15
   

R.I.P. The 1st amendment 1791-2021

 
 
oralloy
 
  6  
Wed 13 Jan, 2021 05:49 pm
https://comicallyincorrect.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/02-blood-dt-1080-1050x750.jpg
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://comicallyincorrect.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/01-choked-li-1080-1050x750.jpg
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://michaelpramirez.com/uploads/3/4/9/8/34985326/mrz011221-color-1mb_orig.jpg
InfraBlue
 
  -2  
Wed 13 Jan, 2021 05:53 pm
@oralloy,
He shouldn't be inciting insurrection.
oralloy
 
  6  
Wed 13 Jan, 2021 06:27 pm
@InfraBlue,
He's not.
longjon
 
  6  
Wed 13 Jan, 2021 08:08 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
He shouldn't be inciting insurrection.


The Insurrection Lie.

The legacy media has spent the last week repeating the lie that Trump supporters travelled to Washington D.C. last week in a coordinated attempt to overthrow the government. It’s a lie.
Here’s what really happened.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees the “right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

On January 6, 2021, hundreds of thousands of citizens traveled to the nation’s capital to exercise their Constitutional right to peacefully protest.

0:39 / 1:05
This was their grievance: Seventy-five million had cast their ballots for Trump on election day.

Then, in the wee hours, when Las Vegas oddsmakers were calling a Trump victory, counting inexplicably stopped, and a disproportionate number of Biden votes appeared.

The Biden votes were primarily from Democrat-controlled cities: Detroit, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Milwaukee.

They were culled from mail-in ballots, an accommodation hurriedly retrofitted into the voting system because of a pandemic.

The election’s statistical anomalies were mind boggling, including Republican dominance down ballot, Trump’s significant support among minority voters, and his victory in all traditional bell weathers.

In June, Attorney General Bill Barr sat for an interview in CNN’s Situation Room with Wolf Blitzer and warned of fraud with mail-in voting.

He said: “People trying to change the rules to this, to this methodology – which, as a matter of logic, is very open to fraud and coercion – is reckless and dangerous and people are playing with fire.”


MAIL-IN BALLOTS WERE A DISASTER FOR DEMOCRACY
Some of the new voting procedures were ordered by state governors and health officials even though Article II of the Constitution delegates rule-making for elections exclusively to state legislatures.

The Washington protesters had reason to ask: Did someone pull a fast one?

President Trump addressed the protesters and called on the assembled to march “over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”

At the moment the President was uttering the words “peacefully,” though, a different more sinister group had already gathered at the Capitol, a full 45 minute walk away.

Whatever happened there is not yet fully understood. Given the proclivity of federal law enforcement to act politically against Trump, it unfortunately may never be.

Some things, though, are certain. We know, for instance, that many of the troublemakers were not Trump supporters.

We know, too, that Capitol Police waved at least some Trump supporters into the building.

We know that a Trump supporter was shot in the Capitol.

Finally, we know a Capitol Police officer died of a stroke the day after the riot; but it is not known what may have happened during the melee that would provide a causal connection.

His brother stated that he had communicated with the officer after the event: “He texted me last night and said, ‘I got pepper-sprayed twice,’ and he was in good shape.”

Sometime after the riot, he returned to his division office and collapsed.

It has been reported that the Capitol Police initially issued a statement denying that a police officer had died as a result of injuries sustained in the attack.


THE TIMELINE MAKES CLEAR TRUMP COULDN’T HAVE “INCITED” VIOLENCE.
Based on available facts (which may change) it is speculative to say at this time that he was murdered or slain. His family has made a plea that the death not be politicized.

President Trump has saluted the protesters and denounced those who entered the Capitol to engage in violence.

The distinction he made is no different than claims made by democratic mayors in Pittsburgh, Atlanta, and Dallas over the summer who supported BLM protests in their cities, but condemned troublemakers.

Similarly, Senator Kamala Harris spoke about those riots on the The Late Show With Stephen Colbert in June:

“But they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop. They’re not. This is a movement. I’m telling you. They’re not going to stop, and everyone, beware. Because they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop before election day in November, and they are not going to stop after election day. And everyone should take note of that on both levels. That they’re not going to let up. And they should not, and we should not.”

Those who reported that her statement supported riots have been fact checked by Reuters, USA Today, the AP, and others, on the premise that common cause with protests should not be cast as support for any rioting that ensues.

If that is the media standard made venerable by the ritual of fact-checking, shouldn’t President Trump be judged accordingly?

It may yet turn out that a Trump supporter struck a Capitol Police officer with a fire extinguisher, causing a stroke the next day.

If so, perspective is important.


BERNIE SANDERS SUPPORTER JAMES HODGKINSON
In 2017, James Hodgkinson, a Bernie Sanders campaign volunteer during the presidential primaries, opened fire on a Republican congressional baseball practice in Northern Virginia.

Four people were shot, including House Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.).

Hodgkinson believed that the 2016 election had been rigged by Vladimir Putin for Donald Trump. He was encouraged in this belief by Hillary Clinton, the DNC, the media, and social media.

Sen. Bernie Sanders immediately condemned the shooting saying, “I am sickened by this despicable act. Let me be as clear as I can be: Violence of any kind is unacceptable in our society, and I condemn this action in the strongest possible terms. Real change can only come about through nonviolent action, and anything else runs counter to our most deeply held American values.”

Sanders’ statement was hailed as appropriate to the moment. When someone with a peripheral involvement in politics commits a violent act, it is unfair to attribute broad political blame. It is also unnecessary for a politician to disclaim personal association with the act. That disassociation is assumed.

President Trump addressed the Hodgkinson shooting, saying, “We may have our differences . . . We are strongest when we are unified and when we work for the common good.”

The New York Times favorably noted that, “Mr. Trump steered clear of the possible political motivations of the gunman,” and instead issued a “dignified” call for unity.

That time it was okay for the president not to politicize the violence. It was even dignified. Wonder why?


THE CAPITOL, NOW PROTECTED BY THE NATIONAL GUARD
Unfortunately, lost in the fog is the legitimate grievance of Trump voters who wish to know what happened on election night.

Instead, the dominant media has turned the protest, ridiculously, into a coup attempt.

The Insurrection Lie maintains that a bare-chested-horn-helmet-wearning-organic-food-eating-global-warming-activist seized the Capitol January 6 on President Trump’s orders.

This joins The Russia Lie and The Charlottesville Lie as a way to keep the little people at each other’s throats while the powerful skim off the top.

Trump is dangerous because he calls them on the lies. The powerful need to cancel him and anyone who supports him.

The last thing they want is the sort of perspective that free speech is meant to assure. Truth would risk people to turning their outrage on the powerful instead of each other.

We live in dangerous times and not because of the peaceful protesters in attendance at Trump’s speech on January 6. They are not the bad guys.

https://thenationalpulse.com/analysis/the-insurrection-lie/
0 Replies
 
longjon
 
  5  
Wed 13 Jan, 2021 08:10 pm
@InfraBlue,
Please admit that you are incorrect.

Proven incorrect.

hightor
 
  -4  
Wed 13 Jan, 2021 08:14 pm
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
Denialism is an essentially irrational action that withholds the validation of a historical experience or event, when a person refuses to accept an empirically verifiable reality.


Trump openly, loudly, and very publicly tried to force Pence to refuse to certify the state tallies — in order to send the election "back to the states" for a "re-vote". Which is, of course, completely unconstitutional.


Quote:


"We do not want to see our election victory stolen by radical left Democrats, that’s what they’re doing, and stolen by the fake news media, that’s what they’ve done and what they’re doing," Trump said Wednesday.

"We will never give up and never concede," Trump said. "We will stop the steal."

The president touted the crowds of supporters who traveled to Washington for pro-Trump rallies across the city Wednesday on the sidelines of the Electoral College certification in Congress.

"If Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election," Trump said. "All he has to do, this is from the No. 1, or certainly, one of the top constitutional lawyers in our country, he has the absolute right to do it," Trump said.

Pence is set to preside over the joint session on Wednesday.

"We are supposed to protect our country and support our Constitution," Trump said. "States want to revote. The states got defrauded, they were given false information and now they want it back."

He added: "All Pence has to do is send it back to the states…and we become president, and you are the happiest people."

Trump said that Pence acting "doesn’t take courage," but "what takes courage is to do nothing."

"And then we’re stuck with a president who lost the election by a lot, and we have to live with that for the next four years," Trump said, referring to his Democratic rival Joe Biden. "We’re not going to let that happen."

The president, in recent hours, has increasingly put pressure on Pence to intervene during the joint session, tweeting early Wednesday: "Do it Mike, this is a time for extreme courage!"

The president said that if Pence does not act, "I'm going to be very disappointed in you."

The president has insisted that "states want to correct their votes, which they now know were based on irregularities and fraud," adding that the "corrupt process never received legislative approval."

source
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  -3  
Wed 13 Jan, 2021 08:32 pm
@oralloy,
Yes he is.
oralloy
 
  7  
Wed 13 Jan, 2021 08:36 pm
@InfraBlue,
No he isn't.
longjon
 
  5  
Wed 13 Jan, 2021 08:48 pm
@InfraBlue,
Please admit that you are incorrect.

Refer to the article I posted.

Thank you.
maxdancona
 
  -3  
Wed 13 Jan, 2021 08:57 pm
@longjon,
The article you posted makes no sense...

1. The argument about oddsmakers on election night is irrelevant (even if it is true). That doesn't justify attacking police officers.

2. The fact that the police officer died the day after he was physically attacked by a police officer is irrelevant. There is no justification to attack police officers.

3. The argument about the timeline is nonsensical... Trump told his supporters to go to the capitol and fight like hell. Then many of his supporters went to the capitol and started attacking police officers.

The two relevant questions are

- Did Trump intend to cause violence?
- Should Trump had reasonably known that his words would result in violence?

If either of these two things are True, then he can be convicted of incitement.

0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  -3  
Wed 13 Jan, 2021 08:57 pm
@longjon,
You're wrong. Trump did incite insurrection.

Your straw men, e.g. reference to the First Amendment, and red herrings, e.g. reference to Bernie Sanders, only prove that you have no argument.
InfraBlue
 
  -3  
Wed 13 Jan, 2021 09:01 pm
@oralloy,
Yes he is.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Wed 13 Jan, 2021 09:02 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:

You're wrong. Trump did incite insurrection.

Your straw men, e.g. reference to the First Amendment, and red herrings, e.g. reference to Bernie Sanders, only prove that you have no argument.


I have to disagree with both of you.

I think there is an argument to be made that Trump incited the violence at the capital. I don't think it is a particularly strong argument based on the evidence. Trump never actually called for violence... and the question of whether he should have known is an awfully wobbly case to make.

However it isn't a First Amendment case. It is a question of incitement.
InfraBlue
 
  -2  
Wed 13 Jan, 2021 09:35 pm
@maxdancona,
What do you disagree with, exactly?

I'm stating that Trump incited insurrection.

I'm also stating that the reference to the First Amendment is a straw man because it wasn't a peaceable assembly, or a petition of the Government to redress grievances; it was an insurrection.
oralloy
 
  8  
Wed 13 Jan, 2021 09:42 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
I'm also stating that the reference to the First Amendment is a straw man

If someone says something that is provably untrue, that does not make it a straw man. People sometimes make errors.

If you disagree with something that someone says, that definitely doesn't make it a straw man. In addition to the possibility of an honest error on their part, there is also the possibility of an honest error on your part.


InfraBlue wrote:
because it wasn't a peaceable assembly, or a petition of the Government to redress grievances;

That is incorrect. The protesters were in fact demanding redress of grievances, and most of the protesters were peaceful.
maxdancona
 
  1  
Wed 13 Jan, 2021 09:57 pm
@InfraBlue,
I disagree that the statement "Trump incited insurrection" can be stated as a fact. It will be argued in court... and honestly it is not the strongest argument (in my understanding).

I agree that this has nothing to do with First Amendment.
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
oralloy
 
  8  
Wed 13 Jan, 2021 11:21 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
reference to the First Amendment is a straw man argument since the First Amendment does not protect insurrection, however.

Straw man does not mean "statement that I disagree with". Neither does it mean "statement that is incorrect".

A straw man is when someone pretends that you are making an argument that you are not making, then when they defeat the imaginary argument they pretend that they have defeated your actual argument.

If someone is making an argument themselves and not accusing you of making the argument, that is not a straw man.
Below viewing threshold (view)
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/19/2024 at 11:22:06