 |
This is not a court of law. It's an internet Q&A site. You want answers, I've shown you where to get them. If you refuse to watch the impeachment hearing for your answers, then don't come back here b**ching and whining because no one here will give you a quote you want. You've now been given more than you ever asked for. All it takes is spending time watching history being made.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I asked you for a quote that could be used for evidence. You don't have one, and it makes you angry. All you seem to have is the same irrational hatred of DT that Pelosi has. If Trump called for insurrection, then post the quote where he did. Otherwise, just admit you don't have it.Quote:
You want answers, I've shown you where to get them.
Geez, you're impossible. To repeat ___Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
So it's not a matter of a quote here and there. It's an entire pattern of behavior lasting for months since the election. Are you up to examining that pattern?
Yes it was absurd misinterpretation (and that is being generous ) . I saw some great cherry picking during the Dem's prosecution spliced and manufactured video.(very professionally done video ..... too good for a bunch of Congressional geeks to make . The footage was much higher quality than what we have seen even from the compliant press....Goebbels would've been proud ) .Never once did they show the relevant quote where Trump told his supporters to peacefully march to the Capitol to support the Republicans who were doing constitutional challenges of the electors . Somehow that did not make it into the video presentation .
BTW . The lawyers Trump hired to defend him suck . He should've asked Dershowitz to defend him again. As an example ;the assault on the Capitol began almost a half hour before Trump ever mentioned going to the Capitol building . I would think his lawyers would know that .
When Schmucky stood in front of the Supreme Court when it was in session and yelled to the mob gathered outside the court "“Hey, Gorsuch. Hey, Kavanaugh. You have unleashed a whirlwind and you are going to pay the price” was that incitement to insurrection ? When James Comey said “The Republican Party needs to be burned down. It is just not a healthy political organization” was that not incitement to insurrection ?
As 'j' has already commented . Lawmakers frequently make inflammatory comments . Many were made supporting riots in the last year and urging more of the same . Many were made when the Federal Court House in Portland was under siege . Is the Supreme Court building and Federal Court Houses not as "sacred " as the Capitol building ?
Reckless rhetoric is a problem with out leaders . Why is only Trump singled out for punishment ? Democrats who condemn Trump for using strong language and equate it with incitement, despite having their own record of inflammatory rhetoric are throwing stones in glass houses.
All the evidence being gathered by prosecutors suggest that the riot was pre-planned .
Capitol Attack Was Planned Openly Online For Weeks—Police Still Weren’t Ready (forbes.com)
If so then that belies the charge that inflammatory rhetoric at the rally caused the riot . Still accusations of incitement are becoming the establishment’s tool of choice to justify new censorship.
It's not a matter of a quote here and there because you don't have a quote here and there. You don't have anything other than a meaningless plea to listen to television and examine a pattern of behavior. But if it's a pattern of behavior, then it's a pattern of speech, and speech can be quoted. So you end up back where we started.
Your reasoning basically just comes down to saying that DT is guilty because you say he is. Evidence is not needed. All that is needed is just some vacuous allegation that there is a mysterious pattern of behavior out there that amounts to a crime. I hope our system of justice is not heading in that direction.
Since you like watching TV so much, here is something for your consideration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3CRu4ilvPA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kndq8izA5hc
Why is John Roberts not sitting there to preside over the impeachment trial? That's a Constitutional requirement. Why is it not being followed?
Because as president of the United States he incited his armed supporters to march on the Capitol while Congress was in session and demand they overturn the presidential election on November 3 so Trump could remain in power. They failed but not before they caused the deaths of 5 people and hundreds injured defending Congress. Is that enough for you?Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
For you and your hopeless echo who require quotes, you're like the guy who wakes up in the morning, sees snow on the ground, and demands someone first say there's snow on the ground before he believes the evidence of his eyes.
Except, of course, that he didn't. Kind of important to remember.Quote:
Because as president of the United States he incited his armed supporters to march on the Capitol while Congress was in session and demand they overturn the presidential election on November 3 so Trump could remain in power.
There's that little word again. "Evidence". It's what you don't have. Come up with some, and then come back and talk about it. You saying it happened is not evidence.Quote:
before he believes the evidence of his eyes.
Found this on another site concerning the Chief Justice's absence.
"Another part of the Constitution says the Chief Justice SHALL preside at any impeachment trial of a President. That Roberts has declined to do so is because Trump no longer is President and cannot be removed from an office he doesn’t hold. This, to me, necessarily implies that Roberts believes the Impeachment remedies are no longer available after a term of office expires."
makes sense, this is political theatre
Just about right.Quote:
this is political theatre
Like January 6th (and 2016-2020).Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
If you are referring to the many riots "sponsored" by BLM, Antifa, and others, then I agree with you. Riots, I might add, which were greeted by approving silence by the leaders of the dem party. That would include the Antifa occupation zone in Portland which has gone on for months and, so far as I can find out, is STILL ongoing.Quote:
and 2016-2020
Hello fringers and trolls. Plenty of evidence presented today, if you bothered to watch.
evidence, evidence of what, some misguided fools
Always claims of evidence except they seem unable to post any. Proving that things happened on 1/6 is a long ways from demonstrating that Trump was responsible for it.
There's been more than enough proof the last two days during the trial. The evidence covers the months before and after January 6. Two days worth of testimony and actual videos of the months involved cannot be posted on this format because it is many hours in length. It cannot be wrapped neatly in a quote to suit you. You know that but you keep at it anyway.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
If you're serious about seeing the proof, then watch the trial. It will go on until Saturday. If you're not willing to educate yourself on the facts, then please stop bothering us.
Friday and Saturday will be Trump's defense. Don't miss that part to see two half-assed lawyer incompetents. Trump couldn't get a decent defense team because no law firm wants to deal with a deadbeat.
Evidence that the dufus knew there was a great potential for violence and mayhem, and stoked it for all it was worth to disrupt the work of the congress, as his date for the rally was the same day. He also knew the permit for the rally was specific for a certain area, not the capitol building yet he sent the hoard there any way.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Through the mayhem did he lift a finger to help the cops and ensure the safety of elected officials family and staff? No he did not. WHY? In addition audio of the cops calling for help for rioting went unheeded. WHY?
His role in this was huge without a doubt, from the set up around the big lie of fraud to the staging and outcome.
Gotta love and admire the cult of personality
An interesting take on what happened..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-us-canada-55959134
Good video overall . Whether there was fraud in the election results is not a
lie as the narrator suggests .It is conjecture and opinion . Neither side has proven their case definitively and even if they do ;a lie is intentional . Both sides of the issue believe they are right .
Trump said in his speech that the march toward the Capitol should be done peacefully. That fact has been ignored in 2 days of impeachment by the House prosecutors . I wonder why ?
They have also been hinting that the President is our Commander in Chief as if he has authority to command anything more than the armed services of the US . The leaders of the riot have been arrested and charged . Trump did not command them to attack the Capitol . Trump's use of the word 'fight ' is common political rhetoric and I'm sure with not too much effort I could find many examples of political leaders using it . When they use it are they also leaders of a cult ?
The video concludes that the attack on the Capitol is the "beginning " of a new era of violence as a political tool in the US . That completely ignores the fact that for the past year BLM/Antifa have been using violence effectively as a political tool to influence their political causes . They have been given rhetorical legitimacy by MANY in the ranks of the Democrats .They have essentially been the militia wing of the Democratic Party .
I would also point out that June 14 ,2017 ,a Bernie Sanders supporter attacked a group of Republican members of Congress who were practicing for a baseball game . He shot Rep Steve Scalise and others . Overall 5 people were injured before the shooter was shot and killed .
Rep Gabby Gifford was shot in the head and critically wounded by a deranged and mentally disturbed political independent in 2011.
In the 1960s and 1970s violence was used repeatedly by the left in opposition to the Vietnam war . Violence was used as a tool in the civil rights struggles in this country by both sides of the issue.
The raw truth is that violence has historically been a political tool used in this country for both good and bad causes . John Brown was a violent leaders in the pre civil war days as a strident abolitionist . All he did was take part in 'Bloody Kansas ' when the issue was if Kansas would enter the union as a free or slave state. He went on to attack a Federal armory in an attempt to foment a slave revolt.
So the idea that political violence began in the Trump era is absurd .
Then provide several quotes.Quote:
It cannot be wrapped neatly in a quote to suit you. You know that but you keep at it anyway.
It's what people say when they have no evidence. "Don't bother me by asking for evidence."Quote:
If you're serious about seeing the proof, then watch the trial. It will go on until Saturday. If you're not willing to educate yourself on the facts, then please stop bothering us.
At least you're not biased.Quote:
Don't miss that part to see two half-assed lawyer incompetents.
@ Tom
No one says the dufus invented violence or lying. He uses both to his own ends to hold onto power and influence. Interesting how some on the right conflates BLM and antifa, but wants to separate white supremists from conservatism. I don't think that's consistent, and the dufus capitalizes on that conflation.
That's a really good point. Violent protests over a really questionable narrative of widespread police brutality have been going on since Ferguson. Dem pols don't raise a whisper against it, and neither do the liberals on this board. The general attitude seems to be that if it can't be used against Trump, then it's not worth talking about.Quote:
That completely ignores the fact that for the past year BLM/Antifa have been using violence effectively as a political tool to influence their political causes . They have been given rhetorical legitimacy by MANY in the ranks of the Democrats .They have essentially been the militia wing of the Democratic Party .
if you watch the video Ben posted ,that is exactly what is concluded in the last couple of minutes of the video.Quote:
No one says the dufus invented violence or lying. he uses both to his own ends
One of the final comments was a man opining that this was the beginning of the emergence of a new movement with violence at its core. You just want to ask this guy where he's been the past few years.
I drew my conclusions years ago when the dufus was a candidate.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
YES, it is Trump's biggest lie. No conjecture about it. Every election has been certified by Republican officials including secretaries of state. Even AG Barr, Trump's biggest flunkie, had to admit the election was fair and not fraud involved. Even for Barr, that was a bridge too far.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Because it was clearly not spoken by Trump to have any meaningful portent. It was a throwaway line for the cameras. All you have to do is watch him saying it. He used "peace" once - other words of violence were used constantly in his speech.Quote:
Trump said in his speech that the march toward the Capitol should be done peacefully. That fact has been ignored in 2 days of impeachment by the House prosecutors . I wonder why ?
Nobody said he did. A straw horse from you.The charge is that he INCITED them - not commanded them.Quote:
Trump did not command them to attack the Capitol
Not the way Trump used it - he MEANT it literally. Watch the video.Quote:
Trump's use of the word 'fight ' is common political rhetoric
Trump is not the leader of a cult. He's not smart enough. His followers exhibit cult-like behavior. A difference.Quote:
are they also leaders of a cult ?
Man, you sure can get things wrong. The violence was due to the Police murdering black men and women because they were black. If you mean that they are using violence as a political took to keep blacks from being murdered - sure, of course they are.Quote:
for the past year BLM/Antifa have been using violence effectively as a political tool to influence their political causes
Hogwash! The Republican Party has become one huge camp of armed insurrectionists.Quote:
They have essentially been the militia wing of the Democratic Party
This is called whataboutism - when you have nothing to defend re a current discussion, you revert to something not being discussed. I'm surprised you left out Benghazi. Or the French and Indian war.Quote:
I would also point out that June 14 ,2017 ,a Bernie Sanders supporter attacked a group of Republican members of Congress who were practicing for a baseball game . He shot Rep Steve Scalise and others . Overall 5 people were injured before the shooter was shot and killed .Rep Gabby Gifford was shot in the head and critically wounded by a deranged and mentally disturbed political independent in 2011.
Both uses justified by an unjust war and by an unjust society. Bull Connor was an example of the other side of the issue.Quote:
In the 1960s and 1970s violence was used repeatedly by the left in opposition to the Vietnam war . Violence was used as a tool in the civil rights struggles in this country by both sides of the issue.
There has been violence in human affairs since Cain slew Abel. It's not news.Quote:
The raw truth is that violence has historically been a political tool used in this country for both good and bad causes . John Brown was a violent leaders in the pre civil war days as a strident abolitionist . All he did was take part in 'Bloody Kansas ' when the issue was if Kansas would enter the union as a free or slave state. He went on to attack a Federal armory in an attempt to foment a slave revolt.
You know as well as I do that you can't prove the absence of a thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Fraud hasn't been proven at all, certainly not on the scale as raved about since November.
If it was THAT large then there would be something to see.
BLM/Antifa, etc, while violent, didn't forcibly occupy the seat of government...
The narrative writes itself.
As mentioned previously, the real end game here is to stop Trump re-entering public service at a later date.
Not to actually take any criminal action or even strip him of his retirees perks.
This is the establishment, pure and simply, enforcing their rules against a perceived usurper.
The party has no bearing, they just don't want to see this happen again, as it makes the entire US political system look very silly.
Nepotism rules and the Old Skool tie all the way.
Why do you think that The Capitol is full of life termers.
Very well said Ben, the point of the whole exercise is to make sure the dufus can't keep his promise..."This is just the beginning..." he said after the riot on the capitol, and the ball is in repubs lap. They shamefully fumbled the last opportunity to rid us of this lying, cheating, stealing bully, and he got even worse, but the PEOPLE saved us.
I disagree though that the election fraud narrative is anything but a big fat lie and always has been for the decades repubs have hollered it for the sake of limiting select populations exercise in the voting process. Repub state legislatures are already back at the game of restricting access after the latest election.
I think those are fair statements except for the last one. Rather surprisingly, most of the the members of the Senate have been in office for no more than two terms which would scarcely qualify them as "life termers". I didn't have enough energy to check out the House, but I would imagine the same is true there.Quote:
As mentioned previously, the real end game here is to stop Trump re-entering public service at a later date.
Not to actually take any criminal action or even strip him of his retirees perks.
This is the establishment, pure and simply, enforcing their rules against a perceived usurper.
The party has no bearing, they just don't want to see this happen again, as it makes the entire US political system look very silly.
Nepotism rules and the Old Skool tie all the way.
Why do you think that The Capitol is full of life termers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...tates_senators
Republican's have become the party of the dufus and the establishment is scared of his popularity with his base. Old school repubs have quite the party and run to the dems during the last election cycle, and many have become independents.
120 anti-Trump Republicans are in talks to form a center-right third party that would run on 'principled conservatism,' report says (msn.com)
Republicans at a crossroads while battling for the 'soul' of the GOP (businessinsider.com)
This problem is endemic, and not merely limited to the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Why have a President that can only serve 2 terms, yet the make up for the Senate doesn't change as often.
There are some serious Long termers, 30+ years right there.
13 from last century, only 9% are fresh intake.
The whole system needs an overhaul, and that has nothing to do with party lines.
The UK went through this type of pain with the overhaul of our upper chamber.
The fraud and steal was used to whip up further support for a dying regime.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
This isn't limited to 6 Jan speech, but pretty much ever utterance after the election.
One last gasp at legitimacy.
I did not say there were no senators who had been serving a long time. Your statement was that the Capitol is "full of" them. I don't know how you define "full of", but 13 being from the last century would be 13% having served more than 20 years. That doesn't strike me as "full of". Perhaps we just see the phrase differently.
As to your term limits argument, you might have a good point. It would get rid of some incompetents, but would also get rid of some very qualified people. It's a tough call for me, but I'd probably vote for term limits right now if I had to choose.
I don't think the whole system needs an overhaul. That system is amazingly good and time tested. I think our problem is that we are becoming more and more dominated by a stupid electorate who can't see past pols who buy their votes by, for instance, borrowing money against the future to send checks to people who don't need them, or who waste valuable time trying to impeach a president who is now actually the former president, and who certainly did not do what they are foolishly accusing him of doing.
It is certain your system needs reform, there is a continuous electoral cycle going on. The house terms are too short, and there should be some form of term limit in both houses as there is for the president. Perhaps the election of the president should be detached from the other elections and clear uniform rules established. Electoral funding also needs reform
That's actually not true, but I like the House terms being two years. Accountability and access to rapid change.Quote:
there is a continuous electoral cycle going on.
Maybe. I'm open to that, but are there term limits in the Australian Parliament?Quote:
there should be some form of term limit in both houses as there is for the president.
Detachment would serve no purpose. The topic of clear, uniform rules is one that I am open to hearing more about.Quote:
Perhaps the election of the president should be detached from the other elections and clear uniform rules established.
That's a touchy subject. What do you propose?Quote:
Electoral funding also needs reform
sounds good in theory but it shortens the ability of an administration to get things doneQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
[no but I think it could benefit from it too. our system is somewhat more dynamic than yours at the leadership levelQuote:
Maybe. I'm open to that, but are there term limits in the Australian Parliament?
our elections are administered by a federal body so the same rules apply across the nationQuote:
Detachment would serve no purpose. The topic of clear, uniform rules is one that I am open to hearing more about.
No PAC, electoral advertising funded by government and limited. all contributions to parties declared and limitedQuote:
That's a touchy subject. What do you propose?
exactly right ... the establishment taking down a 'perceived ' usurper .Quote:
As mentioned previously, the real end game here is to stop Trump re-entering public service at a later date.
Not to actually take any criminal action or even strip him of his retirees perks.
This is the establishment, pure and simply, enforcing their rules against a perceived usurper.
If Trump supporters think he is getting screwed he will come back stronger than ever ;elected or not .
I could give a dissertation on that subject . The cliff note version is that the framers created 2 ways to amend the Constitution . One of them is the tradition one that is initiated in Congress before the states ratify the amendment . Obviously Congress is NOT going to limit their terms . Almost all of them become filthy rich in office .Quote:
Why do you think that The Capitol is full of life termers.
The other way to amend the Constitution has not been used since the framing . It is initiated in the State legislatures calling for a convention to amend . That gives the states sole power to write amendments and confirm them .
Here is the Article 5 text :
.Quote:
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate
It is well past time for a convention of the states to convene and propose amendments ...... including term limits for both the legislative and judicial branches
In recent years this rate has been well over 90 per cent, with rarely more than 5-10 incumbents losing their House seats every election cycle.Quote:
I didn't have enough energy to check out the House, but I would imagine the same is true there.
Good! The less the federal government does, then generally the better. The states are where most of the real governance is to be done. A strong federal government is a negative.Quote:
but it shortens the ability of an administration to get things done
Limits on advertising amounts to limits on free speech. I have no confidence in the government being that involved in elections.Quote:
No PAC, electoral advertising funded by government and limited. all contributions to parties declared and limited
That is because you haven't tried a shorter election period and limits on advertising, you also haven't tried stronger governance without local politics interferringQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
no thanks . You may want Canberra making local decisions for New South Wales ,Queensland and Tasmania ..... but I don't want some clown in DC making local decisions . Why not just eliminate your states and territories ? Federalism under your plan is meaningless.Quote:
That is because you haven't tried a shorter election period and limits on advertising, you also haven't tried stronger governance without local politics interferring
A strong fed gov has gotten us over 30 tril in debt with much more to come. Our founders recognized that danger. Our present electorate is too dumb to stop it.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:43 AM. |