Has this thread basically become his constant attempts at defending Trump — Christoffer
who had breeched the barricades and police lines and after pipe bombs had been found. Are you suggesting the actions of these undermanned police wasn't warranted? Do you think it was a legal act to break into the Capitol?
The video appears to show one guy who took a shot to his face, presumably from police shooting from a distance. Again, were the cops unwarranted in doing so? What would you have them do, under the full context of circumstances? (A context you've ignored)?
Are you referring to Stewart Rhodes trial? J6 committee hearings? Please explain what falsehoods came out.
Recall that when violent protesters attacked the whitehouse in 2020, removing barriers and violently harming officers and secret service with bricks and urine, defacing monuments, toppling statues, and the like, the press and politicians sang a different tune. Should the protesters have been shot in the face with pepper balls and concussion grenades thrown at their feet? — NOS4A2
The right to protest does not confer the right to break the law. It is illegal to pass through a barricade erected by police. Everyone fired upon was guilty of that, and they were fired upon because the crowd was moving toward the Capitol, during an official proceding - a proceeding that (it was known) many in the crowd wanted to stop, and there were good reasons to suspect some might have bombs. It was the duty of police to stop the crowd from illegally entering and disrupting the proceeding.If these people were guilty of something, then they might have deserved such treatment. If they weren’t guilty of any such thing, then they didn’t deserve such treatment. Some people were simply exercising their fundamental rights. The suggestion all of the people there were doing something illegal or were associated with a potential pipe-bomber is unwarranted, as was the indiscriminate application of force. — NOS4A2
You have shifted from an allegation the police did wrong to complaining about a perceived double standard in the media and some politicians. Violence, vandalism, and breaking&entering is wrong in all cases - do you agree? The 2020 crowd engaged in those crimes, but they did not break into the White House or disrupt an official proceeding.Recall that when violent protesters attacked the whitehouse in 2020, removing barriers and violently harming officers and secret service with bricks and urine, defacing monuments, toppling statues, and the like, the press and politicians sang a different tune.
100% had crossed the barricades, and it is impossible for the outmanned police to distinguish the violent from the nonviolent. In 2020, tear gas cannisters were thrown into the crowd - was that also inappropriate?they were unwarranted because it is not clear who is or is not guilty of the crimes you imply they have committed.
Yes, I saw it. It wasn't a trial, it was closer to a grand jury proceeding pusuant to an indictment. I'm waiting for you to identify what lies it contained.I am asking about the J6 committee show trial in particular, the one tasked with investigating and informing the public on the matter. Did you see any of this video in the footage that was sewn together by the Hollywood producer, or at any time throughout the hearing?
The right to protest does not confer the right to break the law. It is illegal to pass through a barricade erected by police. Everyone fired upon was guilty of that, and they were fired upon because the crowd was moving toward the Capitol, during an official proceding - a proceeding that (it was known) many in the crowd wanted to stop, and there were good reasons to suspect some might have bombs. It was the duty of police to stop the crowd from illegally entering and disrupting the proceeding.
Undoubtedly, many were just following the crowd- they didn't personally push through the barricades or personally break into the Capitol. But it was nevertheless stupid and dangerous to follow.
You have shifted from an allegation the police did wrong to complaining about a perceived double standard in the media and some politicians. Violence, vandalism, and breaking&entering is wrong in all cases - do you agree? The 2020 crowd engaged in those crimes, but they did not break into the White House or disrupt an official proceeding.
Yes, I saw it. It wasn't a trial, it was closer to a grand jury proceeding pusuant to an indictment. I'm waiting for you to identify what lies it contained.
You omitted the fact that they were fired upon with non-lethal weapons to prevent their entry into the Capitol, that would jeopardize the proceding, and there was a real threat that they could have bombs. They weren't fired upon to stop them protesting.They were fired upon for passing through a barricade erected by police, and for moving toward the capitol during an official proceeding. — NOS4A2
Was it inappropriate to stop people from breaking into the Capitol? You have sidestepped this point. Explain how police could discriminate between those who would be harmful from those who were harmless.I haven't shifted. It is wrong to use force so indiscriminately, especially when those people are only guilty of waving flags and middle fingers. Nothing has changed. — NOS4A2
Sure, worse violence and destruction, but the Capitol situation is unique in that an official proceding required by law to take place on that date was being jeopardized. You treat this as irrelevant, though it was the key point.I'm just making the side point that the entire year prior was filled with far worse violence and destruction, up until and including an attack on the white house — NOS4A2
So you agree the J6 committee told no lies, but you would have liked them to have shown this guy who inadvertantly got hurt by police. The committee was focusing on crimes, but I agree it would have added to the story, implicating Trump's immorality even further. Had he not inflamed his followers with lies (e.g. election was stolen and certification could be prevented) and had he not encouraged them to come to the DC that day, the innocent protestors would not have been hurt. You completely ignore this.my only point that this footage wasn't found in the inquiries,
You omitted the fact that they were fired upon with non-lethal weapons to prevent their entry into the Capitol, that would jeopardize the proceding, and there was a real threat that they could have bombs. They weren't fired upon to stop them protesting.
Was it inappropriate to stop people from breaking into the Capitol? You have sidestepped this point. Explain how police could discriminate between those who would be harmful from those who were harmless.
Sure, worse violence and destruction, but the Capitol situation is unique in that an official proceding required by law to take place on that date was being jeopardized. You treat this as irrelevant, though it was the key point.
So you agree the J6 committee told no lies, but you would have liked them to have shown this guy who inadvertantly got hurt by police. The committee was focusing on crimes, but I agree it would have added to the story, implicating Trump's immorality even further. Had he not inflamed his followers with lies (e.g. election was stolen and certification could be prevented) and had he not encouraged them to come to the DC that day, the innocent protestors would not have been hurt. You completely ignore this.
BTW, police actions were scrutinized and deemed justified. See: Www.gao.gov/assets/gao-22-104829.pdf
That's irrelevant to the police actions at the time. They aren't clairvoyant. There was a credible threat when the actions were taken.You omitted the fact that no one was found with bombs at the riot. So the "real threat" was in fact not real. — NOS4A2
The other situations were different. For example, in the Kavanaugh protests there were maybe a couple hundred protesters banging on the door of the Supreme Court - they didn't break in, and the number was small enough it could be dealt with by arresting them.When protesters stormed the police barriers during the Kavanaugh hearings, and tried to break into the building, they were arrested. When they broke into the Hart Senate building and protested illegally, they were arrested. When Isreal/Gaza protesters got into the Cannon House Office Building and protested there, they were arrested. That sort of enforcement is justified. What they didn't do was fire "less-than-lethal" weapons into the crowd indiscriminately. What they didn't do was shoot an unarmed woman in the neck. — NOS4A2
Here's a quote from a Capitol police officer:It think it is appropriate to stop people from entering the capitol. Go ahead and arrest them. — NOS4A2
It's highly relevant, and it seems that's why you choose to disregard it. It was a key proceeding mandated by law, one that Trump wanted to corrupt (through Pence) or to stop (through the actions of his unthinking minions).Who cares about official proceedings? It's a stupid point. — NOS4A2
Propaganda? I asked you to identify some lies, and you couldn't find any. Important facts were presented. We learned about the role of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, of Rudy's lies, of Trump trying to get the acting AG to lie for him, of Eastman's unconstitutional scheme, and of Trump's pressuring Pence to illegally reject the certified results. It presented an accurate timeline showing Trump's inaction (save for condemning Pence) as the Capitol was broken into. And many more. Your only concern was the fact that there were some presumably innocent people in the crowd that got hurt, while ignoring the context that led to the use of non-lethal force, and ignoring that these innocent people were there based on lies by a man who'd sworn an oath to defend the Constitution.The whole thing was an show trial. I've said this many times. They implicated nothing but their use of public funds to spread propaganda. — NOS4A2
Big surprise: you disregard it because it doesn't fit your preferred narrative. Who would you have wanted to conduct the review? Steve Bannon?The capitol police believed their own actions were justified. Big surprise. — NOS4A2
They apparently lament Trump's being restricted from hurling ad hominem attacks, and feel this unfairly hurts his election chances. — Relativist
The broad legal issue is: are any judicial gag orders constitutional? Trump isn't special.That is a curtailment of free speech — AmadeusD
are any judicial gag orders constitutional? — Relativist
I think there's something inherently wrong with allowing people to be endangered by false and inflammatory public language. — Relativist
Get real. No one's claiming the people making threats are innocent. But it's firmly established that there are people like this who follow Trump. Threats to the people he disparages are inevitable, and Trump surely knows that - so it's irresponsible to inflame them - irrespective of the legality (that's for courts to decide). Consider that Trump could add a disclaimer to every one of his attacks, reminding everyone not to take actions or make threats. Or he could simply remind all his followers to remain law abiding. Instead he's passive, which leads one to suspect he's fine with whatever happens. Reminds me of his 1/6 tweet: "These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long".As usual, it’s Trump’s fault they are getting threats. It has nothing to do with their own behavior. — NOS4A2
a degenerative sub-species of homo erectus. — Benkei
You're groping for something to complain about, since you ignored the substance of what I said. The label "attack" applies to many negative statements a person might make against another. Engeron described it that way: “Personal attacks on members of my court staff are unacceptable, inappropriate and I will not tolerate them in any circumstances.” Have his lawyers objected to that term? My impression is that they're simply arguing that his attacks are protected free speech.Your use of the word “attack” indicates your belief that his criticism is somehow aggressive and violent. — NOS4A2
Has anyone said Trump's "criticism" is violent? I haven't. But I said that it is PREDICTABLY likely to result in violent threats, and Trump is clearly aware:But this specious rhetoric only serves to disguise the truth, namely, that his criticism is non-violent
Non-sequitur. James has been pushing for more blacks and more women in the Democratic party. Such a desire does not entail sexism. Consider: https://www.wsj.com/articles/gop-hopes-to-add-black-lawmakers-to-house-11603892455And sexist, apparently. — NOS4A2
Words are dangerous ... — NOS4A2
The threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within.
You're groping for something to complain about, since you ignored the substance of what I said. The label "attack" applies to many negative statements a person might make against another. Engeron described it that way: “Personal attacks on members of my court staff are unacceptable, inappropriate and I will not tolerate them in any circumstances.” Have his lawyers objected to that term? My impression is that they're simply arguing that his attacks are protected free speech.
As I've said, the courts will have to sort out the Constitutional issues. Perhaps they'll decide Trump has the constitutional right to post inflammatory lies about people. But that has no bearing on the immorality of what he's doing. Why don't you comment on that?
Non-sequitur. James has been pushing for more blacks and more women in the Democratic party. Such a desire does not entail sexism.
they believe him. Do you think these "patriots" will act on his words or not?
You have a lot in common with Trump: you're rebuttals consist of negative adjectives and biased judgment with no facts or logical arguments.The substance of what you said was pure wind. I don't care what Engeron describes. I don't care what the unjust court says. Their arguments are hokum. Of course his criticism is free speech. Their gag order is censorship. — NOS4A2
Are you an expert in Constitutional Law? I'm not, and that's why I simply indicate that the courts will decide that issue. I would certainly PREFER that they consider the consequences of such incindiary speech, but I'll accept what is decided. But as I said, regardless of how the courts will decide - his behavior is immoral. If you disagree that it's immoral, then make a case (for a change. reminder: this is a philosophy forum).There is nothing to comment on. It's complete nonsense. He has a right under the constitution to say whatever he wants, up until the very high bar of "immanent lawless action". No matter how hard they try to say his criticism somehow correlated with someone else's threats, it doesn't matter, they are abridging his human rights. These threats also correlate with the degree to which they are exposed as unjust, petty tyrants and fellow travellers with Trump's political foes. If they were just, fair, and did not violate his rights, I bet they'd get less threats. — NOS4A2
A video of her chanting "too male, too pale, and too stale" doesn't entail (i.e. logically imply) that she's racist. Neither does a desire for more people like her serving in public office. Whether or not someone is truly racist is usually difficult to know, because we can't peek into their heads to understand what they actually believe and what their motivations are. Only when there's a long term pattern of behavior can we discern that, like members of the KKK. I think it's debatable as to whether or not Trump is racist for that same reason, and there's a boatload more questionable comments and actions he's responsible for over the years.Straw man. I did not say her desires for more blacks and more women in the Democratic party entails racism, though it does, and for the same reason desiring more men and whites is racist. She was saying the administration is "too male, too pale, and too stale" which is both racist and sexist. — NOS4A2
Prosecutors with special counsel Jack Smith revealed Tuesday that they have proof an “agent” for Donald Trump tried to cause a riot in Michigan to stop the vote count in the 2020 presidential election.
Smith indicted Trump in August for his role in the January 6 insurrection and other attempts to overturn the presidential election. Smith’s team said in a Tuesday court filing that an unindicted co-conspirator, identified only as “Campaign Employee” sent text messages on November 4, 2020, to an attorney working with Trump’s campaign at the TCF Center in Detroit, where ballots were being counted.
“In the messages, the Campaign Employee encouraged rioting and other methods of obstruction when he learned that the vote count was trending in favor of the defendant’s opponent,” prosecutors said.
Joe Biden won Michigan in 2020 with 50.6 percent of the vote. Trump was just a few percentage points behind.
According to the filing, around the same time the employee sent those messages, “an election official at the TCF Center observed that as Biden began to take the lead, a large number of untrained individuals flooded the TCF Center and began making illegitimate and aggressive challenges to the vote count.” Meanwhile, Trump himself began pushing false claims about the TCF Center.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.