Biden broke his own mask mandate on the first day. Rules for thee but not for me. Get used to it.

https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-mask-mandate-lincoln-memorial-1563657

We’ve been told for days to suspect violent outbursts in the capitols of all states, and that this is the reason for Joe Xiden’s inauguration, which looked more like a military instillation.

The soldiers were first subjected to ideological purity tests, some sent home for “inappropriate texts” and “ties to far-right militia groups”. Then the soldiers were virtually discarded after Pelosi’s fantasies were proven stupid.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2021/01/22/national-guard-troops-moved-to-a-cramped-parking-garage-complain-of-ingratitude-after-being-ordered-to-bug-out-of-capitol-building-they-came-to-protect/

A sign of things to come.

That figures.

Frank’s snivelling has only increased.

It has nothing to do with Trump.

Health mandates are left to the states for a reason.

Terrible move. America’s downfall is occurring at a frightening pace.

It’s a joke, idiot. Keep your panties dry.

Damn. 4000 died of covid on Biden’s first day. That’s more than 911.

It’s a perverted idea of justice you have there. What you describe is persecution, the very reason for the 4th amendment.

What crimes?

If it's not hysterics, and is justified. But speaking just for myself, there is anger and rage - but nothing hysterical about it. Your man needs to face justice. And a good chance he does not survive the process.

Justice for what, Tim?

I'm curious as to how you will go about signalling your virtue.

Wear your MAGA hat around and find out yourself.

(Btw, did hostility towards Hillary Clinton persist after the 2016 elections among the Trump crowd?)

Well, I think the idea that Trump should be impeached and persecuted after he has already left office is a good indication of what I am speaking of. How else could you justify the years of hysterics without following it to the bitter end? I fear it will continue until the man is in the grave.

I’m not claiming your for or against this or that model, nor am I making any assumptions about your ethos. My only claim is that if there was no disagreement and polarization there would be no politics. As you intimated, that way leads necessarily to fanaticism, as we have seen in societies that strictly forbid this or that opposing ideology.

Well, I'm all for pluralism, but that "polarization clarifies things" runs directly contrary to the general sentiment of this post, which you have claimed to be in agreement with.

I agree with the notion of "open dialogue". I disagree that "open dialogue" should entail consensus and unity. That, to me, always leads to "closed dialogue".

I've just posted this thread and another about the text by Karl Marx which includes the statement, "Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.", and, so, am not really one to make such a critique, but I think that there could be an inherent contradiction to your line of reasoning there.

What is the contradiction? My point is that politics requires some sort of dialectic in order to be considered politics. This is debatable depending on your definition of politics, but It seems to me that political unity or consensus is a contradiction in terms, and is not politics at all.

Nicely said. Censoring political opponents and always seeking political consensus is a process of diminishing returns. Above all, one should be a pluralist when it comes to politics because if there was no disagreement there would be no politics at all. Polarization clarifies things.

Our Virtual President

Like his hairline, his teeth, his military career, and his campaign, Biden’s inauguration was a virtual one.

Trump’s reign is officially over. But will the anti-Trumpism persist? What will the hysterical masses do without the winds of Trump directing their moral weathervane?

I think of those who acquire and retain more than they could possibly need as being similar to gluttons and hoarders ("misers" may be more accurate, though, as hoarders may suffer from mental disease). I see nothing admirable about them, just as I see nothing admirable in gluttony or hoarding. Where resources are limited, those who accumulate them and retain them when they already have more than enough for their comfort and security and that of their families are merely selfish.

I would feel the same way if they were hoarding limited resources, but not necessarily for wealth, which is what I thought we were writing about.

FBI vetting Guard troops in DC amid fears of insider attack

Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy told The Associated Press on Sunday that officials are conscious of the potential threat, and he warned commanders to be on the lookout for any problems within their ranks as the inauguration approaches. So far, however, he and other leaders say they have seen no evidence of any threats, and officials said the vetting hadn’t flagged any issues that they were aware of.

Biden is scared of his own troops, so a fawning FBI is purging them of anyone who may have ties to militia groups. Perhaps these officials have also been duped by the conspiracy theory that the previous president would use the military to stage some sort of coup, or that there would be some sort of insurrection. In any case, a massive army exists in Washington to ease the fears of an administration duped by the media.

Now the entire capitol is on lockdown, complete with fences and razor wire. This is a far cry from what we saw in the summer, when Washington was actually on fire.

Still waiting on this huge uprising. The seer ssu keeps promising me more violence. Or, like everyone else, he was duped.

What do you think of the inordinate desire to acquire or possess more than one needs, especially with respect to material wealth?

If it occurs through mutual contract I can respect it. If it is stolen my blood boils.

What do you think about it?

Rioters stormed Trump’s inauguration. Imagine the optics had he employed American soldiers to maintain law and order in the nation’s capitol. We don’t even need to imagine it; he was called a fascist dictator for even suggesting it as violent rioters tried to breach the Whitehouse fence.

If it was a choice there would be no punishment for refusing to do it. A better phrase might be “collective coercion”.

No I don’t believe in theft, whether it is legal or not. My conscience forbids me from coercing some to give their wealth to others. I do believe, however, in charity, philanthropy, and willingly helping others in need.

There are now more soldiers protecting Biden’s virtual inauguration than there are in Iraq and Afghanistan—and this for the most popular candidate of all time. Washington looks like a green zone in some war-torn country. The FBI are vetting the soldiers, perhaps in case one has anti-Biden motives or some other version of wrong-think. Dems even introduced a bill so they could erect a fence around the capitol.

Washington resembles East Germany. This is what our new government thinks of its subjects.

The myth is that the government should supply safety nets, and not the community. Nanny-statists prefer government safety nets because it absolves them from having to create and sustain their own. Advocacy, then, becomes a way of insulating oneself from the poor in ones own community, but at the same time it can only accrue power in the State while they steal it it from the hands of the people. If you believe the State was formed from conquest and coercion rather than a social contract this is not a happy outcome.

US takes back its assertion that Capitol rioters wanted to 'capture and assassinate' officials

Falsehood flies, and the Truth comes limping after it

Given that impeachment is not a matter of criminal law, the reasonable person test is irrelevant. All that matters is the congressman/senator test.

It wouldn't be a miscarriage of truth to admit that Trump spent almost an entire year rabble-rousing and spreading false rumours about voter fraud in a way that both undermined American democracy and also fuelled violent unrest. There's no need for quote mining or trying to cite legal precedent; "high crimes and misdemeanours" is so vague that it could refer to anything, and the way Trump pointed a rally/protest/whatever at the capitol building during electoral proceedings can certainly pass for both.

Regarding the "incitement of insurrection" charge, if the senators believe what happened at the capitol can be called an insurrection, and if they believe Trump incited it to some or any degree, then they could call it a high crime and impeach him for it, and it would be just execution of the US constitution.

Politicians have and will contest the election results and express doubt about the winner, as is their right. Elizabeth Warren, Hilary Clinton, Al Gore, Stacy Abrahms have all done it. Hell, we had to put up with the nonsense of Russian collusion for years, and people like Jimmy Carter saying Trump is illegitimate. That's why I treat these claims with utter suspicion. No amount of glittering generalities such as "undermining our democracy" are persuasive, even as propaganda. The ability to contest election results, to express doubt, and to share with others those beliefs is a feature of democracy. Criminalizing and censoring that doubt is undemocratic.

Yes, Congress can invent "high crimes and misdemeanors" at their whim and fancy and impeach their opponents for it while absolving themselves of the same crime. They have already done it. My contention is that it is wrong and sets a dangerous precedent.

Louis Gomert recently quoted Nancy Pelosi talking about "uprisings" and calling Trump an "enemy of the state" on the House floor. Journalists were actually complaining that he was inciting violence. This is peak clown world. These nutters have lost their minds.

"Criminal negligence" is completely irrelevant. It is not mentioned in any articles of impeachment. The article of impeachment is "incitement of insurrection".



Let's use real quotes. For instance, if one reads Trump's speech he can see that Trump uses the word "fight" in a figurative manner throughout. For example:

"We have great ones, Jim Jordan, and some of these guys. They’re out there fighting the House. Guys are fighting, but it’s incredible."

Does a reasonable person conclude that Trump thinks Jim Jordan is actually getting in fist fights on the House floor?

Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It’s like a boxer, and we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. We’re going to have to fight much harder and Mike Pence is going to have to come through for us.

Does a reasonable person conclude that Trump believes Republicans are boxing in the house?

But it used to be that they’d argue with me, I’d fight. So I’d fight, they’d fight. I’d fight, they’d fight. Boop-boop. You’d believe me, you’d believe them. Somebody comes out. They had their point of view, I had my point of view.

Does a reasonable person conclude that Trump is talking about fist fighting with the press?

Yet the following phrase is used in the articles of impeachment as evidence Trump incited insurrection:

"We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore"

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

Does this pass the reasonable person test?

Because reasonable people such as yourself take his use of the word "fight" to mean actual fights, actual trial by combat, I think the "reasonable person standard" does not apply here.

Again, the standard for incitement to violence in law is "immanent lawless action". Congress uses the similar phrase "lawless action" in the articles (minus the word "immanent") hinting that they are in fact alluding to the Supreme court standard "immanent lawless action". I'm not sure why they leave out a very important part of Supreme court precedent, but my guess is that it is a specious attempt to tie much earlier speech to later violence—"before this therefor because of this" nonsense.

As for the claim that his words matter more than anyone else's therefor he should not figuratively use the word "fight" in case someone takes it to mean something else, I completely disagree.

It’s not irrelevant according to the constitution of the United States of America. Representatives swore an oath to support and defend the constitution, and to bear true faith and allegiance to the same. These lawmakers are impeaching their political opponent for a “high crime” they just invented. They’re setting a very dangerous precedent.

If you want to argue that speakers who neither practice nor preach violence can be held responsible for the violent conduct of others, try to incite me to agree with you just to see how far you can get.

I’m not going to bother asking for the specifics on how one is able to compel another adult to criminal action by speaking of peaceful action. What I will repeat is that their version of “incitement” is no standard and is contrary to the constitution, which they have sworn a duty to support and defend. In America this is called “free speech”, and it applies to everyone equally. If their version of “incitement” is not a standard used by any authority in the land, it is arbitrary, made up, and also, selectively applied.

It sets a dangerous precedent to impeach a politician—or anyone—for advocating the peaceful exercising of their constitutional rights.

Again, no one is saying Congress doesn’t have the power to do this, or that they cannot set the rules and make up the high crimes as the go along. So repeating that is no argument.

If Trump is to blame for the expressions and acts of others, who should I blame for the expressions and actions of ssu? I’d love to know who possesses enough magical powers to control your tongue and motor cortex.

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.

Your “false pretense” test for incitement is a made up one.

His words do not rise to the level of incitement in American law, and are in fact completely contrary to the constitution. Therefore he is not guilty of incitement according to any official standard beyond his political opponent’s fantasies. Congress is guilty of violating its oath.

At zero point did he tell rally-goers to commit violence or break the law.

You’re blowing smoke.

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.

...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.

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. 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.

I would go so far to argue that it is no longer leftist. It is raw, naked authoritarianism, and it affects leftists too. It is more reactionary than liberal or communist.

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.