Trump supporters, is it ok to use force against people protesting against trump's actions during his military parade?

[bomberfox]

Sedition for whom? Not Trump. Not for the vast number of those who entered the building 1/6.

So, since the overwhelming majority charged weren’t charged with seditious conspiracy compels pedantry is germane. This isn’t shocking since pedantry is inherent to law, the practice of law and arguing law since, well, in the U.S. the laws are written.

And in perhaps the most conspicuously compelling display of pedantry, federal law defines sedition in relation to seditious conspiracy as, “f two or more persons in [the U.S.], conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”
18 U.S.C. § 2384

Enrique and a very small number of 1/6ers were charged under this federal statute of seditious conspiracy. However, the breadth of this statute includes more conduct than overthrowing, abolishing, by force, armed force, the federal government.

Rather, some Oath Keepers were charged specifically with seditious conspiracy of “to oppose by force the authority of the government of the United States” or “by force to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States,” more expressly as “oppose the lawful transfer of presidential power by force.”

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22053672/jan-6-tarrio-et-al-superseding-indictment.pdf

Those charges do not meet the meaning of insurrection I provided and linked to in a prior post. Pedantry supremacy.

Pedantry in defense of trump pathetic. Go troll someone else who has the patience for your shit. Yes oathkeepers were charged with seditious conspiracy. Have your shitty lastworditis.

 

[CLAX1911]

To think some of our fathers and many of our grandfathers fought fascism during the second world war to protect our right to free speech and to protest. Our current president wants to do harm to any protesters during his parade I'm pretty sure this isn't what our fathers and grandfathers fought for. Trump is trying to turn America into a police state, it won't work, all he is doing is pissing off more and more people.

Are we talking about protesters or are we talking about people that block up the street I don't think those are the same thing. Protesting is just saying words. If you're blocking up the street that's an act of aggression and you should be arrested for that.

 

[Grogu]

Your first two paragraphs beg the question of whether they establish Trump engaged in insurrection. The first two paragraphs rest upon the assumption that is insurrection by Trump, and that begs the question.

And your opinion is that Trump did not engage in insurrection. Just because he was never formally charged by the Special Counsel doesn’t mean, in the simplest way, that it didn’t happen.

Your error to write “to ignore every else” as I never took any such view, express or implied. You erroneously presumed my view regarding insurrection equated to stating no other crimes are applicable to Trump.

Oh no I didn’t. You were standing on your contention that what happened did not meet a textbook definition of insurrection. That’s all, and if you’re reading something else into it, then you’re mistaken.

You hastily jumped to that conclusion and skipped over the preliminary question of whether I am of the view Trump’s conduct constituted as criminal. Too bad for you, as I do believe Trump committed some federal crimes but not insurrection.

You’re mistaken here, too. I couldn’t care less what you think about Trump or his behavior. You can stand on whatever soapbox you want to where Trump is concerned, but you went to the trouble of quoting three different dictionaries to try to establish what makes an insurrection or not. That’s usually not the end-all when it comes to laws, statutes, or Articles of the Constitution. That’s why we have courts, to sort out the meanings behind terms and more importantly, what happened. We’ll never know for sure where this situation is concerned, so we’re left to our own opinions.

 

[braindrain]

Well what about blah, blah, blah.

Oh all of a sudden you have problems with whatavoutisms.
When did that change because I see you use them all the time.

 

[NotreDame]

Thanks for posting Trump pardoned people who conspired sedition against America.

Thank you for rendering the task of refuting your vacuous posts as effortless, since your replies lack any cogent substance to my position.

Yes, your retort fantastically failed to acknowledge the different legal meanings of sedition, which I provided for your leisure, assumed devoted reading time. Many of the legal meanings of sedition do not parallel or mean “insurrection.” You’ll hopefully recall I invoked a specific meaning of “insurrection.”

The specific acts of sedition those 1/6 peeps pleaded to/found guilty of, do not constitute as insurrection, expressly their conduct does not satisfy the meaning of insurrection. Which perhaps provides ample explication as to why Jack Smith didn’t alleged seditious acts constituting as insurrection.

Trump pardoned people who didn’t commit insurrection and pleaded to seditious actions that do not legally meet the meaning of insurrection I invoked.

So, you have no point in relation to my view but not having any point germane to my view is part of your charm.

 

[Jagged]

Thank you for rendering the task of refuting your vacuous posts as effortless, since your replies lack any cogent substance to my position.

Yes, your retort fantastically failed to acknowledge the different legal meanings of sedition, which I provided for your leisure, assumed devoted reading time. Many of the legal meanings of sedition do not parallel or mean “insurrection.” You’ll hopefully recall I invoked a specific meaning of “insurrection.”

The specific acts of sedition those 1/6 peeps pleaded to/found guilty of, do not constitute as insurrection, expressly their conduct does not satisfy the meaning of insurrection. Which perhaps provides ample explication as to why Jack Smith didn’t alleged seditious acts constituting as insurrection.

Trump pardoned people who didn’t commit insurrection and pleaded to seditious actions that do not legally meet the meaning of insurrection I invoked.

So, you have no point in relation to my view but not having any point germane to my view is part of your charm.

Sedition is the planning or incitement of insurrection.

Understanding Insurrection and Sedition

CSIS security experts define acts of sedition and insurrection and evaluate the seriousness of both charges.

www.csis.org

Generally, sedition is conduct or speech that incites individuals to violently rebel against the authority of the government. Insurrection includes the actual acts of violence and rebellion.

And yes, some were convicted of seditious conspiracy because they did plan on using force to prevent Congress from counting the electoral votes and certifying Biden as the next president. That you don't know that, buries your position.

 

[NotreDame]

Pedantry in defense of trump pathetic. Go troll someone else who has the patience for your shit. Yes oathkeepers were charged with seditious conspiracy. Have your shitty lastworditis.

Ah, the sweet prose of self-aware defeat. Yes, rather than engage the substance of the POV you ironically accuse me as a “troll.” The troll is you, the poster lacking the intestinal fortitude to reply with a cogent, rational response to the substance of what I wrote.

I’ll have the “last word” only because despite your words you said nothing.!

 

[NotreDame]

That’s usually not the end-all when it comes to laws, statutes, or Articles of the Constitution. That’s why we have courts, to sort out the meanings behind terms and more importantly, what happened. We’ll never know for sure where this situation is concerned, so we’re left to our own opinions.

The “own opinions” retreat ignores that in reality some opinions are superior to, stronger than, other opinions. Some features include a reliance upon facts, evidence, statutes, definitions, historical context, some of which or all of which I invoked.

The others alleging Trump committed insurrection have post, after post, devoid of any supporting evidence, laws, facts, historical context, etcetera. They thereby demonstrate being completely devoid of any sound, objective analysis and reasoning, and reach a conclusion seemingly driven by partisan hatred

 

[NotreDame]

Sedition is the planning or incitement of insurrection.

Understanding Insurrection and Sedition

CSIS security experts define acts of sedition and insurrection and evaluate the seriousness of both charges.

www.csis.org

Generally, sedition is conduct or speech that incites individuals to violently rebel against the authority of the government. Insurrection includes the actual acts of violence and rebellion.

Generally, sedition is conduct or speech that incites individuals to violently rebel against the authority of the government. Insurrection includes the actual acts of violence and rebellion.

And their source for this is…just making the mending up in their own mind.

Regardless, their pet meaning isn’t the legal meaning in relation to the 1/6 defendants.

And yes, some were convicted of seditious conspiracy because they did plan on using force to prevent Congress from counting the electoral votes and certifying Biden as the next president. That you don't know that, buries your position.

I appreciate smack talk. However, smack talk when you’re factually wrong, well that’s just fatally foolish.

What “buries your position” is in a prior post that YOU presumably read and then replied to, I unequivocally, impossible to misunderstand, unfathomable how anyone could misread, that some of the 1/6 defendants were charged under federal law with seditious conspiracy.

I PREVIOUSLY wrote below the post you addressed:

“And in perhaps the most conspicuously compelling display of pedantry, federal law defines sedition in relation to seditious conspiracy as, “two or more persons in [the U.S.], conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”
18 U.S.C. § 2384

Enrique and a very small number of 1/6ers were charged under this federal statute of seditious conspiracy. However, the breadth of this statute includes more conduct than overthrowing, abolishing, by force, armed force, the federal government.

Rather, some Oath Keepers were charged specifically with seditious conspiracy of “to oppose by force the authority of the government of the United States” or “by force to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States,” more expressly as “oppose the lawful transfer of presidential power by force.”
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22053672/jan-6-tarrio-et-al-superseding-indictment.pdf

So, to the contrary I did “know that” (where “that” refers back to my last quote box of your post above).

That you couldn’t comprehend I already stated what you wrote “buries your position” as confused. Shouldn’t talk trash unless you’re right!

 

[Grogu]

The “own opinions” retreat ignores that in reality some opinions are superior to, stronger than, other opinions. Some features include a reliance upon facts, evidence, statutes, definitions, historical context, some of which or all of which I invoked.

The others alleging Trump committed insurrection have post, after post, devoid of any supporting evidence, laws, facts, historical context, etcetera. They thereby demonstrate being completely devoid of any sound, objective analysis and reasoning, and reach a conclusion seemingly driven by partisan hatred

If you really want to continue a debate, you should stick with it instead of returning three weeks later and expect anybody to engage with you seriously. And only quoting a portion of my post in order to cherry pick for your weak points so you can somehow claim victory is cheap. But I’m going to grace you with a reply this one time, because if it happens again in the future, I’ll treat it as nothing more than an annoyance and I’ll move right on by.

The fact is, your opinion is exactly that- your opinion. You may think it means something, but until you become a judge, well guess what? It holds water around here any more than anyone else’s opinion. Then again, there were three Colorado Supreme Court justices who dissented in Anderson v. Griswold, so maybe you can go join them. You know, the case ruled upon by the Supreme Court of Colorado, which found in their majority opinion that:

“The question remains whether the record supported the district court’s finding that President Trump engaged in the January 6 insurrection by acting overtly and voluntarily with the intent of aiding or furthering the insurrectionists’ common unlawful purpose. Again, mindful of our applicable standard of review, we conclude that it did, and we proceed to a necessarily detailed discussion of the evidence to show why it was so.”

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

There’s a whole lot of sound, objective analysis and reasoning to be found in that decision. So before getting on your soapbox and proclaiming that I reached a “conclusion seemingly driven by partisan hatred,” perhaps you should think again. And before jumping to the United States Supreme Court ruling, keep in mind they didn’t conclude anything on the issue of Trump, only that Congress may disqualify candidates for federal office under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment.

 

[Jagged]

And their source for this is…just making the mending up in their own mind.

Regardless, their pet meaning isn’t the legal meaning in relation to the 1/6 defendants.



I appreciate smack talk. However, smack talk when you’re factually wrong, well that’s just fatally foolish.

What “buries your position” is in a prior post that YOU presumably read and then replied to, I unequivocally, impossible to misunderstand, unfathomable how anyone could misread, that some of the 1/6 defendants were charged under federal law with seditious conspiracy.

I PREVIOUSLY wrote below the post you addressed:

“And in perhaps the most conspicuously compelling display of pedantry, federal law defines sedition in relation to seditious conspiracy as, “two or more persons in [the U.S.], conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.”
18 U.S.C. § 2384

Enrique and a very small number of 1/6ers were charged under this federal statute of seditious conspiracy. However, the breadth of this statute includes more conduct than overthrowing, abolishing, by force, armed force, the federal government.

Rather, some Oath Keepers were charged specifically with seditious conspiracy of “to oppose by force the authority of the government of the United States” or “by force to prevent, hinder or delay the execution of any law of the United States,” more expressly as “oppose the lawful transfer of presidential power by force.”
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22053672/jan-6-tarrio-et-al-superseding-indictment.pdf

So, to the contrary I did “know that” (where “that” refers back to my last quote box of your post above).

That you couldn’t comprehend I already stated what you wrote “buries your position” as confused. Shouldn’t talk trash unless you’re right!

Could be they used a dictionary.

 

[NotreDame]

Could be they used a dictionary.

View attachment 67580174
View attachment 67580173

So what? As pertaining to the 1/6 subjects prosecuted under federal law and charged with a specific and narrow meaning of sedition under federal law, the dictionary meanings above are irrelevant.

Second, there is a historical meaning for the word “treason” and “insurrection” under the U.S. Constitution. Furthermore, there is a historical meaning of the word “insurrection” in dating back to colonial America. The same is true of sedition, called seditious libel in colonial and early U.S. common law.

However, just for purpose of edification: “insurrection (against somebody/something) a situation in which a large group of people try to take political control of their own country with violence.” Oxford https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/insurrection

Sedition: “the use of words or actions that are intended to encourage people to oppose a government” Oxford https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/sedition

There’s no reason to accept your speculation the source of the meaning for “they” is the source you provided, nor to treat such meanings as more paramount to the Oxford meanings above.

More importantly, however, as I stated or inferred to previously, the qualifying word “rebel” in relation to “sedition” meaning you submitted is not applicable to most if any of the 1/6 suspects/defendants.

Indeed, Enrique wasn’t charged with “rebel” but specifically “oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States.”, under 18 U.S. Code 2384, Seditious Conspiracy.
Hmmm….it seems whomever drafted the federal statute consulted the Oxford meaning I cited to and the federal prosecutors rendered most applicable to Enrique and some other
1/6 defendants a part of the statute which mirrors the Oxford meaning I provided.

Nothing in your recent post refutes what I previously wrote or my position.

 

[NotreDame]

“The question remains whether the record supported the district court’s finding that President Trump engaged in the January 6 insurrection by acting overtly and voluntarily with the intent of aiding or furthering the insurrectionists’ common unlawful purpose. Again, mindful of our applicable standard of review, we conclude that it did, and we proceed to a necessarily detailed discussion of the evidence to show why it was so.”

https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2023/23SA300.pdf

There’s a whole lot of sound, objective analysis and reasoning to be found in that decision.

Is there? So you say, but you’ve not at all made any such demonstration of it.

If you really want to continue a debate, you should stick with it instead of returning three weeks later and expect anybody to engage with you seriously.

First world problems man, it’s called trial(s) and teaching. Second, I did not have any expectation for you, ever!

And only quoting a portion of my post in order to cherry pick for your weak points so you can somehow claim victory is cheap.

The “cheap” is the vacuous characterization. The “cheap” is your empty claim of “weak points.” The “cheap” is your “cheap” statement I claimed victory. I never claimed victory. That’s what is cheap.

But I’m going to grace you with a reply this one time, because if it happens again in the future, I’ll treat it as nothing more than an annoyance and I’ll move right on by.

Right because myself and other peeps here just desperately await your replies. Oh the hubris!

The fact is, your opinion is exactly that- your opinion.

So what? Again, opinions are not all equal, just ask the flat earthers. If this empty reply is your “grace,” then “grace” me with not replying again.

You may think it means something, but until you become a judge, well guess what? It holds water around here any more than anyone else’s opinion.

Thank you, captain fallacious reasoning. The weight of opinions, their strength, weakness, propensity for truth or falsity, sound or unsound, deductive or not, likely true or false. doesn’t rest upon a title or occupation. Never has. Your retort is the empty refrain from people who simply cannot articulate a formidable point of view.

Then again, there were three Colorado Supreme Court justices who dissented in Anderson v. Griswold, so maybe you can go join them.

So what? Again, fallacious reasoning is ostensibly your default setting for reasoning. Whether dissent, or in the majority, doesn’t establish whether an opinion is strong, weak, sound, unsound, true, false, likely true or false. Your inference of popularity contest of in the dissent, minority, is some indication of a weak or poor opinion is flawed reasoning.

So before getting on your soapbox and proclaiming that I reached a “conclusion seemingly driven by partisan hatred,” perhaps you should think again.

You’re right. Just terribly flawed reasoning that I just highlighted in this post.

And before jumping to the United States Supreme Court ruling, keep in mind they didn’t conclude anything on the issue of Trump

Never said SCOTUS did, so this is irrelevant.