparently, because the development of mass media and the internet makes it easy to research the candidates...this from the party that arguably controls most mass media and the internet.

I prefer the electoral college simply because no one region contains the absolute majority of electoral votes required to elect a president.

Nancy Pelosi appointed Eric Swalwell as Impeachment Manager.

Swalwell was proven just a month ago to have relations with a CCP spy, and has since spent the remainder of his time trying to nullify a certain presidency.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/12/11/what-we-know-about-rep-eric-swalwells-ties-an-alleged-chinese-spy/

House Dems move to amend the constitution and abolish the electoral college. Goodbye America

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-joint-resolution/14/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hj+res+14%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=1

Trump about to speak after days of silence:

For fucks sake....

Oh yes, when nobody publicly says that they are going to attempt an insurrection tomorrow, it obviously wasn't an insurrection! Rhe storming of the Capitol Hill was a logical and obvious consequence to all the bullshit perpetrated earlier by Trump & the gang. It's no surprise that people who believe in Q-Anon bullshit do take these things seriously... when it's the biggest scam in history.

For example, the ex-Tweeter in Chief did tweet things like this one from last year December 26th:

I’m not saying that nobody planned an insurrection, I’m saying that Trump didn’t plan or incite one. I would even say there were elements that had insurrection in mind, and they should be punished accordingly. I get why you’d try to misrepresent my point but I’m not going to fall for it myself. The president calling for a protest is one thing, but calling for or inciting an insurrection is quite another, especially in the land of the 1st amendment. Blaming him for the actions of others will require more evidence.

Trump has been unequivocal about riots and law and order, before and after the riot at Capitol Hill. Trump was often criticized for being too hard on protesters, for instance on those who for days laid siege to the Whitehouse in the summer. (Trump’s opponents went so far as to pretend he did it for a photo op, even though the DOJ’s plan to push back protesters occurred long before any discussion of Trump leaving the Whitehouse).

So if your logical conclusion to Trump’s claims is violent insurrection, then you’re thinking like the very same nutters who sought insurrection at the Capitol Hill.

The big problem is there is no evidence of any plan for violent insurrection. We don’t even need to pick and choose disparate and ambiguous words from an hour long speech to make the case because he was quite explicit about plan C: “We’re going walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators, and congressmen and women”.

Might he be lying and, unbeknownst to everyone but a bunch of Q-tards, plotting a violent insurrection? It’s certainly possible. And frankly, I don’t blame people for believing it. The media has been pumping that sort of conspiracy theory for quite some time, so it’s no wonder that both Trump’s opponents and some of his supporters have come to believe it. Up until the rally the media was running with the conspiracy theory that he’d evoke martial law or the insurrection act. So it’s no surprise that some showed up for battle. What the media never showed was Trump’s explicit desire to do it legally and according to the constitution, which is his right, and which many have done before him. Perhaps if they did, there would be no such violence.

Like I said, criminals who are proficient liars will be allowed to go unpunished, if we allow intention to be substituted with ignorance. Notice your quoted statement indicates absolutely nothing about Trump's intentions, so it provides no argument for a lack of intent. It's only a statement about what he claims to know about the intent of others. And we know he's a proficient liar. So his claimed ignorance of the intent of the others is nothing but a lie intended to substitute intent with ignorance.

Donald Trump said he wanted to contest the results legally and peacefully. Not only that, but he has been quite opposed to riots, violence and vandalism for the entirety of his presidency. There is zero evidence he wanted any violence or riot or insurrection to occur. His speech is protected by the 1st amendment, and does not rise to the level of “immanent lawless action”.

See the simple fact? He did not tell the participants at the rally, that there was nothing short of insurrection which could be done now, and advise them to go home in peace. No, he riled up their anger and frustration and told them to march to the capitol and fight. He might claim that he had no intent because he was truly ignorant, but criminal law does not allow you to substitute intent with ignorance because it would be a loophole allowing criminals who are proficient liars, to go unpunished.

“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6

It’s an NBC-affiliated local news site from Salt Lake City. You guess wrong.

I don’t believe Antifa had anything to do with the capitol riots.

Here’s another.

Sullivan, who is the founder of Insurgence USA, a social justice group that calls itself anti-fascist and protests police brutality, was detained by Washington police for about an hour and a half Thursday night, a day after he talked to local and national media about what he witnessed Wednesday.

https://www.ksl.com/article/50083768/utah-activist-inside-us-capitol-says-woman-killed-was-first-to-try-and-enter-house-chamber

I said I wouldn’t doubt it. Nonetheless, at least one man was arrested for weapons charges, and of course let go.

https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2021/01/08/prosecutors-wont-proceed-charges-against-michigan-woman-arrested-capitol-storming/6602945002/

You're right. I should have limited my comments to the state of conservatism in the U.S. Here, it seems, we're witnessing a sort of rebirth of the views held by the John Birch Society, which was once denounced by conservatives.

The fate of conservatism is to be dragged in a direction not of its own choosing. The tug of war between conservatives and progressives can only affect the speed, not the direction, of politics. Because they cannot alter change, and due to a fondness for authority and order, conservatives are often the hand-maiden of socialism, insofar as compromises and appeasement have led to greater state control (See Bismarck and the foundation of the modern welfare state). This control has not only served to hinder the rise of socialism, but also any path to liberty.

Or Trump has been removed or will resign. I guess we’ll find out tonight.

Very odd. But the time stamp keeps changing each time you refresh the page.

Of course it’s a assumption, as are yours. That’s what happens when you try to predict the future.

But I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. I don’t think these people are smart enough to coordinate anything so grand. Rather, I believe they are unhinged, drunk on their own conspiracy theories, as they have been for the last 5 years. Just as they are silly enough to impeach a president for made up crimes, to propel a anti-Russian hoax around the world, to impeach him in the last days of his presidency, they are silly enough to criminalize his supporters. That’s not a stretch of the imagination.

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin to reintroduce Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act

If you don’t want to discuss the point, it’s fine, but disguising it under righteous indignation is hilarious. It’s catharsis all the way down.

Again, I’m not talking about Trump’s version of “fake news”. Over your head and under your knees, I suppose.

False, I can read. I am talking about the “fake news” as a pretext for censorship.