1 in 50 Democrats want Donald Trump executed

[Shadow Wolf]

Even so.

I never said he was charged with treason. I stated he wasn't charged with it, but could be regardless of the final impeachment decision.

And...
IF he is CONVICTED of treason he should be executed. That's the extent of the law. Just as a murderer can be given the death penalty as the extent (max) of the law.

I think his deliberate lies amd mishandling of covid should also tacked on as a part of charges of treason.

 

[SalixIncendium]

However the Rasmussen Reports is high credible

• Overall, we rate Rasmussen Reports Right-Center biased based on polling that tends to slightly favor the right and High for factual reporting due to a clean fact check record.

Rasmussen Reports - Bias and Credibility

RIGHT-CENTER BIAS These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words

mediabiasfactcheck.com

GIGO

The fastest F1 car isn't going to finish on the podium if you fill it with kerosene.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

One shouldn't prejudge but let the courts decide.

I assume by prejudge you mean come to a verdict before a jury does rather than judge without evidence. You've said this before, but not why you think it. I disagreed with a rebuttal it, but you declined to respond to that, so I'll assume for now that you have no counterargument to the claim that each of us not on the jury is free to come to our individual conclusions based on the evidence he has from the news, and that this is entirely appropriate. I'll do both - come to my own conclusion and see what a jury decides.

President Trump has never been found guilty of anything like that in any court.

There is no President Trump, and the fact that Trump has yet to be convicted of any of his crimes yet is irrelevant given that many indictments have been handed down, but the trials haven't occurred yet. And the Senate exonerating Trump following his impeachments doesn't help Trump in either criminal court or in the court of public opinion.

Accusing someone of treason when they haven't committed it is slander or libel.

FYI, if you'd like a word that covers both, try defamation.

 

[Shaul]

As far as I'm concerned, guilty verdicts have been rendered against others in relation to it. Trump is behind it all, and with his speech telling his supporters to keep fighting just before his defeat was officiated, he is a treasonous pig, may he eternally freeze in the coldest, lowest depths of Hell.

This indicates you are closed minded and biased. Others have similar rights to their opinions which includes dismissing the opinions of the closed minded and biased.

 

[Shaul]

I posted a screen shot of you saying it.
So yeah, no longer able to take you seriously.

Have a nice day.

No, you didn't actually. As I have pointed out and everyone here can read for themselves. Shalom.

 

[Shaul]

I assume by prejudge you mean come to a verdict before a jury does rather than judge without evidence. You've said this before, but not why you think it. I disagreed with a rebuttal it, but you declined to respond to that, so I'll assume for now that you have no counterargument to the claim that each of us not on the jury is free to come to our individual conclusions based on the evidence he has from the news, and that this is entirely appropriate. I'll do both - come to my own conclusion and see what a jury decides.

There is no President Trump, and the fact that Trump has yet to be convicted of any of his crimes yet is irrelevant given that many indictments have been handed down, but the trials haven't occurred yet. And the Senate exonerating Trump following his impeachments doesn't help Trump in either criminal court or in the court of public opinion.

FYI, if you'd like a word that covers both, try defamation.

I have posted that prejudging whether someone is guilty OR prejudging the penalty are BOTH wrong. I am not arguing about the first with you. I have been attempting to explain the second.

Of course Trump isn't President now. But he was President. The title President applies to Trump in the context I used since he is being accused of committing treason while he was President.

The fact that President Trump was never convicted is certainly germane to the question of his guilt. Arguing otherwise is absurd. And his ever being guilty of some crime other than treason does not prove him guilty of treason too.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is ridiculous. The poll clearly asks what ought to be the punishment IF TRUMP was found guilty of treason. The poll did not ask whether PPL want to execute Trump before he was actually found guilty, but After the courts had found him guilty at some future date. You do understand the idea of a counterfactual question??
If somebody asks me if I would divorce my spouse if I found he/she is having an affair, the answer can be Yes, and legitimately so ..without implying that my spouse is indeed doing something like that or implying I am planning to divorce my spouse without anything of that sort actually taking place?

I think it's telling that @Shaul needs to reach to unreasonable lengths to find fodder to villainize his opponents.

I guess they're just too reasonable for his liking if he limits himself to reality.

 

[Shaul]

I think it's telling that @Shaul needs to reach to unreasonable lengths to find fodder to villainize his opponents.

I guess they're just too reasonable for his liking if he limits himself to reality.

Since I haven't villainized anyone this post makes no sense. Do you feel like a villain? If so, that is on you, not me.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Since I haven't villainized anyone this post makes no sense. Do you feel like a villain? If so, that is on you, not me.

You don't consider executing people without trial to be villainous? Weird. That one's very squarely on you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The fact that President Trump was never convicted is certainly germane to the question of his guilt.

The fact that Trump hasn't been convicted yet is irrelevant to the question of his guilt. The trials haven't even begun yet.

Arguing otherwise is absurd.

Then rebut my comment. What I've seen from you are claims such as, "I have posted that prejudging whether someone is guilty OR prejudging the penalty are BOTH wrong." I've already explained to you why this is incorrect. Since dialectic ends with the last plausible, valid, unrebutted argument and you chose to offer no counterargument of your own, the matter is resolved.

 

[Shaul]

You don't consider executing people without trial to be villainous? Weird. That one's very squarely on you.

I do consider such an act to be villainous. I consider people that have an opinion that people should be executed without a trial to be in error. There is a big difference. I condemn acts, not people. I hold people accountable for their actions.

 

[Shaul]

The fact that Trump hasn't been convicted yet is irrelevant to the question of his guilt. The trials haven't even begun yet.

Then rebut my comment. What I've seen from you are claims such as, "I have posted that prejudging whether someone is guilty OR prejudging the penalty are BOTH wrong." I've already explained to you why this is incorrect. Since dialectic ends with the last plausible, valid, unrebutted argument and you chose to offer no counterargument of your own, the matter is resolved.

LOL! "Thus spake Zarathustra?" The courts have determined that someone who holds to capricious and draconian penalties for a crime are biased and disqualified from jury duty. You made an unproven assertion that prejudging criminal punishments is fine. The only thing resolved is that you have proven nothing.

 

[wellwisher]

That is according to a Rasmussen poll. The poll also found:
44% of likely voters think former President Trump is guilty for crimes related to the January 6th 2020 events and want him to be in prison,
7% of them think he should be imprisoned for life, and
3% want him exiled.

Among Democrats:
72% want him in prison,
12% think it should be for life, and
2% of Democrats want him executed.

Democrats Want Harsh Punishment for Trump

We live in troubling times.

It appears the Lefty fake news is the source of news that is dividing the county almost to a civil war. The political right thinks Biden is guilty, but they are not out for blood; party of law, common sense, and peace. Now we all know who the Fascist are. Democracy gives freedom to all, including those who you may not agree. Fascists believe in our way or prison or death.

Say Trump was to win the election, and the angry Lefty rabble invades Washington, in protest, and that protest turns violent, should we open fire, knowing the lessons of Jan 6? Or will a Fascist dual standard apply that blames the defenders?

The swamp fascist are getting nervous. This is bottom of the barrel tactic. Ddid the FBI invade Rasmussen for their poll that included an assassination option/suggestion. Rasmussen must be swamp approved. We can learn many things from indirect data.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I do consider such an act to be villainous.

Well, there you go.

I consider people that have an opinion that people should be executed without a trial to be in error. There is a big difference. I condemn acts, not people. I hold people accountable for their actions.

Except for this thread, where you're trying to hold people accountable for your fantasies of what you've decided that they want to do sometime in the future.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The courts have determined that someone who holds to capricious and draconian penalties for a crime are biased and disqualified from jury duty.

So what? That's irrelevant to matter of the appropriateness or inappropriateness of people not on juries arriving at their own conclusions regarding guilt or innocence.

Also, executing convicted traitors is neither capricious nor draconian. Executing shoplifters is.

You made an unproven assertion that prejudging criminal punishments is fine.

No, I did not. My comment was about judging guilt versus innocence.

 

[Shaul]

Well, there you go.

There you go, nothing. Such an accused action is determined by a court. No court has found President Trump committed any such action.

Except for this thread, where you're trying to hold people accountable for your fantasies of what you've decided that they want to do sometime in the future.

Wrong. I am holding some people accountable for specific actions they have already taken. Some people have taken the actions of condemning people without trial. I am holding them accountable by stating that any such actions are wrong. And note that would be for actual actions, not apparent actions.

 

[McBell]

No, you didn't actually. As I have pointed out and everyone here can read for themselves. Shalom.

No, you didn't actually. As I have pointed out and everyone here can read for themselves. Shalom.

I have thoroughly demonstrated you are not the least bit interested in the truth.
Since that is so plainly obvious the case, I have no further use for you and your dishonesty.

Have a nice day.

 

[metis]

Yet Congress, which investigated President Trump, did not charge him with treason. President Trump has not been charged with treason in any court.

That's depending on how one defines "treason". If convicted for attempting to overthrow the election, would that be "treason"?

 

[metis]

In the articles of impeachment drafted against President Trump they referenced the laws they considered which included the laws about treason. They considered whether he had committed treason and did NOT charge him with treason. That is a fact.

Mueller decided not to pursue that possible charge, which doesn't mean that he exonerated Trump as the latter claimed.

Mueller report - Wikipedia

 

[беспокойный путешественни]

The most worrying fact about the news posted here is that people who are allowed to vote actually want someone killed.

I think we should generally reconsider everyone’s right to vote.