Insurrectionist removed from office under the 14th amendment.

[ImmortalFlame]

Like I said. It's a matter of perspective.

You could literally say that about anything. Could you perhaps tell us your particular perspective and how you justify it?

 

[Polymath257]

I see and those who while in office abused the FISA system for their political gain what of them?

https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...the-14th-amendment.262239/reply?quote=7837445
What actual evidence do you have for abuse (as opposed to simple mistakes)? The FISA system is problematic in many ways, but this is not one of them. The judges were mostly Republican appointees.

 

[F1fan]

Like I said. It's a matter of perspective.

A correct perspective versus a biased perspective. Facts inform a correct perspective. Rhetoric influences biased perspectives. We can tell the difference.

 

[Polymath257]

How many people had that intent. Now I have no doubt many people were unhappy (they rioted). But a few nut jobs or FBI plants does not mean the test were intending murder. There a big gap there

The nutjobs were the ones going after Pence with the intent of killing him. Same for Pelosi.Those nutjobs were Trump supporters trying to overthrow an election.

It only takes a few nutjobs to produce an insurrection.

 

[Polymath257]

Like I said. It's a matter of perspective.

Only for those who believe in 'alternative facts'.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Banana republic. Calling Jan 6 an insurrection is disinformation.

Under an actual banana republic, the offenders wouldn't be dealt with or punished at all. They'd probably be rewarded.
Luckily, the USA is a country of laws.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, it’s a fact that a bunch of politicians and operatives want there to have been an insurrection. They turned a blind eye to many riots, massive damage and an assault on the White House and are making a mountain out of a mole hill for Jan 6. Please have some evidence before claiming fact.

You didn't watch the January 6th hearings then, obviously. Sounds like you should have.
You still can!

 

[SkepticThinker]

angry is not the right words. I don’t find it disturbing that so many people run about tactless spreading a dangerous narrative and have no awareness or care for any sense of fairness’s or law.

the left flipped their lid over Trumps sexual behavior, but Clinton’s rapes, Biden rape and creepy behaviors are all fine. If we are not a nation of laws we will descend into chaos.

So what do you think about Trump's sexual behaviour?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Where in the world do you get your news. The courts consistently refused to see the evidence. That is very different from ruling that there was nothing wrong.

There was no evidence. The courts noticed that too. Even ones with Trump-appointed judges.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Are you trying to say that, in some way, this violent form of factionalism - where violence can be ideologically justified against any group, provided you are sufficiently convinced that they pose a threat to your particular reading of the constitution - is a kind of endemic issue with the USA?

I can see people thinking that way. Yes.

Do I think it has gotten to a point where violence is justified in accordance to the oath of office? I'd say no. Not yet.

But it's certainly heading in that direction imo if the US keeps dropping in the freedoms index.

 

[Stevicus]

This is kind of like arguing that "attempted murder" is too strong a term if the victim was left with only scratches, despite the fact that the perpetrator was clearly stating their intent to kill the victim. Incompetence does not diminish intent, and the intent of the individuals involved in January 6 was to overturn a democratic election, and the stated intent of the people who illegally entered the capital was to enact violence against politicians specifically for the intention of preventing or delaying the ratification of a democratic election.

I wasn't referring to incompetence or intent, but rather the logistical impossibility. The government was never in any real danger of being overthrown.

I don't think "insurrection" is too strong a term, and I think it does a disservice to democracy to downplay attempts by any political group or party to use violence in an attempt to overturn or delay the consequences of a democratic election. These people weren't there on the specific date of January 6th by accident. They were there specifically because it was the date on which the vote was to be counted and ratified, and because their entering of the capitol building would specifically harm that process because they wanted their specific pick to win, rather than the person who actually won.

It doesn't really matter to me all that much what people choose to call it, although my only real point was that I don't believe that the government was in any real danger of being overthrown. Regardless of what they may have intended or wanted or planned to do, that was simply not going to happen. Not after the Electoral College voted, as that was the real election.

I'm not downplaying anything, but I just don't think our democracy is really that fragile. It doesn't rest within a single building.

You cannot frame this any other way. It was an attempted insurrection. A badly organised and unsuccessful one, but one all the same and deserving of being labelled as such.

I can't frame it any other way? Is that an order?

I was just looking at the pertinent facts as I saw them. I don't think we have any real disagreement about the basic facts of what happened, even if there's some minor quibbling over what some people choose to call it.

Isn't it more important that the violence was stopped, order was restored, and the wrongdoers are being brought to justice? Democracy remained intact, and despite Trump's kicking and screaming, the peaceful transfer of power still happened, as it always has. What difference does it make what anyone calls it or labels it? Does everyone have to think the same way or believe the same thing?

And please don't pretend that American democracy is somehow immune from this kind of thing. Organizations like the Republican party thrive on people believing that the checks and balances in place in America render the possibility of an authoritarian takeover basically impossible, but it really does not take that much for the reigns of these checks and balances to fall into the hands of authoritarians. You literally just got rid of a President who has poisoned democracy and convinced many thousands (maybe even millions) of Americans that any democratic vote they don't win has been stolen from them and turned people against your own media, your own intelligence agencies, and cast doubt on all these protections that are supposed to prevent authoritarians from seizing control of the state. You cannot afford to be complacent about this.

I never said, nor have I pretended, that American democracy is immune to anything. I just think that it would take far more than that to overthrow the U.S. government. Far from being complacent, I think America is facing many challenges and dangers at present, the most critical of which are economic in nature.

I also think there's an inherent danger in becoming overly zealous about "defending democracy" on an abstract or symbolic level, since that's what's gotten us into a lot of trouble in the past. I'm not saying we should get complacent, but on the other hand, if one gets a bit too overamped about it, then that could be just as bad. Even all this fuss over the word "insurrection" is, in itself, a bad sign.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

the left flipped their lid over Trumps sexual behavior, but Clinton’s rapes, Biden rape and creepy behaviors are all fine. If we are not a nation of laws we will descend into chaos.

Pot meet kettle.

The right flipped their lid over Clinton and Biden's sexually immoral behavior, but Trump's sexually deviant behavior is excused.

An Open Letter to Trump’s Evangelical Defenders

Trump-Loving Christians Owe Bill Clinton an Apology

Evangelicals slammed Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct. So why does Trump get a pass?

Evangelicals Who Denounced Bill Clinton Affair, Silent On Donald Trump And Stormy Daniels

Unfortunately, these prominent evangelical leaders have also publicly exposed their hypocrisy when it concerns Trump.

Pat Robertson.

Pat Robertson Calls for Clinton's Impeachment

Standing by Donald Trump, Pat Robertson calls lewd video ‘macho talk’

Jerry Falwell, Jr.

Watch: Jerry Falwell Jr. goes after Clinton at Republican National Convention

Evangelical Jerry Falwell Jr. defends Trump: Jesus “never told Caesar how to run Rome”

James Dobson.

He publicly condemned Bill Clinton in 1998: "Character does matter. You can't run a family, let alone a country without it. How foolish to believe that a person who lacks honesty and moral integrity is qualified to lead a nation and the world."

Source: What James Dobson Said in 1998 About Moral Character and the Presidency

He enthusiastically endorsed Donald Trump in 2016. And in defense of Donald Trump, he said, "I’m not under any illusions that he is an outstanding moral example. It’s a cliché but true: We are electing a commander-in-chief, not a theologian-in-chief.”

Source: I’m an evangelical. The religious right leaders who support Trump don’t speak for me.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Calling Jan 6 an insurrection is disinformation.

Not your call.

It was a riot.

That's not a rebuttal to that riot being an insurrection. Of course it was a riot.

Really 75 or so million supporters, military at this commend and mr big ego Trump was going to rely on grandma and a guy in buckskins to overthrow the US Government??

Nobody accused them of being very bright, just traitorous. That's the kind of person drawn to Trump. They're easily convinced to attack the government. The bought the Qanon nonsense. They bought the election hoax disinformation. Of course they looked like the Beverly Hillbillies.

how does anyone think stomping through the capitol was meant to overthrow the government?

It was a violent and illegal attack on the seat of government while performing a constitutional function intended to prevent the certification of the election and the peaceful transfer of power. And once again, nobody is accusing Trump of being a cunning strategist. Have you noticed how many things he's failed at in the last two years? The fake electors thing was pretty hare-brained. Five dozen failed lawsuits was not too smart. Recounts confirming the loss weren't too smart. Calling up the Georgia Secretary of State while being recorded asking him to manufacture thousands of votes will likely result in another conviction for Trump. Keeping state secrets that the government knew were there and lying about it was stunningly stupid. So why would anybody be surprised that the insurrection failed, too? What doesn't fail for this guy? Watch him lose his Special Master now on appeal, his one tiny legal "victory" that never had any chance of helping him.

So if so can claim that someone wanted to reverse election results that now treason.

No. We're all making that clam now. Trump tried to reverse the election results. He'll be prosecuted for it more than once in the near future. Charges will include fomenting an insurrection to obstruct Congress in its constitutional duty, attempting to place fraudulent electors, and illegally attempting to interfere in the Georgia election.

Last I looked only one person is charged with sedition and that was recent.

The leaders of the Oath Keepers and the leaders of the Proud Boys have been charged with seditious conspiracy.

I’ve yet to see any evidence that their actions would have resulted in a coup.

Irrelevant. It was so ill-conceived that it couldn't have worked. The fact that it didn't is irrelevant to the criminal charges that have followed and are yet to come.

You've yet to see any evidence that you don't want to see. You make the same mistake the creationists make with their incredulity fallacies - they just can't see it - and think that that has any persuasive power. They seem to think that they are accepted as standards of what is known or knowable or possible, and that if they're unaware of something that that is meaningful. Your inability to see what is right in front of your face will cost you. You're going to witness the events of the next few months and years as a partisan injustice, which will be very frustrating and galling to you. Too bad you won't be able to take pride in the system if it finds the will to convict this man of his crimes against the nation, far more threatening to America's future than 9/11 was.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Scale leaps to mind.

Really? Gaddafi had about 70 people in total when he seized Libya, and the coup was largely bloodless. Castro had more when he initially tried seizing power in Cuba, but many were killed, and he ended up with a much smaller force.

I'm not sure that scale has much to do with it.

 

[fantome profane]

When was it ruled in court that it was an insurrection? I can't find any cases of a Jan. 6th rioter being convicted on charges of insurrection, only other related felonies.

This case for one. You understand that this person was removed from office because the court ruled that he participated in an insurrection. If there was no insurrection this could not have happened.

Likewise when a court accepts a guilty plea for inciting an insurrection, that means there was an insurrection. Right now people are in prison for their involvement in the Jan 6th insurrection. Not just for trespassing or vandalism but for organizing and participating in an insurrection.

The courts have determined that the Jan 6th event was an insurrection. It is possible a higher court could rule otherwise (I doubt that will happen) but right now as I am posting this it is a legal fact.

 

[fantome profane]

There have been other courts that have ruled against the Jan 6 riot being an insurrection.

???? Who? where? when? why?

 

[fantome profane]

I wonder whatever became of that guy who defected to Belarus. That was a strange story.

We could send the rest of them up to Canada. Wouldn't you just love that?

Build The Wall!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I wasn't referring to incompetence or intent, but rather the logistical impossibility. The government was never in any real danger of being overthrown.

There is always a real danger of the government being overthrown. That is a thing that is capable of happening, and it is definitely capable of happening if there is a large enough group of people - both within and without positions of power - who want it to happen. There are a not insignificant number of people within America's second largest political party whose intentions were to overturn a democratic election, and January 6th was a manifestation of that intent. If you cannot take this sort of thing seriously, they'll just try again with more organised and potentially more successful methods. Complacency is the death of democracy.

It doesn't really matter to me all that much what people choose to call it, although my only real point was that I don't believe that the government was in any real danger of being overthrown. Regardless of what they may have intended or wanted or planned to do, that was simply not going to happen. Not after the Electoral College voted, as that was the real election.

I'm not downplaying anything, but I just don't think our democracy is really that fragile. It doesn't rest within a single building.

Your democracy is that fragile. Look at how easily one man has managed to turn an entire political party into his personal cult of personality, and how many people now believe that the Republican party (now explicitly a party that is opposed to democracy) losing any vote is a result of fraud. You cannot afford to lessen the severity of your language or downplay this as less serious than it is.

I can't frame it any other way? Is that an order?

Um... No?

I was just looking at the pertinent facts as I saw them. I don't think we have any real disagreement about the basic facts of what happened, even if there's some minor quibbling over what some people choose to call it.

Isn't it more important that the violence was stopped, order was restored, and the wrongdoers are being brought to justice? Democracy remained intact, and despite Trump's kicking and screaming, the peaceful transfer of power still happened, as it always has. What difference does it make what anyone calls it or labels it? Does everyone have to think the same way or believe the same thing?

It makes a huge amount of difference to label an insurrection and insurrection because forces are at play in your country that will try and paint it as a peaceful protest, or the insurrectionists as innocent political prisoners. They are doing everything they can to justify the actions of the insurrectionists, to absolve politicians of their influence, to continue to sew doubt in democracy and to paint themselves as the real heroes of the people. You cannot cede ground to them by lessening what they have done. Such complacency achieves nothing but giving them more rope with which to hang you.

I never said, nor have I pretended, that American democracy is immune to anything.

At the very beginning of this post you asserted that the insurrection leading to an overthrow of the government was a "logistical impossibility".

I just think that it would take far more than that to overthrow the U.S. government. Far from being complacent, I think America is facing many challenges and dangers at present, the most critical of which are economic in nature.

You're right, in a way. It would take more. For example, it would take them doing something like this and for people to play it off as not that serious a threat, allowing them leway to set up and get away with doing a worse thing next time.

I also think there's an inherent danger in becoming overly zealous about "defending democracy" on an abstract or symbolic level, since that's what's gotten us into a lot of trouble in the past. I'm not saying we should get complacent, but on the other hand, if one gets a bit too overamped about it, then that could be just as bad. Even all this fuss over the word "insurrection" is, in itself, a bad sign.

I'm sorry, but no. Taking insurrection seriously and making sure we correctly label those who commit it or attempt to subvert democracy is not "just as bad" as committing insurrection or subverting democracy. That is absurd.

 

[fantome profane]

However I’ve yet to see any evidence that their actions would have resulted in a coup.

What do you think would have happened if Pence had gone along with the plan? What would have happened if they couldn’t get back into the building and finish certifying the election? What would have happened if Mike Pence has been killed that day?

You can’t just dismiss this. One wrong turn (literally!) and things could have turned out very differently.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I can see people thinking that way. Yes.

Do I think it has gotten to a point where violence is justified in accordance to the oath of office? I'd say no. Not yet.

But it's certainly heading in that direction imo if the US keeps dropping in the freedoms index.

I feel like you're talking euphemistically, here. Let's cut through that somewhat.

Do you personally believe that the violence on January 6th was justified and/or what is your personal perspective on the protests/insurrection that occurred that day?