Send Trumpet To Jail Now

Author: ebuc

Posts

Total: 260
#211
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
There is ZERO chance that senate republicans are going to vote to convict.
Based on what?
So if all four of these senators ended up voting to convict Trump, 13 others would have to join to have him convicted. [LINK]

It is not "ZERO chance". You're estimating a low probability based on the fact that only a small number of GoP senators are publicly known to be open to it. Mitch McConnell carries a lot of influence and appears to be open to it. The reports are that he "hates" Trump, blames him for the loss of the senate, and believes that Trump committed impeachable offenses. McConnell carries a lot influence, and I really have no information the positions of GoP senators who haven't said anything about it, other than perhaps the guys who objected at the electoral vote certification would probably vote against it. Additionally, senators don't really have to vote to convict him. They can simply be absent during the vote and that will lower the total number of votes required to convict because it requires "two thirds of the Members present." Maybe they'll just step out to go to the bathroom or something.
#212
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Death23
Additionally, senators don't really have to vote to convict him.
Republican Senators are still interested in courting those 75 million "rabid" "insurrectionists" who voted for the accused.
#213
Death23
Death23's avatar
Debates: 24
Posts: 618
3
4
7
Death23's avatar
Death23
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
That is a factor weighing against a conviction, yes. But lets be honest, it's not "ZERO chance".
#214
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ebuc
The only way you can jail all Trump supporters is by spending trillions of tax dollars building prisons and by violating multiple constitutional amendments.  Such a way should not be pursued in the land of the free.
#215
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
Such a way should not be pursued in the land of the free.
#216
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Let’s make our rights real and not an illusion.
#217
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
Let’s make our rights real and not an illusion.
What's your plan?
#218
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@3RU7AL
To make an amendment to the US constitution that says, “Any noun or action not producing a victim or victims shall be legalized in the United States”.  That amendment would legalize all victimless crimes and give America more liberty.
#219
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
That amendment would legalize all victimless crimes
If everyone let their lawns grow long and let their trash pile up in their yards, would there be a "victim"?
#220
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@3RU7AL
If people wanted to do that with their property and their hair, their choice.  I wouldn’t punish it.
#221
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@TheUnderdog
Would you consider drunk-driving to be "victimless"?
#222
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,173
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
Using any kind of logic that Trump should be arrested impeached or executed would apply to every member of congress. Congress as a collective is responsible for more riots, looting and deaths than any one person or entity combined. The entire congress should be impeached tried for treason /sedition. They act as a collective and under the Ricco act all of them should be arrested and tried for sedition and treason. Then a new election should be  held and every position of every branch of govt that is filled by the people voting them into office should be replaced. "When the govt doesn't govern within the confines of the constitution it is the right and duty of the people to replace it" The idea that just replacing a few people here and there will change the vast corruption in govt is just delusional thinking. Who the president is doesn't matter. The corruption, treason and sedition in the lower ranks must be purged. They all must go. All connections and ties must be severed from all existing people in govt. They  must not be allowed to influence what govt does for the rest of their lives. They must go back to the private sector and live under all of the laws and rules they created like the rest of us. That is of course they are found not guilty in a military tribunal or serve their respective prison sentences if not executed for treason.


#223
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@sadolite
They act as a collective and under the Ricco act all of them should be arrested and tried for sedition and treason.
RICO Law, or the “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act,” is a law that allows the government to punish individuals associated with criminal activity, specifically the leaders of crime organizations. Before RICO law existed, crime bosses would order their minions to carry out crimes for them, and claim innocence if the police found out.

Their argument was that, technically, no one could prosecute them for crimes like murder because they weren’t the ones doing the killing. The RICO Law made it possible for the police to arrest even the leaders of crime organizations.

Initially, the government passed RICO Law as a way to control the Mafia. However, in recent years, authorities have applied RICO law to more cases, allowing it to have more of a widespread effect. [LINK]
#224
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm curious, do you support the sedition that happened at the capitol? Do you think it equates with BLM protests? Do you think it was the right thing for the wrong reasons? I wanna hear your take, since I'm getting mixed vibes.
#225
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm curious, do you support the sedition that happened at the capitol? Do you think it equates with BLM protests? Do you think it was the right thing for the wrong reasons? I wanna hear your take, since I'm getting mixed vibes.
I do not personally "support" these specific protests under discussion.

I VERY STRONGLY SUPPORT THE FREEDOM TO PROTEST (GENERALLY).
#226
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
So you support, generally, the kind of thing they did - but not this one. Why do you specifically disagree with this one? 
#227
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
So you support, generally, the kind of thing they did - but not this one. Why do you specifically disagree with this one? 
("not-support") =/= ("disagree")

I think it is very reasonable for people to believe the election was perhaps fraudulent (I personally don't think this particular election was any more fraudulent than any other).

I think it is very reasonable for people to push barricades and physically clash with police (this is almost the very definition of "protest").

I think it is very reasonable for people to enter government buildings as part of a protest (just like the HONG KONG protesters, just like Native American protesters, just like civil rights and anti-war protesters and anti-pipeline protesters).

Here's a good example (August 8th 2020),

Dozens of Lebanese protesters have stormed the buildings of a number of government ministries and the headquarters of the country’s banking association channeling their rage against state and financial institutions after the huge blast that killed over 160. [LINK]

So, it seems, "the news" calls people they like "protesters" and people they don't like "terrorists" and or "insurgents".

Dozens of violent Lebanese terrorists have stormed the buildings of a number of government ministries and the headquarters of the country’s banking association indiscriminately lashing out against state and financial institutions after the huge blast that killed over 160.

See the difference?
#228
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
I would say that the difference is what they did, which included pipe bombs and physically threaten to harm or injure state officials because of a "fradulent election" you are correct that all elections are, but what you have no correctly identified is the degree, the fradulent nature of election, and this one in particular is statistically insignificant, they would not meaningfully change the course of the election one way or another. That means that their motivation was not "reasonable" as you claim it is. Furthermore, I draw the line at killing or attempted killing, kidnapping, or things of that nature whenever it comes to riots as being the goal of that riot. Which is why I disagree and would indeed call this act of sedition too far.
#229
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Not only too far, but more than criminal
#230
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
I'm not sure it's fair to BROAD-BRUSH all of the participants as "violent".

Many protests are marked by "violence".

For example, I would not blame all "BLM" (or even their "leaders" and or "organizers") for the targeted police assassinations that happened at their protests.

For example, I would not blame all "anti-globalists" for the arson and general havoc that happened at their protests.

INDIVIDUALS may have made credible threats that constitute "criminal behavior".

INDIVIDUALS may have built and deployed illegal weapons.

Sure, those allegations should be investigated and the individuals involved should be treated the same as any individual accused of such crimes.

But attempting to invalidate every single "MAGAHAT" as some sort of "domestic terrorist" is seriously problematic.
#231
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,173
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Govt "IS" the very definition of organized crime and the ones at the top get all their minions to do their dirty work. If there ever was a solid case for applying the ricco act the US federal govt fits the bill to a tee.
#232
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@sadolite
Govt "IS" the very definition of organized crime and the ones at the top get all their minions to do their dirty work. If there ever was a solid case for applying the ricco act the US federal govt fits the bill to a tee.
Too bad the MOBSTERS are also running the court system.
#233
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,173
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
"Attempting to invalidate every single "MAGAHAT" as some sort of "domestic terrorist" is seriously problematic." This is the definition inciting violence and all who say this should by their own definition be arrested and tried for terrorism. It isn't problematic, it's strait up sedition. All those in the media and govt putting forth this narrative should all face slander/defamation charges.
#234
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
That's not the point, and I never tried to assert that they were "terrorist" I did assert that they are morally wrong, and their motivations are not reasonable. "Targeted assassinations" I would say that is almost always wrong, there are situations where it is not, but I would argue that is wrong the majority of the time. I would say that the BLM versions of this are arguably just, because of the predation, continuance, and implicitness in the act of systematically oppressing an ethnic group, but- that does not transfer to the group that performed sedition on the capitol. I am using a broad brush because they all supported the action, and its not just the violence but the fundamental upheaval of democracy. Democracy is typically a system that ought to be upheld, if there is a just reason to go against it in circumstances then it should be, if there is no just reason, then it is unjust to bar it. Therefore it was unjust for the seditioners to be riot in that way. They sought to interupt, harm, and stop the process of democracy, not only for a wrong reason, but without proper moral obligation. 

Let's say that the election had been stolen, that would have been a reason for something like this - but - even then the degree of sedition was still morally wrong, and would be misplaced, in other words, even if their reasons were correct - they would still be in the wrong, but their reasons were obviously incorrect, and they are fundamentally in the wrong.
#235
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@sadolite
But they are domestic terrorists, by definition, the argument is whether that definition is helpful.
#236
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@sadolite
I would say not really, but the technical classification is there.
#237
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,173
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
-->
@Theweakeredge
Who are terrorists? The people who actually entered the capitol "by force". I say "by force" because the vast majority who went in were freely let in by the capitol police. or everyone who was within ten miles with a trump hat on. https://wethepeopleconvention.org/articles/Police-Let-Protestors-Into-Capital
#238
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@sadolite
The law determines what is and isn't trespassing, not the police, not to mention the police were in lots of circumstances -PERSONALLY BIASED, as in they were practically apart of the protest. Furthermore, some of the rioters were let in, not the vast majority like you claim, it was happening for hours. Even more so, even if the police "let them in" they did not: 

  • allow weapons such as guns, bombs, or pitch forks
  • allow personal attacks on persons 
  • allow to access and dig around through personal computers and steal information
Finally THE POLICE don't even have the actual authority to let people in. 

#239
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Would you consider drunk-driving to be "victimless"?
No.  The victim is the person that the drunk driver killed or injured.
#240
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
because they all supported the action
Simply believing the election was "stolen" cannot make you guilty of a crime.

THIS IS THOUGHT POLICING.