Insurrectionist removed from office under the 14th amendment.

[Sgt. Pepper]

Still having trouble seeing which "freedoms of choice" you refer to, since you never do what most of us would do, and include a "such as......" clause.

Do you mean you're unhappy about losing your freedom to spit in people's faces? To pee on their front doorstep? To drive around town with a toddler sitting on the hood of the car? To smoke and blow poison in the faces of diners in a restaurant? To poop in somebody's chocolate cake (okay, that was funny in the movies)?

Or maybe it's the freedom to keep black people out the voting booth? Is that what bugs? Or the freedom to fire off your AK weapons in the school yard, just for kicks?

Or is it that object that you don't have the right to force other people to live according to your personal preferences, or to have school boards mandate teaching the topics that you prefer, or that you are not authorized to remove books you don't like from public libraries?

Which ones? What are you not permitted to do that you think you should have the right to do? I think you owe us all an answer to that, since you bring it up every 11.31 seconds.

I wish I could give your post more than one winner rating.

 

[Heyo]

Speaking as a former Republican and lifelong conservative, I've learned one thing about Trump supporters over the past five years or so, and that is that they're typically impossible to reason with. If you happen to encounter one who will listen to you and honestly consider what you have to say that counteracts their personal political views, then this particular Trump supporter is the exception and not the rule. We can continually disprove their regurgitated political rhetoric, such as the debunked claim that the election was stolen from Trump, but they will cling tenaciously to this fabrication for dear life no matter what legal evidence we present to the contrary. We might as well be trying to reason with a brick wall and expect the wall to listen to us and act rationally itself. Since Trump's first presidential campaign in 2015, I've dealt with more than my fair share of these people since I live among them and because the majority of my extended family are unfortunately very devout Trump supporters themselves. I've shared some of my personal experiences with Trump supporters, including with my relatives, in older threads. It was a bad experience to say the least.

There were always people who were delusional but Trump made it really popular. The trend was there before, though. Back in the day we disagreed about how to value an event or what to do about it, today we disagree about what is real.

This has been absurd when it was made, today it's become reality:

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Which courts had a trial in this?

Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 U.S. presidential election - Wikipedia

 

[ImmortalFlame]

My anger, as well as others, is at whomever is responsible for eroding people's freedoms and liberties that are resulting in Americas downward spiral in the freedoms index.

Those are the people that require watching by those vigilant enough to recognize the dangers by their actions that go against the grain of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that are supposed to protect all Americans.

The action by those invading the capital was misdirected because I think it was a wrong action to engage in, but like I stated before these people were the lunatic fringe that acts on emotion, but a definite precursor and sign that once has ran its course, will lead to a more deliberate thought out response by those afterwards to address the reasons why this happened in the first place who will, upon hindsight, determine if any, future courses of action to take without the emotional component getting in the way. Hopefully, a peaceful civilized resolution will come of it through dialog and analysis, but if things persist as they are, other measures could very well be taken including force as an option by someone who has adequate power to do so.

As far as sides go personally, I will always take the one that dosent proactively attack the Constitution and Bill of Rights to the greater degree.


What needs to change is the compulsory rule by mandate mindset that both sides have engaged in which erodes American freedoms ever further, and reinstate a more elective mindset when making policy and laws that don't interfere with Constutional protections. Democrats more than Republicans are responsible as it stands, albiet both engaged in compulsory policymaking that can be seen as threatening.

One thing is clear however, is that Democrats most definitely had created Trump in the first place because of their shift to a more extreme left wing.

This opinion piece is why , and i agree with every word...


How the Left Created Trump

If this is still too euphemistic, I can't do much better in elaborating.

Ah, so we both agree, the problem is Trump and liberalism.

The rest of what you said was just propaganda. Thought you were above that.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

There's also this....

Spoiler

Innocent Until Proven Guilty: How the 5th Amendment Protects You — Americana Corner.

Agreed. That's why I said a charge of sedition would be hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. The presumption of innocence.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

So intent? We have clear intent to wrongfully oust Trump from office. Are all those people being tried for treason or is it only wrong if the right does it?

Via insurrection? By challenging the ability of the nation to ratify the results of a lawful election?

Really?

Crimes committed by people on either side of the political divide should be fairly treated under law, but you'll need to give me more specific examples if you want more specific comment.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Cope and seethe, fascist.

Way to add to the discussion.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Strictly speaking, if they were insurrectionists, then they made war against the United States, which makes them traitors according to the Constitution. That calls for the death penalty. If you were in a position to do so, would you sentence them to death? Would you be able to carry out the sentence personally? If not, why not?

Insurrection, sedition and treason are all separable, with different evidentiary requirements.
That notwithstanding, the penalty for treason ranges from 5 years imprisonment (minimum sentence) and a $10k fine through to death.

Refer post #103 for specific wording on treason, insurrection and seditious conspiracy.

 

[Truth in love]

Via insurrection? By challenging the ability of the nation to ratify the results of a lawful election?

Really?

Crimes committed by people on either side of the political divide should be fairly treated under law, but you'll need to give me more specific examples if you want more specific comment.[/QUOTE

Obama admin abused FISA so the FBI could spy on trump, Clinton Campaign conspired with Russians to crate a hoax to try to get trump shut down. Prolsi pushed to impeach trump from extorting the Ukraine. Something denied by trump and the pres of Ukraine, Biden did it as VP and beaters about it. And yet the lynch mob just wants trumps blood and everyone else gets a pass.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

So intent? We have clear intent to wrongfully oust Trump from office. Are all those people being tried for treason or is it only wrong if the right does it?

What on earth are you going on about? No election can ever be labelled with "intent to wrongfully oust." Election is the least wrongful means of "ousting" any government.

That is what democracy means -- the electors are the final and only arbiters of who they want to lead them.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Obama admin abused FISA so the FBI could spy on trump,

I'll admit to following the FISA audits less closely than some other aspects of US politics. My understanding is that the primary issue identified has been around a general failure to properly adhere to Woods Procedures when determine cause for surveillance, and in some cases not adhering to it at all. (Basically not having documented evidence about the use of the particular thing they want surveilled)
That's clearly problematic, and suggests a lack of effective oversight, and a breach of privacy.

I didn't hear of evidence that this only occurred in cases pertaining to Trump, or that the government was involved, so I'd personally say that there is a real, and important issue...but not adhere to some of the conspiracy theory aspects of Trump in particular being targetted, or Obama being involved. Also, this is a case of government agency overreach. Not insurrection. Im not suggesting for a moment that all government agencies are beyond reproach.

Did Obama Get Caught 'Spying' on Trump's 2016 Campaign?

Clinton Campaign conspired with Russians to crate a hoax to try to get trump shut down.

Really? If you want to present your best evidence for why you believe that, I'm happy to spend some time going through it.

Prolsi pushed to impeach trump from extorting the Ukraine. Something denied by trump and the pres of Ukraine, Biden did it as VP and beaters about it. And yet the lynch mob just wants trumps blood and everyone else gets a pass.

So...he survived impeachment hearings, and isn't the first President to go through that, including Bill Clinton. Partisanship is a major issue with Western democratic politics, and the US is a particularly polarised example of that. Defending Trump's actions in this case, or downplaying the seriousness of people breaching the Capitol as they try to ratify a legally held election strikes me as more problematic than the 'usual' level of political mud-slinging.

I know that a historically stable democracy like the US isn't used to having to think about the fragility of the democratic process. Rather, conversations are around execution of it. But Jan 6 wasn't too far from being a crossing of the Rubicon, imho.

As a matter of urgency, the next election cycle has to be better defended, and better respected. There are systemic problems, and the Dems have surely contributed to those (and I'm not a Dem supporter anyway). But this particular happening is a somewhat more marked departure from the 'normal' level of issue, and strikes more to the heart of the democratic process.

Perhaps...as some do...you think the system is irreparably broken. But if not, I'd suggest Jan 6 should be seen as an escalation of previous attempts (by both sides, incidentally) to downplay and disrespect democratic process.

 

[Stevicus]

Insurrection, sedition and treason are all separable, with different evidentiary requirements.
That notwithstanding, the penalty for treason ranges from 5 years imprisonment (minimum sentence) and a $10k fine through to death.

Refer post #103 for specific wording on treason, insurrection and seditious conspiracy.

I've seen the word "treason" applied here as well, which can carry the penalty of death. Although none of those convicted were actually charged with insurrection or treason. The case cited in the OP here was regarding removal from office, which may follow a different standard than actual criminal courts.

I think the last time someone was executed for treason was the Rosenbergs. While there may be legal differences between treason, insurrection, and sedition, part of the Constitution's definition entails "levying war against the United States." An insurrection in this context could very well be deemed making war against the United States. I wouldn't make that argument myself, but I understand where people are coming from on this point. I just don't agree with that particular stance.

 

[Truth in love]

I'll admit to following the FISA audits less closely than some other aspects of US politics. My understanding is that the primary issue identified has been around a general failure to properly adhere to Woods Procedures when determine cause for surveillance, and in some cases not adhering to it at all. (Basically not having documented evidence about the use of the particular thing they want surveilled)
That's clearly problematic, and suggests a lack of effective oversight, and a breach of privacy.

I didn't hear of evidence that this only occurred in cases pertaining to Trump, or that the government was involved, so I'd personally say that there is a real, and important issue...but not adhere to some of the conspiracy theory aspects of Trump in particular being targetted, or Obama being involved. Also, this is a case of government agency overreach. Not insurrection. Im not suggesting for a moment that all government agencies are beyond reproach.

Did Obama Get Caught 'Spying' on Trump's 2016 Campaign?



Really? If you want to present your best evidence for why you believe that, I'm happy to spend some time going through it.



So...he survived impeachment hearings, and isn't the first President to go through that, including Bill Clinton. Partisanship is a major issue with Western democratic politics, and the US is a particularly polarised example of that. Defending Trump's actions in this case, or downplaying the seriousness of people breaching the Capitol as they try to ratify a legally held election strikes me as more problematic than the 'usual' level of political mud-slinging.

I know that a historically stable democracy like the US isn't used to having to think about the fragility of the democratic process. Rather, conversations are around execution of it. But Jan 6 wasn't too far from being a crossing of the Rubicon, imho.

As a matter of urgency, the next election cycle has to be better defended, and better respected. There are systemic problems, and the Dems have surely contributed to those (and I'm not a Dem supporter anyway). But this particular happening is a somewhat more marked departure from the 'normal' level of issue, and strikes more to the heart of the democratic process.

Perhaps...as some do...you think the system is irreparably broken. But if not, I'd suggest Jan 6 should be seen as an escalation of previous attempts (by both sides, incidentally) to downplay and disrespect democratic process.

The issues are far from one sided. I don’t have links to the campaign funding the doc that we’re abused, but I recall a pretty clear link.

I’m 100% for holding people accountable. The Rose McGowen events are sadly common. The rules look first at the party and then at the behavior of the person. Any sex abuse rumors were grounds to end a a supreme court nomination and a year Lester totally irrelevant to becoming president.


Election security is vital or we will have a second civil war. However the most vital requirements to but a gun are racist if used for voting. I think it is Lars Larsen who like to say that if not for double standards the democrats would have none. It’s not completely correct, but not nearly wrong enough.
The mainstream media bias policies the republicans fairly well. A few get away with all but murder, but it’s less common. Trent Lott was taken to the woodshed for an innocent comment seem to be racist while the dems had a high racking KKK guy in the senate.
Both parties should police themselves much better, but power is like a drug so that is not often a thing.

 

[Stevicus]

There were always people who were delusional but Trump made it really popular. The trend was there before, though. Back in the day we disagreed about how to value an event or what to do about it, today we disagree about what is real.

This has been absurd when it was made, today it's become reality:

In my opinion, the key delusion seems to be perceptions about America itself. Some of it involves mythic glorification of the past. Then there's conflicting ideas about what people actually believe about America, which is a conflict that has come up before. You'd think we would be used to it by now.

As for what is "real," as an agnostic, I've always tried to keep that an open-ended question.

But when it comes to observing and discussing politics, it seems most of the focus is on what is being said and how it's being presented, as opposed to any real discussion of opposing philosophies or ideologies or any real stance on the issues, other than the usual partisan posturing and bickering.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I've seen the word "treason" applied here as well, which can carry the penalty of death. Although none of those convicted were actually charged with insurrection or treason. The case cited in the OP here was regarding removal from office, which may follow a different standard than actual criminal courts.

I think the last time someone was executed for treason was the Rosenbergs. While there may be legal differences between treason, insurrection, and sedition, part of the Constitution's definition entails "levying war against the United States." An insurrection in this context could very well be deemed making war against the United States. I wouldn't make that argument myself, but I understand where people are coming from on this point. I just don't agree with that particular stance.

Yup, all good.
Just making the point that someone endorsing a charge of treason isn't also endorsing a death penalty. Treason can be as low as 5 years in prison.

Treason, insurrection and seditious conspiracy all mandate removal from office and inability to stand in the future (without a super-majority intervening).

I put the more fulsome explanations in post #103, but I'd agree that 'treason' looks a little beyond the pale in terms of interpreting Jan 6. If it's found that a treasonous act took place though (let's say there was an organised militia who were armed and assembled, and planned to overthrow the government (even though they didn't achieve that) then the bar for treason becomes far lower, since anyone engaged actively with them (even in minute ways) can also be found to have acted treasonably.

That path seems highly unlikely to me.

 

[F1fan]

Pot shots at my judgement and making up stuff.

Do you have anything useful to add?

Yes, your credibility is terrible because you post untrue things consistently. Your own posts expose your judgment as very poor, and that is because you have decided untrue things are true, and you repeat untrue things in a group that is very well educated and well informed by reputable media sources.

I'm not sure why you keep posting untrue things, because you are being contasntly corrected. You don't seem to be aware of your own disadvantage here. This isn't Disinformation Fellowship, this is open debate with smart and well informed people.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m a member who regularly faces improper personal attacks and insults from people who fail to play nice when someone speaks the truth.

But you did not speak the truth, you were spouting nonsense.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

The issues are far from one sided. I don’t have links to the campaign funding the doc that we’re abused, but I recall a pretty clear link.

I follow US politics almost as much as I follow Australian...and occasionally moreso. Sounds crazy, but American content is ubiquitous, and when you guys sneeze, we eventually get a cold, so to speak. So my offer to review whatever you want to present is sincere, but I can't take your interpretation at word. I don't mean that to be offensive, as I would want to do my own research on any political topic, presented by anyone.

Election security is vital or we will have a second civil war.

I mean...kind of? To me the overarching principle is to have representative elections. Obviously, election security is a major component of that. However, much like ANY form of security, you can't promote it to the exclusion of other considerations or you'll literally break the system.

Simple examples of what I mean is that voting access is a crucial democratic requirement. Questioning both the system in place and the results in self-serving and knee-jerk fashion is a major issue also.
(And to be clear, that rhetoric is being consistently rolled out by both sides over the last ten years, although I would argue there is a difference in intensity and scale).

However the most vital requirements to but a gun are racist if used for voting.

Sorry, no idea what that means. Perhaps auto-correct has struck?

The mainstream media bias policies the republicans fairly well. A few get away with all but murder, but it’s less common. Trent Lott was taken to the woodshed for an innocent comment seem to be racist while the dems had a high racking KKK guy in the senate.

Bit to unpack there. As an Australian, it's hard for me to think of Murdoch as 'not mainstream media', as he dominates the media landscape here. I think the bigger issue is polarisation of the media, and people being able to 'choose' their facts. I invest way more time than I used to in vetting media sources, for sure. Recent news from CNN around how they're planning to change to a more centrist and balanced format, and remove some of the more judgemental and frankly belittling messaging they've been running with more recently are good, but I worry they'll see 'balanced' as meaning a Republican, a democrat, and a host. What we need is mature and nuanced discussion. Still...the intent is good, and needed, so we'll see. Until proven otherwise, though, I tend to be fussy with sources.

Both parties should police themselves much better, but power is like a drug so that is not often a thing.

In general, I agree.

 

[Heyo]

But when it comes to observing and discussing politics, it seems most of the focus is on what is being said and how it's being presented, as opposed to any real discussion of opposing philosophies or ideologies or any real stance on the issues, other than the usual partisan posturing and bickering.

There can't be any real discussion of philosophies when there is no consensus about reality. Evolution - not real, climate change - not real (or at least not anthropogenic), Covid - just a flu that will go away, insurrection - never happened. Some, too many, people live in a dream world and are not in a closed institution. Some of them run for Congress, some of them get elected.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm pretty sure Trump is narcissistic and a jerk. He also broke the law, but its utterly detached from reality to pretend that such is odd or rare in DC. The people crying the loudest over Trumps errors don't have a problem with the Dems crimes and abuses of power. That is a big problem

A litte cut n paste I was working on


So what I’m supposed to believe is that dozens of mid-level rioters and a maybe 2-3 people planning on murder means the entire 80,000 of so people committed insurrection/sedition/treason. That Trump with all his ego and everything is the best relied on grandma’s and hicks to secure 4 more years in office. Also thinking they have any kind of point or valid issue is a delusion or treason.

To accept the narrative being advocated. I need to believe that a few yahoo’s are an insurrection, but 15-26 million people taking part in organized often violent protests, several murders, trying to breach security at the white house, way over a billion in damage and demands that all but overturn the Constitution is not in any way a coup/insurrection etc. and that support of them is normal.

I also have to believe that the Obama admin violating FISA laws, conspiracy between Russians and the Clinton campaign and the FBI lying under oath to spy on Trump and to try to remove Trump from office for actions Biden actually did (and openly bragged about) are all good valid and not a coup/insurrection etc. Even though such actions are for the clear intent of overturning the election and did have a decent chance of actually working.

Additionally, that when a Democrat says an election was stolen that is fine but a Republican saying it is treason.

Anyone willing to swallow this please avoid anyone offering to sell you a bridge.

Again for any who are confused. I do have several issues with Trump. I do think he broke the law. However, I have yet to see anything he did that is beyond what others in office have done. Trying to be a just person I cannot have 2 entirely different standards for the behavior of people in our political system.

This claim of yours about Democrats saying that Trump did now win has already been refuted. It is time to find a new argument. Yes, Democrats were disgusted because Trump lost the popular vote and still won the election. But no one tried to say that Hillary actually won, nor did they try to send bogus electors. Nor did they try to run an insurrection.

Republicans or their supporters did all of those things. That is why what Republicans did was treason. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

And though there were violent protests during BL< events they were not "frequent". They were rare. But peaceful protests are boring. They do not make the news. As a result you only heard of the violent protests. Do you need the numbers ran again? I can do it for you. In my city there were protests. They were not violent. We did not make the news. In Portland there were protests. And they became very violent. You did hear about them.

BLM violent protests did do property damage. That is a fact. But the insurrectionists attempted to overthrow the government. That is a much more serious event.