• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Incitement of Insurrection - Context Matters

The sad part is Trump got acquitted. I kinda saw this coming though.
 
The sad part is Trump got acquitted. I kinda saw this coming though.

Everyone did. What’s amazing is that 7 republicans voted to convict him.
The jackass will still face charges in NY, this time as a civilian. I hope they nail him.
 
Stuff said prior to an election is free speech.
If you say stuff like that
AFTER election,
AFTER litigated results x60,
AFTER Congress certifies, it's not about an election.
You're not fighting to GET elected, you're fighting those who DID get elected.

INCITEMEANT TO INSURRECTION. End of story.
 
Hey, screw it. Let's impeach Obama now that it's "legal". I think giving Ayatolla Azzahola a Billion bucks is a good reason. That actually was treason. 👍
 
Excellent post. The jackass is a criminal. What you didn't even mention is that he is likely guilty of involuntary manslaughter of hundreds of thousands of American citizens, citizens that he took an oath to protect. What is amazing is that there are still idiots who support his BS.
Its not the Republican party that is guilty: its HIM.

The Republican Party is responsible as accomplices, for enabling him and never holding him accountable, including in two impeachments.

And the super-majority of Republican voters who still support him.
 
Hey, screw it. Let's impeach Obama now that it's "legal". I think giving Ayatolla Azzahola a Billion bucks is a good reason. That actually was treason. 👍

LOL No it is not. It was Iran's money.
 
Hey, screw it. Let's impeach Obama now that it's "legal". I think giving Ayatolla Azzahola a Billion bucks is a good reason. That actually was treason. 👍
Do you honestly think a January Exception is what the founders intended? Do you honestly think it's good for the country if the President has a period of immunity after losing an election?
 
Couple of points, though admittedly, all have been much ruminated over in other forum threads.

Point of fact: There was no violence at the political rally at the Eclipse. The violence was at the political protest at the Capitol, which got out of hand, so the two incidences are separate incidences.

The judgement of what is political rhetoric and what is incitement is wholly subjective. There are many instances of many other politicians of all points on the political spectrum having used the same political rhetoric, in some instances verbatim, which was used in the speech at the Eclipse.

No politician can control what, or how, various members of the electorate responds to their political rhetoric. Any actions that people take are their own decision to take those actions and their own responsibility for those actions.
 
Couple of points, though admittedly, all have been much ruminated over in other forum threads.

Point of fact: There was no violence at the political rally at the Eclipse. The violence was at the political protest at the Capitol, which got out of hand, so the two incidences are separate incidences.

The judgement of what is political rhetoric and what is incitement is wholly subjective. There are many instances of many other politicians of all points on the political spectrum having used the same political rhetoric, in some instances verbatim, which was used in the speech at the Eclipse.

No politician can control what, or how, various members of the electorate responds to their political rhetoric. Any actions that people take are their own decision to take those actions and their own responsibility for those actions.

When it comes to political rhetoric, I think there is a fundamental difference between generic calls to fight what you believe in and asking a riled up crowd if they want "trial by combat" or are willing to shed blood or give their lives like their ancestors did. The latter two are both things said by Trump allies at his rally before the former President pointed them at the Capitol.
 
When it comes to political rhetoric, I think there is a fundamental difference between generic calls to fight what you believe in and asking a riled up crowd if they want "trial by combat" or are willing to shed blood or give their lives like their ancestors did. The latter two are both things said by Trump allies at his rally before the former President pointed them at the Capitol.
I take it that your position is 'political rhetoric for some, but not others'?

In addition, you are demonstrating my point about it being subjective. Thanks for the unexpected help.

Doesn't mitigate the point about responsibility of actions taken, regardless.
 
No politician can control what, or how, various members of the electorate responds to their political rhetoric. Any actions that people take are their own decision to take those actions and their own responsibility for those actions.
Bullshit.

Words - especilly lies - have consequences.
 
I take it that your position is 'political rhetoric for some, but not others'?

In addition, you are demonstrating my point about it being subjective. Thanks for the unexpected help.

Doesn't mitigate the point about responsibility of actions taken, regardless.

My position is that not all political rhetoric is the same.

Let's give some examples.



One of these is a generic call to fight and protest for the things that you believe in.

The other is a conservative targeting a man that many on the right have accused of being a mass murderer who created the pandemic and telling his supporters they should confront him and "go for the kill shot".

Do you believe these two are the same thing? Just harmless rhetoric on equal footing?
 
My position is that not all political rhetoric is the same.

Let's give some examples.


Oh please. This 'kill shot' reference already thoroughly debunked.

One of these is a generic call to fight and protest for the things that you believe in.

The other is a conservative targeting a man that many on the right have accused of being a mass murderer who created the pandemic and telling his supporters they should confront him and "go for the kill shot".

Do you believe these two are the same thing? Just harmless rhetoric on equal footing?
In your above example, I know that you want to silence Fox News, an example of exactly what I'm talking about, and again, thanks for making my point for me yet again.

Political rhetoric is political rhetoric, whether is comes from a politician you agree with or don't agree with.

When you start subdividing political rhetoric into acceptable and unacceptable, you are making subjective judgements and playing a partisan game.
That partisan game being 'People I agree with engage in acceptable political rhetoric, but people I don't agree with engage in unacceptable political rhetoric'.

My position is that political rhetoric is political rhetoric, and you can't realistically subdivide it in an unbiased way, and people are themselves responsible for the actions they take even after hearing that political rhetoric that you object to.
 
That is a long way to go and far too many hoops to jump. Just to claim that one man incited an insurrection, that didn't even happen.
 
Intro/Prologue

This thread is not about Kathy Lee Gifford, Madonna, or any of the other anti-Trump idiots who stood on very thin ice and are damn lucky there were no correlated attempts on Trump's life. This thread is also not about opportunistic dirt bags assaulting innocent people, destroying private businesses, or attempting to trap agents inside burning buildings under the delusion of justice for George Floyd. This thread is about former President Donald J. Trump and his series of objectively irresponsible words which directly led to the Capitol attack on 1/6/21.

I'm aware of the handful of times when Trump denounced violence and white supremacy, and that he called for peace both before and during the Capitol attack. But the irresponsible things Trump said from the other side of his mouth predictably ensured that his denouncements and calls for peace were only seen by alt-right militants as necessary BS for political optics and plausible deniability, but not truly meant from the heart. My position is that Trump had ample reasons to know full well that violence at the rally was a distinct possibility, and that his speech carelessly disregarded that possibility while actually serving to increase the likelihood of violence.

The Case

1.) In May, 2020, ABC News found 54 cases of violence or threats of violence in which the suspect invoked Trump's name in direct connection to the crime. At the same time, ABC News was unable to find a single case of violence or threat of violence, filed in either state or federal court, that was committed in the name of Barack Obama or George W. Bush.


At this point, a responsible person of sound moral character and integrity would recognize and acknowledge that great care should be taken going forward so as to not further mislead potentially violent people into attempting or committing further acts of violence in their name. But alas, great care was not taken.

2.) On April 17, 2020, Donald J. Trump tweeted: "LIBERATE MICHIGAN!; LIBERATE MINNESOTA!; LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd Amendment. It's under siege!"

Only six months later, the Wolverine Watchmen were arrested for plotting to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. The FBI said that the group had also discussed kidnapping Virginia governor Ralph Northam.


At this point, a responsible person of sound moral character and integrity would recognize and acknowledge that great care should be taken going forward so as to not further mislead potentially violent people into attempting or committing further acts of violence in their name. But alas, great care was not taken.

3.) On Sep 30, 2020, Trump was asked on national television to condemn white supremacists and militant groups and to say that they need to stand down. Instead, he told the Proud Boys to stand by. That evening, the Proud Boys were "ecstatic" on Parler about the Presidential order they'd just been given. Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, posted: "Standing by sir". High-ranking Proud Boys member Joe Biggs posted, "President Trump told the proud boys to stand by because someone needs to deal with ANTIFA...well sir! we're ready!!"


At this point, a responsible person of sound moral character and integrity would recognize and acknowledge that great care should be taken going forward so as to not further mislead potentially violent people into attempting or committing further acts of violence in their name. But alas, great care was not taken.

4.) [Now insert hundreds of claims that the most sacred and essential institution of any democracy - free and fair elections - had just been "rigged" on a widespread scale by sinister background forces and therefore "stolen" from The People of the United States. These claims failed the most basic tests of evidentiary standards across dozens of courts - some of which were presided over by Trump's own appointed judges - yet somehow were believed by Trump to warrant enough trustworthiness and credibility to be endorsed as truthful and factual from the seat of the Office of the President of the United States.]

(Continued...)
The system works this way. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself correct without reasonable doubt.
 
The system works this way. I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself correct without reasonable doubt.
I'm well aware of the burden of proof fallacy. My proof was so lengthy that I hit the character limit and had to use two posts. If you choose not to understand it well enough to directly address it, that's your problem.
 
Most of the the time I'd say he didn't, he didn't, and you didn't.
Like I'll be a dictator. Clearly an attempt at a joke. He even clarified it. But the left seized on it immediately. Sort of like MSNBC's decision to not air his victory speech from Iowa. The decision made in advance, not based on anything he said because he hadn't said anything. They claim it's not about bias, such bullsh--. It's another clear case of campaign election interference by the left.
 
Most of the the time I'd say he didn't, he didn't, and you didn't.
Like I'll be a dictator. Clearly an attempt at a joke. He even clarified it. But the left seized on it immediately. Sort of like MSNBC's decision to not air his victory speech from Iowa. The decision made in advance, not based on anything he said because he hadn't said anything. They claim it's not about bias, such bullsh--. It's another clear case of campaign election interference by the left.
LOL Not the "it's a joke" excuse again. Trump is no comedian and never jokes. He says the quiet part out loud fairly often though.

 
5.) On Dec 18, 2020, Trump tweeted: "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" Three permits were issued for protests on 1/6/21 (Rally to Revival, The Silent Majority, and March for Trump/Save America), but none gave permission to march to the Capitol building.


A senior FBI official told NBC News that before the rally, the agency learned "credible and actionable information about individuals who were planning on traveling to the protests who expressed a desire to engage in violence."


At this point, a responsible person of sound moral character and integrity would recognize and acknowledge that great care should be taken going forward so as to not further mislead potentially violent people into attempting or committing further acts of violence in their name. But alas, great care was not taken.

6.) At the protests on 1/6/21, Trump said to the Save America crowd: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." But that's the only mention of remaining peaceful in the entire speech. Meanwhile, he made the following statements (in order of appearance):

We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved.
Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about...we will stop the steal.
We will not let them silence your voices. We’re not going to let it happen. Not going to let it happen.
We’re gathered together in the heart of our nation’s Capitol for one very, very basic and simple reason, to save our democracy.
You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.
You will have an illegitimate president, that’s what you’ll have. And we can’t let that happen.
The radical left knows exactly what they’re doing. They’re ruthless and it’s time that somebody did something about it.
Together we will drain the Washington swamp and we will clean up the corruption in our nation’s capital. We have done a big job on it, but you think it’s easy, it’s a dirty business. It’s a dirty business. You have a lot of bad people out there.
Together we are determined to defend and preserve government of the people, by the people and for the people.
And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.
We’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.


Conclusion

Whether through negligent carelessness or conscious intent, Donald J. Trump is responsible for the violence at the Capitol building on 1/6/21. He showed a wanton disregard for the clear and present danger that had evidenced itself multiple times over the days and months leading up to the rally. He sent what he reasonably should have known was a potentially violent crowd down Pennsylvania Avenue to a Capitol building that was full of U.S. Congress members who were in the middle of performing their solemn duty to certify the Electoral College votes for President. That is criminal negligence at best, and treason against the United States at worst.


ABC news, seriously? We've all seen the insane narratives cooked up by the left and their leg-humping media against Trump. The left is pathelogically incapable of telling the truth about Trump. So, nope, not impressed. Trump is right, he isn't really the target, we are.
 
ABC news, seriously? We've all seen the insane narratives cooked up by the left and their leg-humping media against Trump. The left is pathelogically incapable of telling the truth about Trump. So, nope, not impressed. Trump is right, he isn't really the target, we are.
How so? What has been said about Trump that is not the truth? Why do you defend him no matter what the evidence says?
 
5.) On Dec 18, 2020, Trump tweeted: "Big protest in D.C. on January 6th. Be there, will be wild!" Three permits were issued for protests on 1/6/21 (Rally to Revival, The Silent Majority, and March for Trump/Save America), but none gave permission to march to the Capitol building.


A senior FBI official told NBC News that before the rally, the agency learned "credible and actionable information about individuals who were planning on traveling to the protests who expressed a desire to engage in violence."


At this point, a responsible person of sound moral character and integrity would recognize and acknowledge that great care should be taken going forward so as to not further mislead potentially violent people into attempting or committing further acts of violence in their name. But alas, great care was not taken.

6.) At the protests on 1/6/21, Trump said to the Save America crowd: "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard." But that's the only mention of remaining peaceful in the entire speech. Meanwhile, he made the following statements (in order of appearance):

We will never give up. We will never concede, it doesn’t happen. You don’t concede when there’s theft involved.
Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore and that’s what this is all about...we will stop the steal.
We will not let them silence your voices. We’re not going to let it happen. Not going to let it happen.
We’re gathered together in the heart of our nation’s Capitol for one very, very basic and simple reason, to save our democracy.
You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong.
You will have an illegitimate president, that’s what you’ll have. And we can’t let that happen.
The radical left knows exactly what they’re doing. They’re ruthless and it’s time that somebody did something about it.
Together we will drain the Washington swamp and we will clean up the corruption in our nation’s capital. We have done a big job on it, but you think it’s easy, it’s a dirty business. It’s a dirty business. You have a lot of bad people out there.
Together we are determined to defend and preserve government of the people, by the people and for the people.
And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.
We’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.


Conclusion

Whether through negligent carelessness or conscious intent, Donald J. Trump is responsible for the violence at the Capitol building on 1/6/21. He showed a wanton disregard for the clear and present danger that had evidenced itself multiple times over the days and months leading up to the rally. He sent what he reasonably should have known was a potentially violent crowd down Pennsylvania Avenue to a Capitol building that was full of U.S. Congress members who were in the middle of performing their solemn duty to certify the Electoral College votes for President. That is criminal negligence at best, and treason against the United States at worst.


Crock of shit!


How many threats to his life has the judge in the fraud case received? The witnesses? How about the other trials? How about the attack on Nancy Pelosi's husband?
MAGA is the problem, not us. We're just the victims who have to listen to this lying horseshit!

It's disgusting to be covered in blood and pointing a finger of blame. I would laugh if you got a form of slow killing cancer!
 
ABC news, seriously? We've all seen the insane narratives cooked up by the left and their leg-humping media against Trump. The left is pathelogically incapable of telling the truth about Trump. So, nope, not impressed. Trump is right, he isn't really the target, we are.


Oh. My. God.

How ****ing lame.

You actually bothered to post this?

As if the entire universe didn't know MAGA believes the MSM is satanic!

GIVE IT A ****ING BREAK!!!!!!!
 
...

The Case

1.) In May, 2020, ABC News found 54 cases of violence or threats of violence in which the suspect invoked Trump's name in direct connection to the crime. At the same time, ABC News was unable to find a single case of violence or threat of violence, filed in either state or federal court, that was committed in the name of Barack Obama or George W. Bush.


At this point, a responsible person of sound moral character and integrity would recognize and acknowledge that great care should be taken going forward so as to not further mislead potentially violent people into attempting or committing further acts of violence in their name. But alas, great care was not taken.

2.) On April 17, 2020, Donald J. Trump tweeted: "LIBERATE MICHIGAN!; LIBERATE MINNESOTA!; LIBERATE VIRGINIA, and save your great 2nd Amendment. It's under siege!"

Only six months later, the Wolverine Watchmen were arrested for plotting to kidnap Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer. The FBI said that the group had also discussed kidnapping Virginia governor Ralph Northam.


At this point, a responsible person of sound moral character and integrity would recognize and acknowledge that great care should be taken going forward so as to not further mislead potentially violent people into attempting or committing further acts of violence in their name. But alas, great care was not taken.

3.) On Sep 30, 2020, Trump was asked on national television to condemn white supremacists and militant groups and to say that they need to stand down. Instead, he told the Proud Boys to stand by. That evening, the Proud Boys were "ecstatic" on Parler about the Presidential order they'd just been given. Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio, posted: "Standing by sir". High-ranking Proud Boys member Joe Biggs posted, "President Trump told the proud boys to stand by because someone needs to deal with ANTIFA...well sir! we're ready!!"


At this point, a responsible person of sound moral character and integrity would recognize and acknowledge that great care should be taken going forward so as to not further mislead potentially violent people into attempting or committing further acts of violence in their name. But alas, great care was not taken.

4.) [Now insert hundreds of claims that the most sacred and essential institution of any democracy - free and fair elections - had just been "rigged" on a widespread scale by sinister background forces and therefore "stolen" from The People of the United States. These claims failed the most basic tests of evidentiary standards across dozens of courts - some of which were presided over by Trump's own appointed judges - yet somehow were believed by Trump to warrant enough trustworthiness and credibility to be endorsed as truthful and factual from the seat of the Office of the President of the United States.]

(Continued...)

I agree with almost all of this.

As best I can parse the situation, Trump's behavior on and just before January 6 falls short of criminal. I could be wrong, but that's based on the facts I've seen.

But there is no question that he was recklessly irresponsible in his words given his position. That's why I supported the second impeachment (which doesn't require criminal conviction), and was very disappointed (but not surprised) when he was acquitted by the Senate.

I would like to see a third impeachment (as far as I know it doesn't matter that he's not in office) with charges based on his calls to the SOS of Georgia and other details that have come out since. That would remove him from eligibility without having to thread the needle of new interpretation of the 14th amendment.
 
I would like to see a third impeachment (as far as I know it doesn't matter that he's not in office)
If you want to see an endless series of new Republican impeachments against Obama, Clinton and other retired politicians, maybe.
 
If you want to see an endless series of new Republican impeachments against Obama, Clinton and other retired politicians, maybe.

It would be worth it if it removed Trump from the political stage. And impeachment as a political weapon has sadly already become entrenched. Anytime a President's party is in minority in the House, it's likely to happen in the future. I hope I'm wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom