Trump is an insurrectionist

Author: IwantRooseveltagain

Posts

Total: 335
#271
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,977
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
And what makes it far worse then that for Trump is that it was in fact his responsibility to protect the nation, so not only did he encourage the mob to feel empowered to do this, but he used the platform he was entrusted with to do it.
9 SCOTUS Judges and the 2020 Congress disagrees with you. Feel free to incite a rebellion though.
#272
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Dictionaries contain words, not phrases.
Correct. So when a word is spoken, it's meaning is not determined merely by the typical usage of that one word, but by looking at the words that were used before and after and putting it all together a full picture based off of that... Right?
I think the phrase you're looking for is "complete sentences".


They did prepare for violence, they failed to anticipate the scale of violence and the size of Trump's mob.
but that excuse doesn't work for Trump because?
Because it's a categorically different thing.

Failure to stop someone from committing an atrocity is not the same thing as taking part in (by providing the source of motivation for) the carrying out of an atrocity.
Funny, because it seems like your case for participation is failure to prevent.

#273
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
9 SCOTUS Judges and the 2020 Congress disagrees with you. Feel free to incite a rebellion though.
You aren't this stupid, please stop trolling.

They decided that the states couldn't decide this, only Congress - which given that Congress has never legislated a process for this effectively means the 14th amendment doesn't exist. That's a far cry from the ridiculous claim you're making.

Moreover, it's notable that of all the cases in the states where this has actually been adjudicated not one single arbiter has ruled against disqualification on the basis that Trump did not commit insurrection.
#274
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Correct. So when a word is spoken, it's meaning is not determined merely by the typical usage of that one word, but by looking at the words that were used before and after and putting it all together a full picture based off of that... Right?
I think the phrase you're looking for is "complete sentences".
No, that's not even close to anything I've said.

Is it your position then that the meaning of words can only be determined by those words spoken before or after it so long as there is no period sepperating them?

Failure to stop someone from committing an atrocity is not the same thing as taking part in (by providing the source of motivation for) the carrying out of an atrocity.
Funny, because it seems like your case for participation is failure to prevent.
No, that's not even close to anything I've said for the past few weeks that we've been arguing this, and you know that (assuming you've read a single word of it).

Do you have an actual response on the point? Do you agree? Disagree? Do you have any thoughts?
#275
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Is it your position then that the meaning of words can only be determined by those words spoken before or after it so long as there is no period sepperating them?
.... No, that is not correct; but I am really at the end of my rope here. You're trying to tip toe up on "context" and you can't even ask the right questions to do it.

The problem isn't the concept of context has you have endlessly tried to gaslight me with. It's that you have utterly failed to make an argument showing that the actual context leaves your absurd interpretation as the best one.

Your interpretation isn't the plain meaning of his words. It's not how they were taken in the moment by his supporters, his enemies, or the capitol police. Yet by all means say the word "context" again. Remind everyone that there are such things as coded phrases like "would be a shame if something happened to it" which are a threat in the right context. I'm sure that will cause everyone to realize that "it will be wild" has always meant "attack damn you attack!" just like the "OK" hand sign has always been a racist dog whistle and being on time is an invention of the colonial patriarchy.


Do you have an actual response on the point?
It's a strawman. It was a very scoped point I was making about an expectation of justice and you ignored all that context when you pretended that failure to prevent vs cause was possible in that scope.

If the capitol police (and the entire left-tribe) thought that there were only going to be one or two trouble makers and they could handle that, then Trump gets to make that assumption too.

If it's an unreasonable assumption the blade still cuts both ways. No matter the integral of scale and probability it cuts both ways.
#276
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,977
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
 which given that Congress has never legislated a process for this effectively means the 14th amendment doesn't exist. That's a far cry from the ridiculous claim you're making.
Lol, you can't be this ignorant. Congress has a process for it.  The 2020 Congress literally had a trial over it. You lost, and Trump won that trial.

Feel free to incite a revolt though.
#277
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The problem isn't the concept of context has you have endlessly tried to gaslight me with. It's that you have utterly failed to make an argument showing that the actual context leaves your absurd interpretation as the best one.
I gave you the dots repeatedly and held your hand as I connected them. The core of those arguments you even agreed with me on...

I agreed that it follows that if elections are rigged violence is the only remaining option.
...until you decided that that combination of words no longer means what the English language says it means.

But instead of addressing whether the dots connect, you decided to focus entirely on isolating words and arguing that those words mean something different. 'but he said peaceful!' you said. 'Wild =/= violent' you said. So I had to shift my focus onto basic communication and how context works.

And now that after all this time I finally got you to acknowledge that words spoken don't always mean strictly what their dictionary definitions say...

Now you want to pretend that the problem is that I never connected the dots.

Ok, continue to play this ducking and dodging game all you want. You wouldn't have to if you had a real argument but you know you don't.

Your interpretation isn't the plain meaning of his words. It's not how they were taken in the moment by his supporters...
And yet they stormed the Capitol in the name of Donald Trump.

If the capitol police (and the entire left-tribe) thought that there were only going to be one or two trouble makers and they could handle that, then Trump gets to make that assumption too.
You are still trying to compare the Capitol police's failure to anticipate the full scale of the threat to Donald Trump's incitement of it. Wow.

Even if I grant you that Donald Trump didn't expect his mob to overtake the Capitol, that doesn't magically excuse his concious decision to continue fanning the flames he created. Not only are you fallaciously arguing that two wrongs make a right, you're also acting as if Trump was just some bystander who wasn't directly responsible for protecting the nation and by extension, the US Capitol when he decided to do the exact opposite and put all of those police officers as well as Congress in danger. "I didn't know they would succeed in overtaking the Capitol" is not an excuse.

So yes, the blade cuts both ways, which is why they were both wrong. The problem is that the Capitol police did in fact anticipate violence, so even by your own fallacious logic Donald Trump should have as well.
#278
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
which given that Congress has never legislated a process for this effectively means the 14th amendment doesn't exist. That's a far cry from the ridiculous claim you're making.
Lol, you can't be this ignorant. Congress has a process for it.  The 2020 Congress literally had a trial over it.
That was an impeachment trial genius, which is inherently political. The 14th amendment is a question of law. These are not the same thing.
#279
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,977
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
It doesn't matter if it is political. Impeachments are THE lawful way to deal with the crime of insurrection for a president. Trump undeniably won that trial in the Senate and you lost.

And even if the non-partisan SCOTUS strikes down executive immunity (very unlikely), the other legal mechanism is to actually charge the person with the crime of insurrection and then hold a trial. None of that has happened or is likely to happen. So by default to this date, Trump is legally innocent. SCOTUS affirmed you can't just do a kabuki dance and declare Trump is guilty and therefore needs to be removed from the ballots. Your weeks of contribution to this thread is pure partisan fanfiction. The big lie is over. Trump is not an insurrectionist.

But feel free to incite a revolt because you don't like how the law works in America.
#280
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
But instead of addressing whether the dots connect, you decided to focus entirely on isolating words and arguing that those words mean something different. 'but he said peaceful!' you said. 'Wild =/= violent' you said. So I had to shift my focus onto basic communication and how context works.
No, you failed to make an argument and shifted to that all on your own to obscure the lack of merit.'

The meaning of words, sentences, and speeches do depend on context; but that does not mean the words no longer matter. They limit the range of interpretation (as is their function). Peaceful doesn't transmute into violent under any context. That is the English language, you don't get to rewire it by fiat.


Your interpretation isn't the plain meaning of his words. It's not how they were taken in the moment by his supporters...
And yet they stormed the Capitol in the name of Donald Trump.
They tried to burn down the whitehouse in the name of a dead man who said nothing except "I can't breathe" (and "I took too many drugs"). It's almost like people have a brain of their own and don't need to be told to act a certain way in order to act that way.


If the capitol police (and the entire left-tribe) thought that there were only going to be one or two trouble makers and they could handle that, then Trump gets to make that assumption too.
You are still trying to compare the Capitol police's failure to anticipate the full scale of the threat to Donald Trump's incitement of it. Wow.
No, I am saying there was no incitement and further saying that Trump didn't anticipate a need to say "peacefully" more than once in the speech because he was no more clairvoyant than the capitol police or Nancy Pelosi. This was to defeat the assertion you implied that he must have been inciting because he must have known what he was supposedly causing.


Even if I grant you that Donald Trump didn't expect his mob to overtake the Capitol, that doesn't magically excuse his concious decision to continue fanning the flames he created.
The flames were created by gutting american democracy and unpunished insurrections. He had the duty to fan those flames under is oath to the constitution. He has a right under the 1st amendment.


So yes, the blade cuts both ways, which is why they were both wrong. The problem is that the Capitol police did in fact anticipate violence, so even by your own fallacious logic Donald Trump should have as well.
but scale is apparently irrelevant when it comes to Trump.
#281
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
which given that Congress has never legislated a process for this effectively means the 14th amendment doesn't exist. That's a far cry from the ridiculous claim you're making.
Lol, you can't be this ignorant. Congress has a process for it.  The 2020 Congress literally had a trial over it.
That was an impeachment trial genius, which is inherently political. The 14th amendment is a question of law. These are not the same thing.
When the supposed insurrection is claimed to be an official duty of POTUS it is because the impeachment clause is clearly the only way to hold claimed official duties to be criminal.

To be fully constitutional removing a president for insurrection (under the 14th amendment) and disqualifying them to hold office again (when the supposed disqualifying act was as an official and claimed to be official duties) then you would need:

A) To have defined insurrection by law (federally)
B) To impeach and convict on the behavior that fits the elements of the crime in (A)
C) To charge and convict of (A) in a federal court.

(C) may not be necessary if (A) allows for conviction by the senate as equivalent.

#282
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,977
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
The reason why Trump was never charged by even the most TDS prosecutors is because there isn't a court anywhere in America that would convict  based solely on interpretive context. If such a court existed, Trump would already have been tried, convicted, and sentenced.

#283
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
Impeachments are THE lawful way to deal with the crime of insurrection for a president. 
Impeachment is again, an inherently political process. It doesn't address criminality at all, so your statement is just factually wrong.

Also, Impeachment was already in the constitution when the 14th amendment was written. If that was the official way to deal with this issue there would have been no need for it.

The 14th amendment was written for any current or former office holder seeking office again. It's a legal question just as it's a legal question on whether someone's place of birth disqualifies them from running for office. You are deeply confused.

Trump undeniably won that trial in the Senate and you lost.
Trump lost the vote 59-41 with 7 republican senators joining the democrats to disqualify him. Of those who voted against disqualification many of them stated their reason being that impeachment was not the process to do it - that the courts would have to decide this (and we see how that turned out). So if you want to consider that some big victory for Trump go right on and celebrate, the rest of us sane and rational people will easily see the problem here.

So by default to this date, Trump is legally innocent. Your weeks of contribution to this thread is pure partisan fanfiction. 
It always amuses me how Trump supporters cannot tell the difference between a court of law and the court of public opinion.

Beyond a reasonable doubt is a rational standard when the consequence is for one to lose their freedom. No halfway intelligent person would apply that standard with regards to whether one's actions should disqualify them from being handed the nuclear codes.

This isn't a court of law, it's a debate site. And what we're ultimately debating is whether this moron should be entrusted by us to be our commander in chief. The fact that no one was able to meet the legal standard for criminal conviction before November is irrelevant to any sane and rational consideration of that question.
#284
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,977
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
It doesn't address criminality at all, so your statement is just factually wrong.
So high crimes and misdemeanors are some of those "context" words that don't mean what they seem. Pure fanfiction.
#285
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
Impeachments are THE lawful way to deal with the crime of insurrection for a president. 
Impeachment is again, an inherently political process. It doesn't address criminality at all
Except for the "high crimes" and "conviction" part.


Also, Impeachment was already in the constitution when the 14th amendment was written. If that was the official way to deal with this issue there would have been no need for it.
Except the impeachment clause is for POTUS and the 14th amendment disqualification is for senators, congressmen, electors, and rando bureaucrats....


So by default to this date, Trump is legally innocent. Your weeks of contribution to this thread is pure partisan fanfiction. 
It always amuses me how Trump supporters cannot tell the difference between a court of law and the court of public opinion.
Except the bolded part of GP's statement.

Let me guess. "Context" You decide what he really said, words don't matter.

#286
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Peaceful doesn't transmute into violent under any context
Nor was this my argument, so you keep refuting points I never made.

The argument has always been that Trump's usage of one word in the middle of an hour long speech does not cancel out everything else he had been conveying to his supporters for the prior two months, as well as afterward.

The only remedy for the crimes Trump was alleging to be actively taking place was violence, he strongly implied in his calling for this rally that it would be violent, he proceeded to give a very negative and incendiary speech which he then ended with "fight like hell or you're not going to have a country anymore".

No one in their right mind would chuck all of that in the garbage because Trump smuggled in one word in the middle of an hour long speech, and certainly no one who flew all the way to DC to be a part of this.

The closest you have came to addressing any of this is to just repeat that he said peaceful. You've done absolutely nothing to compare the scale of Trump's violence implications to his implications to be peaceful - because they don't compare. His desires were clear.

It's almost like people have a brain of their own and don't need to be told to act a certain way in order to act that way.
Then you don't believe it's possible to incite violence. Why not start with that? If that's really what you believe why sit here for weeks wasting time on all these other sub points?

This was to defeat the assertion you implied that he must have been inciting because he must have known what he was supposedly causing.
Whether it was reasonable to expect the protesters would accomplish what they did is irrelevant to whether Trump knew what he was doing when he called them to the Capitol and told them to fight like hell. The point was never that it was obvious they overtake the Capitol police, it was always that he knew many in his rally would try, and carried on anyway.

When you decide to play with fire you run the risk of getting burned. So if you play with fire and end up burning someone else, it's not an excuse to say "I didn't know that would happen", especially when it was your job to keep that person safe in the first place.

He had the duty to fan those flames under is oath to the constitution.
I missed the part of the constitution where it tasks the president with inciting am attack on the US Capitol.



#287
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@Greyparrot
So high crimes and misdemeanors are some of those "context" words that don't mean what they seem. Pure fanfiction.
Do you think being convicted in a Senate trial goes on your criminal record?
#288
Amber
Amber's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 389
1
2
6
Amber's avatar
Amber
1
2
6
-->
@Double_R
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Dictionaries contain words, not phrases.
Correct. So when a word is spoken, it's meaning is not determined merely by the typical usage of that one word, but by looking at the words that were used before and after and putting it all together a full picture based off of that... Right?
Yeah, it's called "context." 

They did prepare for violence, they failed to anticipate the scale of violence and the size of Trump's mob.
but that excuse doesn't work for Trump because?
Because it's a categorically different thing.
Failure to stop someone from committing an atrocity is not the same thing as taking part in (by providing the source of motivation for) the carrying out of an atrocity.
Huh?

A President of the United States, the leader of America, has every right to motivate "We the People" to exercise their God given rights - AND - their Constitutional rights (e.g., 1st Amendment). Nowhere in that motivational speech telling them to be peaceful, be patriots, did he tell them to act like asinine George Floyd rioters (unlike Maxine Waters and her incitement of violence). 

And what makes it far worse then that for Trump is that it was in fact his responsibility to protect the nation, so not only did he encourage the mob to feel empowered to do this, but he used the platform he was entrusted with to do it.
Yeah, protect the nation and defend the US Constitution. Encouraging his people (citizens of the US for whom he is the POTUS thereof) to exercise their rights is what he is expected to do. 

Do you even look in the mirror let alone hear the garbage you speak (post) when replying to others??? 

#289
Amber
Amber's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 389
1
2
6
Amber's avatar
Amber
1
2
6
-->
@Double_R
-->
@Greyparrot
9 SCOTUS Judges and the 2020 Congress disagrees with you. Feel free to incite a rebellion though.
You aren't this stupid, please stop trolling.
How is stating a fact = to trolling? Seriously, I'm confused. Did SCOTUS not give a 9-0 ruling based on 14/5 where the enforcement of 14/3 is concerned???????? (Also see the 10th Amendment for further clarity on that factual reality)

They decided that the states couldn't decide this, only Congress - which given that Congress has never legislated a process for this effectively means the 14th amendment doesn't exist. That's a far cry from the ridiculous claim you're making.
The 14th doesn't disappear as if David Copperfield waved his hand and sad ABRACADABRA! 
The lack of any legislative mechanism to enforce 14/3 only means Congress had yet to do it. That's it. 

Moreover, it's notable that of all the cases in the states where this has actually been adjudicated not one single arbiter has ruled against disqualification on the basis that Trump did not commit insurrection.
No adjudicator can just arbitrarily declare someone committed a crime where no crime existed, and where no indictment, charge and conviction existed. 
You just do not get to claim "he raped me" and have it adjudicated that he did without 0 evidence. Oh wait, yeah, they did in the fugly E Jean Caroll case. 
The system is clearly rigged. Trump Derangement Syndrome is a real mental disorder, and it is affecting far too many people, thereby creeping into institutions it has no business being in. 
#290
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
The argument has always been that Trump's usage of one word in the middle of an hour long speech does not cancel out everything else he had been conveying to his supporters for the prior two months, as well as afterward.
"cancel" is quantitative. It would contradictory at worst.

So if he told people to be violent in every context for every purpose and then said "Do X peacefully" that would be a contradiction. It would be mixed messaging.


The only remedy for the crimes Trump was alleging to be actively taking place was violence
The only remedy for crimes in general is violence. If people followed laws without the threat of violence then there wouldn't be crimes.


he strongly implied in his calling for this rally that it would be violent
You could only be basing that on "it will be wild", and yet when pressed on that you say "it's not just that". Wherever I push, you retreat and reaffirm another assertion that you had previously retreated on. Like wack-a-mole, or bread dough. Useful as a fighting strategy, but in debate it's called a gish gallop.


he proceeded to give a very negative and incendiary speech which he then ended with "fight like hell or you're not going to have a country anymore".
We know "fight like hell" isn't incitement because if it was democrats would be in prison over it.


It's almost like people have a brain of their own and don't need to be told to act a certain way in order to act that way.
Then you don't believe it's possible to incite violence.
I believe violence can happen without incitement and that the guy on the banner need not be the inciter even if there was incitement.

Nancy Pelosi wasn't on the BLM banner, but she did more to incite violence than DJT.

Jesus did as much as anyone could conceivably do to incite pacifism. No message could be clearer, and yet there he was on the banners and lips of crusader armies.

The world is more complicated than orangeman hitler and his army of deplorables.


He had the duty to fan those flames under is oath to the constitution.
I missed the part of the constitution where it tasks the president with inciting am attack on the US Capitol.
I missed the part where Trump incited an attack. What I saw was Trump informing the citizenry of an attack on the US constitution. Such information is one of the many ways to defend the constitution and he swore to defend the constitution:


I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

#291
Amber
Amber's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 389
1
2
6
Amber's avatar
Amber
1
2
6
-->
@Double_R
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Correct. So when a word is spoken, it's meaning is not determined merely by the typical usage of that one word, but by looking at the words that were used before and after and putting it all together a full picture based off of that... Right?
I think the phrase you're looking for is "complete sentences".
No, that's not even close to anything I've said.
Really? 

Correct. So (SIC) when a word is spoken, it's (SIC) meaning is not determined merely by the typical usage of that one word, but by looking at the words that were used before and after and putting it all together a full picture based off of that... Right?
Sounds like you are referring to a "complete sentence" to me.

Is it your position then that the meaning of words can only be determined by those words spoken before or after it so long as there is no period sepperating (SIC) them?
Again, "complete sentence."

You're deflecting. Knock it off. 

Failure to stop someone from committing an atrocity is not the same thing as taking part in (by providing the source of motivation for) the carrying out of an atrocity.
Funny, because it seems like your case for participation is failure to prevent.
No, that's not even close to anything I've said for the past few weeks that we've been arguing this, and you know that (assuming you've read a single word of it).

Do you have an actual response on the point? Do you agree? Disagree? Do you have any thoughts?
I've tried to read the dialogue between you two, but your retorts are so fantastically obnoxious and deflective, not to mention projective, that it gave me a migraine to read such banal drivel.  A Dream of Liberty has been far ahead of you, and you simply cannot catch up. 
#292
Amber
Amber's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 389
1
2
6
Amber's avatar
Amber
1
2
6
-->
@Double_R
-->
@Greyparrot
which given that Congress has never legislated a process for this effectively means the 14th amendment doesn't exist. That's a far cry from the ridiculous claim you're making.
Lol, you can't be this ignorant. Congress has a process for it.  The 2020 Congress literally had a trial over it.
That was an impeachment trial genius, which is inherently political. The 14th amendment is a question of law. These are not the same thing.
Yes, an impeachment and Trump was vindicated. 

An impeachment is an act of legislative authority, is it not? i.e. a legislative act?

If they could not garner enough votes to affirm the charge (criminal or otherwise) of insurrection in an impeachment, they know they won't get it in a criminal trial post legislative law being passed charging same. 

You're pissing in the wind, DR!
#293
Amber
Amber's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 389
1
2
6
Amber's avatar
Amber
1
2
6
-->
@Double_R
-->
@Greyparrot
So high crimes and misdemeanors are some of those "context" words that don't mean what they seem. Pure fanfiction.
Do you think being convicted in a Senate trial goes on your criminal record?
False equivalence fallacy.

What goes on in the political realm has no bearing or connection to actual criminal justice recordation. 
#294
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,977
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
Do you think being convicted in a Senate trial goes on your criminal record?
Yes. The historical criminal record.

  • Impeachment and conviction by the Senate result in a permanent mark on an individual's public record.
  • This historical record is accessible to everyone and may have significant implications for the individual's reputation and legacy.
  • Unlike a conventional criminal record, which may be subject to restrictions on access and use, the historical record of impeachment is widely available and can have enduring consequences.
  • Impeachment and conviction by the Senate can lead to immediate punishments for convicted crimes, such as removal from office and disqualification from holding future federal office, without the possibility of appeal.
In essence, impeachment and conviction by the Senate represent a stronger form of accountability and public condemnation compared to a conventional criminal record.






#295
Amber
Amber's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 389
1
2
6
Amber's avatar
Amber
1
2
6
-->
@Greyparrot
@Double_R
-->
@Double_R
Do you think being convicted in a Senate trial goes on your criminal record?
Yes. The historical criminal record.

  • Impeachment and conviction by the Senate result in a permanent mark on an individual's public record.
  • This historical record is accessible to everyone and may have significant implications for the individual's reputation and legacy.
  • Unlike a conventional criminal record, which may be subject to restrictions on access and use, the historical record of impeachment is widely available and can have enduring consequences.
  • Impeachment and conviction by the Senate can lead to immediate punishments, such as removal from office and disqualification from holding future federal office, without the possibility of appeal.
In essence, impeachment and conviction by the Senate represent a stronger form of accountability and public condemnation compared to a conventional criminal record.

^^^^^ BINGO ^^^^^

Why the obvious has to be written out so eloquently to someone like the superfluous wordsmith D_R is dumbfounding. 
#296
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
So if he told people to be violent in every context for every purpose and then said "Do X peacefully" that would be a contradiction. It would be mixed messaging.
Yes it is, as I've acknowledged from the start of this conversation, which is why I keep arguing that it doesn't cancel everything else out. We're not disagreeing on the opposing direction of his "peaceful" statement, we're disagreeing on whether this statement is significant enough to have any meaningful impact on the greater message. My point is that it doesn't.

So again, nothing you have said address the argument I have been making for weeks now. If you aren't willing to engage in a serious discussion about the scale of Trump's incindieary words vs the scale of Trump's attempt to deescalate the violent implications behind his words and how all of this works with regards to the message he was ultimately sending... you aren't arguing the point.

The only remedy for crimes in general is violence.
Correct. So when the authorities appointed to deal with those crimes are actively working to commit them, who is left to carry out said violence?

You could only be basing that on "it will be wild", and yet when pressed on that you say "it's not just that". Wherever I push, you retreat and reaffirm another assertion that you had previously retreated on. Like wack-a-mole
This is the problem with trying to argue nuance to people who only seem to deal with bullet points. I am not retreating when I point to other factors, I'm pointing out that in order to understand the ultimate point you have to understand how multiple points are related. It's logic 101; one premise doesn't equal a conclusion. A conclusion is formed by adding multiple premises together, so if you are going to continue pretending as if each premise stands alone, then you are only pretending the conclusion is not valid.

"Will be wild" doesn't mean violence. By itself. Add in the fact that we're talking about a protest. Now it points more in that direction because "wild" is in no way a reasonable way to describe a peaceful protest. Add in the fact that the allegation behind the protest is that the election is literally being stolen, a crime for which there is no remedy other than violence. Now it points in that direction far more clearly. Add in the fact that the person calling for this "wild" protest had spent the prior 4 years dehumanizing the people he is now accusing of carrying out this heist... At this point any other conclusion is absurd.

We know "fight like hell" isn't incitement because if it was democrats would be in prison over it.
We know it wasn't incitement for the democrats because if you follow the same exercise I just laid out, it doesn't get there.
#297
Greyparrot
Greyparrot's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 25,977
3
4
10
Greyparrot's avatar
Greyparrot
3
4
10
-->
@Double_R
As much as you guys insult the intelligence of Trump supporters, it's a real head-scratcher that you also consider the same people to be masters of nuance and are motivated by someone or something  other than the primal base motivations of poverty and loss of both liberty and security.
#298
ADreamOfLiberty
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,169
3
2
2
ADreamOfLiberty's avatar
ADreamOfLiberty
3
2
2
-->
@Double_R
The only remedy for crimes in general is violence.
Correct. So when the authorities appointed to deal with those crimes are actively working to commit them, who is left to carry out said violence?
So when they said Donald Trump was guilty of a crime, that was inciting violence against the government?

What about those so called racist cops?


We know "fight like hell" isn't incitement because if it was democrats would be in prison over it.
We know it wasn't incitement for the democrats because if you follow the same exercise I just laid out, it doesn't get there.
Oh they didn't disown protests, in fact they called them uprisings.

#299
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,260
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@ADreamOfLiberty
Impeachment is again, an inherently political process. It doesn't address criminality at all
Except for the "high crimes" and "conviction" part.
Criminal trials address whether and to what extent the individual charged can enjoy his or her freedom. Impeachment trials determine whether the individual charged can enjoy the privilege of holding a public office. Just because you can point to a word that is used in both doesn't mean they are the same thing.

Except the impeachment clause is for POTUS and the 14th amendment disqualification is for senators, congressmen, electors, and rando bureaucrats....
The difference has nothing to do with who it's for. Impeachment is a process by which an office holder is removed from that office for their conduct. You cannot impeach someone who is not in office. The disqualification clause takes place only after an impeachment conviction.

The 14th amendment apples to anyone who has ever taken an oath to serve, current or former.

If Trump engaged in insurrection after he left office, impeachment would have nothing to do with that because impeachment is political and he is not in politics. That's where the legal process comes in.

So by default to this date, Trump is legallyinnocent. Your weeks of contribution to this thread is pure partisan fanfiction. 
It always amuses me how Trump supporters cannot tell the difference between a court of law and the court of public opinion.
Except the bolded part of GP's statement.
That is irrelevant to my point. This has never been a debate over whether Trump is legally guilty - that would be an incredibly stupid conversation because of course no criminal trial has convicted him. The debate has always been over whether the evidence shows that Trump did what he's being accused of. Us coming to the same conclusion here on debateart has no bearing on Trump's criminal liability.

The reason I point out the distinction Trump defenders routinely fail to recognize here between the court of law vs the court of public opinion is because the fallacious logic being applied as GP did here - that because Trump had not been found guilty in a legal proceeding then his conduct is essentially irrelevant to whether he should be considered by us to be disqualified from holding public office. The legal bar is far higher and for good reason.
#300
FLRW
FLRW's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,597
3
4
8
FLRW's avatar
FLRW
3
4
8
If Trump is elected President again he will create his largest bankruptcy, the USA. He will increase the Debt so much that the Dollar will no longer be the World Currency.
China has long been pushing to have its currency replace the dollar, but it's getting momentum now for a couple of possible reasons:
First: the debt ceiling. Being the currency everyone counts on to do business means people have to believe that your currency is reliable. That recent debt ceiling drama made the U.S. (and, by extension, the dollar) look potentially risky and unstable.