• 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!

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

upsideguy said:
....and you forgot insurrectionist, which a Colorado court determined also belongs on the Trump rap sheet.
Click to expand...

Trump wasn’t charged with or convicted of insurrection. Remember due process you guys keep talking about? Nonsense, also the judge.
 
Bullseye said:
You think a five year old picture has any relevance to today's situation?
Click to expand...

If we are discussing a movement that existed and was present and active then, yes. Yes it is indeed relevant, especially given that we then spent years re-litigating that day, with MAGA excusing and defending the actions it claims to decry in others.

MAGA demonstrated the extent to which it actually cared about law and order and peace and not assaulting cops when they were offered an opportunity to demonstrate where they valued it more than they valued tribal partisan loyalty to Trump.

They chose the latter. They don't want to submit to law and order themselves - they just want it to be enforced on others.
 
Linuxcooldude said:
Do you really want us to bring up the 200+ BLM riots?
Click to expand...
This isn't pissing contest without context:

Nobody permitted the BLM riots. Perpetrators were arrested. States mobilized an appropriate response.

But for Jan 6 what does Trump do? Not only does he not call in reinforcement, but he let's the rioters riot then ****ing pardons them.

Learn the difference between blindly trying to score points and actively trying to make one.
 
uptower said:
But for Jan 6 what does Trump do? Not only does he not call in reinforcement, but he let's the rioters riot then ****ing pardons them.
Click to expand...

Nancy Pelosi says ‘I take responsibility’ for not having National Guard at the Capitol on Jan. 6, video shows​


Nancy Pelosi says ‘I take responsibility’ for not having National Guard at the Capitol on Jan. 6, video shows

Nancy Pelosi says ‘I take responsibility’ for not having National Guard at the Capitol on Jan. 6, video shows
www.yahoo.com
 
Don’t waste our time with the NYP. They make shit up all the time.

Trump has just shown us he could have ordered the National guard in. If he can do it for California he can do it for The Capitol. Instead he let his follows trash the place and run around with a gallows trying to hang Mike Pence. Why would he do that?
 
I can't help but notice that ‘I take responsibility’ is in quotes, while for not having National Guard at the Capitol, is not. Meaning the Post made up the latter part of their salacious headline.
 
Michael Cole said:
??? My view? No, that's Trump's view.


Here's a fact for ya:



So, either you support fascism or you have blinders on.
Click to expand...

“Here’s a fact for you” your false dilemma kd support fascism or “have blinders is” is only for people with myopia, such as you. Your two option only logic is the flaw but myopia renders many susceptible to such porous logic.

I couldn’t care less for the PSA of what Trump wrote. His PSA isn’t germane so what I’ve written or my position. Regardless, since I neither voted for him in 2020 or 2024, I have no reason or desire to defend his methods.
 
Linuxcooldude said:
It wasn’t an insurrection, that’s why they were procecuted for sedition.
Click to expand...
It was an insurrection.

Quite covering for terrorists.

Q2: Is it a federal crime to commit “sedition” and “insurrection”?

A2: It is a serious federal crime to commit seditious conspiracy or to participate in an insurrection against the government.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 2384, “seditious conspiracy” occurs when two or more persons:

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.

You are wrong.

Just stop.

Also... turn off the Faux.

Linuxcooldude said:
It wasn’t an insurrection, that’s why they were procecuted for sedition.
Click to expand...
 
Hamish Howl said:
Thank you for saying you willfully refuse to see any sort of pattern if Trump is involved.
Click to expand...

To the contrary, “you refuse to see” there isn’t a parallel to the Nazi’s of Germany. There are conspicuously a lack of sufficient analogous and parallel features between the two.

You will see them because of your dislike for Trump. Me, I lack such bias as I didn’t vote for Trump in 2020 or 2924 but that, unlike you, doesn’t influence rationally analyzing the facts.
 
Hamish Howl said:
Except 1500 people who tried to change the result of an election by force.

I am sorry you express such disdain for our constitutional republic.
Click to expand...

“Except” you conveniently ignore a meaning of insurrection doesn’t include changing an election resul, in fact no one knows what meaning of insurrection or the source you in tacitly invoke and rely upon since you’ve never divulged a meaning or source. Regardless, Hence, many, many, weren’t charged with insurrection but obstructing an official proceeding and other charges.

Indeed, the career prosecutor, Jack Smith, sagaciously didn’t charge Trump with insurrection but a litany of other federal crimes. Such a decision isn’t inexplicable but rationally comprehensible, the facts didn’t support a federal insurrection/sedition charges against Trump.

You mention the constitution but lack any rational comprehension that the Constitutional meaning of sedition/insurrection isn’t applicable to Trump. See https://www.courts.state.co.us/user...pondent Donald J Trumps Motion to Dismiss.pdf

I cannot have “disdain” for refusing to bend the constitution’s meaning of insurrection to apply to Trump. “Disdain for our constitutional republic” is your deplorable method of reconfiguring the constitutional meaning of insurrection to fit Trump’s conduct based upon this far nothing more than your dislike for him as evinced by the conspicuous void of any substance supporting your claim.

Aside from the legal meaning of insurrection, unlike you ostensibly, I sought to avoid interjecting my own subjective view by citing a few dictionary meanings of insurrection. Trump’s actions didn’t fit.

Finally, you ignore your flaw of attributing to Trump the intent and plans of the 1500. Trump did commit federal crimes but not necessarily those of the 1500 you reference, a salient fact you hastily ignore.
 
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.

You can give all of the book definitions of insurrection you’d like, but to ignore everything else surrounding January 6, 2021 and why it happened in the first place, is a pretty narrow minded conclusion.
Click to expand...

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. 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.
 
NotreDame said:
“Except” you conveniently ignore a meaning of insurrection doesn’t include changing an election resul,
Click to expand...
It does if you do it by force.

Get all mad about it.
 
bongsaway said:
If the stop the steal crowd wasn't an insurrection, what were they doing there? Seems to me they were doing exactly what your first three examples of what an insurrection are and yet somehow you don't see it.
Click to expand...

Right, I “don’t see it” from the poster providing no exposition as to the meaning of insurrection. To be sure, to not “see it” is most assuredly from those claiming and only claiming insurrection and nothing else.

Your predisposition is to treat your claim of insurrection as tantamount to ineluctable truth of 2+2=4, gravity causes objects on earth to fall at 9.8 meters per second squared, that Einstein’s notion of gravity is incompatible with quantum mechanics AKA quantum physics.

Perhaps the mental exercise of ruminating the meaning of insurrection, researching its legal meaning and historical meaning in the U.S., will illuminate for you the answer to your own query. Then, with every aspiration of hope springing eternally you articulate a postion of how and why the relevant conduxt 1/6 constituted an insurrection.

Otherwise, the vacuous reply incriminates “you don’t see it.”
 
bomberfox said:
It was sedition actually, the oaf queefers were charged with seditious conspiracy now can we stop acting like pedantry means anything anymore?
Click to expand...

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.”
Those charges do not meet the meaning of insurrection I provided and linked to in a prior post. Pedantry supremacy.
 
Thanks for posting Trump pardoned people who conspired sedition against America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…