Sorry, I still don't see how anyone can come to the conclusion that violence is the answer. — NOS4A2

Violence is rarely THE answer. However violence is frequently a symptom of a greater underlying problem. People like to think that their perspective is the correct one, therefore, if I vote for "Bob" because Bob is awesome and has all the answers, it seems shocking when not Bob wins the election. It suggests that: A) I am wrong, and Bob isn't that great (which makes people uncomfortable, because they don't want to be wrong) B) That everyone that didn't vote for Bob is either confused or part of some secret agenda to keep me down, or C) Bob actually won (because I really, really wanted him to) and there is a conspiracy afoot to keep Bob down.

People like to pick a winner. If people knew that the person they voted for would not get in, would they still cast their vote for them, or would they vote in the winner, since the outcome is already known? I vote for whoever most closely reflects my values, knowing that they won't get in, but I don't know many people who will knowingly give their vote to a lost cause.

Violence is used as strong demand for attention. Those who feel unheard, or overlooked, or worse, mandated by social pressure to be silent, despite their valid concerns, can always turn to violence as a form of self, and political, expression. My voice may be silenced on social media thanks to censors, my voice may be silenced by those around me who, rather than listen with an open ear, instantly relegate my opinion to some "ist" or other, simply because I present an alternate view point. However, eventually, I will get tired of trying to use my voice to be heard and will elect to use the fist, or club, or whatever, to get the point across.

I am not supporting violence, I am understanding of how it comes about. I support listening to people, I find I learn a lot that way. The best way to raise people to violence: overlook them and trivialize them.

Trump should have gracefully accepted defeat, however, as he has done nothing grace related that I can recall, perhaps that was beyond his capability.

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. . — NOS4A2

Actually you don't see it. Your partisanship just blinds you, just like many of the ranting leftists here, who eagerly go with the flow and embrace the polarization and see this as a great wonderful struggle. The inability to look the situation objectively is here the key. Sure, there have always been a tense relation between the right and the left, but typically the fringes have been viewed as clowns and eccentric losers. The playing field has just been tense political discourse, but not extra-parliamentary action in the US. Neonazis were a joke just as were the leftist revolutionaries. Yet now the fringes have changed to be something sinister and dangerous, which just feeds the polarization and increases their popularity and the popularity to oppose them violently. And people are enthusiastic about their side, fighting for the right cause. That Americans staunchly walk under various kinds of flags is direct sign of deep polarization.

Various flags, red and black...



Perhaps it's just been such a gradual descent or that you haven't noticed it how it has change. Since the time of Bill Clinton there has been ferocious political culture of mudslinging and vitriolic accusations that has been used to rally the base. And it has worked. With Trump this type of rouse to a new level. Add then the fact how the social media has created separate echo chambers. Then take into account the recession brought down by the pandemic.

So the end result...

So tell me how is it possible that the most admired man in America (according to a Gallup poll) had fewer votes than Joe Blow, who couldn't bring fifty people together at a rally? — Rafaella Leon

These are things they cannot explain. They can only explain it away. — NOS4A2

Isn't this argument amazing? Simply stupendous! I hear the Flat Earth Society is recruiting members and looking for donations. You two would probably fit right in. Go for it!

If that's the sort of logic which is capable of inciting violent uprising, God help us. Bring on the revolution! Let the animals roam freely. Anarchy is inevitable.

:lol:

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.

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. — NOS4A2

Why disregard for the rule of law? You seem to equate impeachment with a criminal trial, but it is not. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not to be understood in the sense of criminal law doctrine as pertaining to a certain set of defined crimes. High crimes and misdemeanors denotes a rather nebulous category of behaviors that are unbecoming of the executive power. The verdict rendered is also not of a criminal nature. Criminal law sanctions punishment, the inflicting of suffering on the person convicted. The aim of impeachment is not to punish, it is to remove from office because the person concerned is considered to behave inappropriately, or overstepping the boundaries of his powers. Since there is no punishment in play there is no need for the strict legal protection for suspects under criminal trials such as the lex scripta and lex certa requirements. The same reason actually why Trump is not just by an impartial judge or jury but by the inherently partisan members of the house and senate.

Why disregard for the rule of law? You seem to equate impeachment with a criminal trial, but it is not. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not to be understood in the sense of criminal law doctrine as pertaining to a certain set of defined crimes. High crimes and misdemeanors denotes a rather nebulous category of behaviors that are unbecoming of the executive power. The verdict rendered is also not of a criminal nature. Criminal law sanctions punishment, the inflicting of suffering on the person convicted. The aim of impeachment is not to punish, it is to remove from office because the person concerned is considered to behave inappropriately, or overstepping the boundaries of his powers. Since there is no punishment in play there is no need for the strict legal protection for suspects under criminal trials such as the lex scripta and lex certa requirements. The same reason actually why Trump is not just by an impartial judge or jury but by the inherently partisan members of the house and senate.

I never equated the impeachment with a criminal trial, only with a show trial in a kangaroo court. I understand how impeachment works. My point is that the oath of office requires Congressmen to support and defend the constitution of the United States. So why wouldn’t Congress, those who swear an oath to defend and support the constitution, defend and support the rights of the president instead of violating them?

Instead they invent a nonsensical “high crime” by attempting to criminalize, contra the first amendment, Trump’s speech. Had Trump said something racist or anti-American it might be deemed inappropriate, worthy of impeachment, but he said nothing that violates the bounds of polite discourse, let alone something that rises to the level of high crime and misdemeanor.

So why wouldn’t Congress, those who swear an oath to defend and support the constitution, defend and support the rights of the president instead of violating them? — NOS4A2

But what makes you think the President has such a right? If the president incites a mob to 'march on the capital' and if his personal lawyer utters statements like 'trial by combat', the president is not doing a proper job, i.e., behaving as the president should and accepting the outcome of the democratic process. He should not, express or implied, either by himself or by those he employs, incite his supporters to violence. That is not what a godo president should do. Having a certain right does not reason not mean one is exempt from the consequences of exercising it, in this case, becoming impeached.

by attempting to criminalize, contra the first amendment, Trump’s speech. Had Trump said something racist or anti-American — NOS4A2

Here you go again. It is not even necessary to criminalize his speech. His speech need not be criminal just unqorthy of or unbefitting of the presidential office. I do not see why you would accept 'un-american' as a reason for impeachment and not first amendment protected but you do consider undermining democracy, by the president, to be so protected. I can only conclude you do not find undermining democracy un-american.

but he said nothing that violates the bounds of polite discourse, let alone something that rises to the level of high crime and misdemeanor. — NOS4A2

And why do you think this simple unqualified opinion of yours is correct? Many do find it impeachment worthy and have actually moved towards impeachment. They have seen something different than you did. Now why would we accept your take on 'polite discourse' and not theirs?

His speech is not considered incitement by any American law, state or otherwise. So why would they keep claiming that he incited violence? Same thing with the trite phrase “undermining democracy”. These violations are made up whole cloth, inventions, fantasies, inapplicable to any set of rules or codes of conduct, legal or otherwise, and apparently only the president can be guilty of them. This is arbitrary persecution.

His speech is not considered incitement by any American law, state or otherwise. — NOS4A2

I would say you're very confused, except I know better. You know perfectly well that the insistence on the legal standard for incitement - difficult in itself - is in the case of impeachment irrelevant. And you're using it just as a very smelly red herring you're dragging across the trail.

Now I'm going to do something that's been on my mind for a while. @Baden: I request that on January 20th Nos4a2 for cause be banned forever from this thread, and from the TPF for one week.

Anyone else can second, if they like.

I would say you're very confused, except I know better. You know perfectly well that the insistence on the legal standard for incitement - difficult in itself - is in the case of impeachment irrelevant. And you're using it just as a very smelly red herring you're dragging across the trail.

It's not a violation of anything save for the whims and fantasies of the opposition. They might as well impeach him for being a shade of orange. The constitution is not irrelevant when it comes to those who swear an oath to support and defend it.

His speech is not considered incitement by any American law, state or otherwise. — NOS4A2

...Until it would be an Ocazio-Cortez using exactly similar rhetoric talking to the BLM or some Black block.

Then it's TOTALLY DIFFERENT!!! :grin:

...Until it would be an Ocazio-Cortez using exactly similar rhetoric talking to the BLM or some Black block.

Then it's TOTALLY DIFFERENT!!!

It would be nice if they applied their arbitrary standards to everyone. But convicting opponents of that which they are themselves guilty seems to be the going rate.

It's not a violation of anything save for the whims and fantasies of the opposition. They might as well impeach him for being a shade of orange. The constitution is not irrelevant when it comes to those who swear an oath to support and defend it. — NOS4A2

Which Trump violated. As to the whims and fantasies, absolutely. Did you not understand this? Do you not understand this? Congress can impeach and remove for any reason it wants. Failure to grasp this means you do not understand the process at all. A tincture of law is nice, but unnecessary. More likely, though, you're just a mouse running from corner to corner, picking up the arguments again you have just dropped and recycling them, but they're worn out, threadbare, seams showing and splitting.

Do you not understand this? Congress can impeach and remove for any reason it wants. — tim wood

They can only impeached and removed for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

What is meant by “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” isn’t clear, although it certainly can’t be equated with crime in the normal sense of the word, so there’s some degree of freedom there.

Which Trump violated. As to the whims and fantasies, absolutely. Did you not understand this? Do you not understand this? Congress can impeach and remove for any reason it wants. Failure to grasp this means you do not understand the process at all. A tincture of law is nice, but unnecessary. More likely, though, you're just a mouse running from corner to corner, picking up the arguments again you have just dropped and recycling them, but they're worn out, threadbare, seams showing and splitting.

And in Sudan girls can marry at age 10. That doesn't mean it is right or that these girls' rights are not violated. No one is saying that Congress cannot impeach someone for whatever they like. My argument is that they shouldn't.

What is meant by “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” isn’t clear, although it certainly can’t be equated with crime in the normal sense of the word, so there’s some degree of freedom there. — Michael

Looking into it more, as per Chief Justice Marshall’s ruling in 1807, technical language in the Constitution should be understood to mean what it meant in British law at the time, where “high crimes and misdemeanours” included such things as “misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, etc.”¹ It’s generally understood to refer to misconduct, so it’s quite open.

¹ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors

It would be nice if they applied their arbitrary standards to everyone. — NOS4A2

It would be nice if you applied your arbitrary standards to everyone.

But I guess Americans look at an event and then decide if their role is either to be the defense attorney or the prosecutor based on their political tribe. And naturally deny this and say that they objectively judge what has happened.

Would this count as a high crime/misdemeanor, going by the definition (per ), or is that not the spirit of the law?

Trump has stated multiple times that he lost the election due to fraud, a punishable crime.
Trump has not prosecuted anyone for that.
Or established that to be the case, which would be a prerequisite for prosecution.
Trump has a legal apparatus at his fingertips and resources to thoroughly investigate.

I guess simply lying may not be a high crime/misdemeanor.

Jesus, the guy really is an idiot. — Kenosha Kid

Yes. Put NOS in post-war Germany and he would have been equivocating about Hitler for years. Must be like playing whack-a-mole for bad apologetics.

But of course it's YOU who are the brainwashed one. :lol:

No one is saying that Congress cannot impeach someone for whatever they like. — NOS4A2

Yes. Like incitement, which is what Trump did -- in reality. Of which we know you're allergic.

All of this might make some foreigner drool with glee — NOS4A2

You mean seeing a bunch of Trump supporters, incited by Trump, sacking the Capitol building? Or watching degenerates like you equivocate about it?

I agree.

How long before all these “soulful” corporations reneg on their pledge not to fund republican election objectors?

No one is saying that Congress cannot impeach someone for whatever they like. My argument is that they shouldn't. — NOS4A2

Then you supply the standard. And I buy the notion that a sitting president has some protections, but which disappear when he's out.

The degree of honour and integrity in the White House has waxed and waned across 230 years, but there has always been enough. But imo with Nixon, Reagan, and the Bushes, the bottom was falling out. With Trump, of course, and with Republicans in general along the same timeline, none, no bottom. .

Most folks presuppose at least some honour and integrity with the people they deal with, and it is difficult to adjust to dealing with scum. But with scum, no warning, no hesitation, they're enemies.

Present circumstances provide a good test as to the resilience of US democracy. It's taken a bad knock from an appalling administration, but the recent court decisions, made despite the bias in appointment of SCOTUS judges, combined with the state-led responses to COVID and to pressure from the Executive to undermine votes... the system looks set to bounce back, which is pleasing.

His speech is not considered incitement by any American law, state or otherwise. So why would they keep claiming that he incited violence? — NOS4A2

There's still the matter of the false pretense for you to come to grips with. This is the claim that the election was fraudulently stolen. It is precisely this claim, and nothing else, which incited the violence. And, it was the president who keep repeating this claim over and over again, countless times.

So, are you ready to demonstrate either that it was not this claim, made by the president, which incited the violence, or, that the claim was not a false pretense? Until you do, you're just blowing smoke, and the president is obviously guilty of inciting the violence.

So, are you ready to demonstrate either that it was not this claim, made by the president, which incited the violence, or, that the claim was not a false pretense? Until you do, you're just blowing smoke, and the president is obviously guilty of inciting the violence. — Metaphysician Undercover

You have to separate the President inspiring an insurrection from him inciting one. I don't think his rally speech is solid evidence. The insurrectionists turned up armed and prepared. People had ordered weaponry and armour online for the event, and had organised on platforms like WhatsApp and Parler.

You have to separate the President inspiring an insurrection from him inciting one. I don't think his rally speech is solid evidence. — Kenosha Kid

That's a mighty fine line to draw, between "incite" and "inspire". The inciteful, or inspirational (however you want to say it) activity was the false pretense of a stolen election. And that had been going on for months, so there was preparations made for the event. The event was carried out under the false pretense of a stolen election, a false pretense which the president perpetrated, propagated, and perpetuated.

It's funny how all these god-fearing people want to go back to that golden age of civility and harmony and yet they're talking about killing politicians, protesters and journalists for not much else than having a different opinion.

That's a mighty fine line to draw, between "incite" and "inspire". — Metaphysician Undercover

Not at all. If I incite someone, that's a teleological action on my part, irrespective of its consequences. If I inspire someone, that's an interpretation on their part.

The inciteful, or inspirational (however you want to say it) activity was the false pretense of a stolen election. And that had been going on for months, so there was preparations made for the event. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, and I think that'll have to be the crux of the matter: Did Donald do what Donald did in order to set up a violent insurrection by his supporters in the Capitol? And the answer ought to be that this cannot be established, further is unlikely to be the case.

Trump thrives on attention and adoration. He lives for it. He's a moron and a narcissist, which 100% explains his actions. He lost an election to a corpse, so he has to rationalise that both for himself and his millions of cult followers. So naturally it was a fraudulent election.

The impeachment is floating a very different version of Trump, one who is blessed with understanding of others and the cunning to use this to deliberately guide his mob into violent insurrection without ever explicitly stating that this is what he wants: Trump as master manipulator, shadowy Bond villain, astute strategist and a man of subtle means. That isn't Trump. He has none of those qualities. And yet if we wish to convict him on the impeachment charges, in the absence of an overt call to arms, we have to pretend that is what Trump is.

Incitement is what Rudy did: "trial by combat".