RE: This is Amazing Logic
Re: ""He didn't molest women"
Hahahaha! See above. << DURING A STAFF MEETING. An article that seems to have been removed by Slate had some things to say about it. Now I'm trying to dig that up.
RE: This is Amazing Logic
Re: insurrection, it is not that simple. Trump is often rather subtle and Clinton-like about what he does and does not say or do himself.
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
Quoting from a
BBC op-ed:
Incitement is not a crime under the First Amendment unless it meets certain criteria.
First of all, it has to be intended to cause violence (and you infer that intent from the circumstances). It also has to be likely to cause violence.
If I go downtown and I say to two drunks standing in front of a bank, "let's rob this bank right now", I haven't really incited anybody, because it's not very likely they'll rob the bank.
If I say let's meet here tomorrow and rip things up, I'm not inciting because - in the words of the Supreme Court - where there is time for better counsels to prevail, the remedy for speech is more speech.
The speech has to be likely to cause - and this is very important - imminent violent action.
If this was a court of law, does Trump cross the line?
CD Richards
Poet Rating
Rank: 87
Short Works Rating
Novel Rating
Review Stars
Rank: 200
RE: This is Amazing Logic
Seems like a pointless question to me. At least two courts found him guilty of insurrection. Even SCOTUS, which, of course, he stacked to favour himself, didn't find otherwise.
CD Richards
Poet Rating
Rank: 87
Short Works Rating
Novel Rating
Review Stars
Rank: 200
RE: This is Amazing Logic
This thread is fine. Some of the content, however...
RE: This is Amazing Logic
Trying to post here again after clearing the FanStory cache, which is a rather unintuitive process on an iPhone.
You are not accounting for the partisan nature of Colorado's situation. It was both ridiculous for Trump to contest Colorado in 2020 (a state which he had lost by a huge margin -- Colorado hasn't gone red since 2024 so this was really just about him comparing himself to George W Bush). It was equally ridiculous and partisan for Colorado to try to exclude Trump in 2024 from a REPUBLICAN PRIMARY, which sure seems like a party decision, beyond the scope of the state's authority. They also waited until December 2023 to try to do it. Since you have a background in coding, you should have at least an elementary understanding of scope. States do not get to make decisions on federal scope. It is not their job to interpret the US Constitution, any more than a programmer should EVER edit global variables in a local function.
RE: This is Amazing Logic
Surely there is no argument that Trump incited the mob.
He knew the type of people he 'invited.' he also knew they were angry and a number of them were armed.
He'd stoked them up for weeks and primed them like a bomb. I don't know about you, but from thousands of miles away I KNEW there would be violence on J6 even before his inflammatory speech. It still amazes me that the authorities were under-prepared. Whose fault that was is fodder for another discussion.
RE: This is Amazing Logic
Yes, there is argument and why the lies, CD?
"Seems like a pointless question to me. At least two courts found him guilty of insurrection. Even SCOTUS, which, of course, he stacked to favour himself, didn't find otherwise.
This is a bold faced LIE. I don't personally like President Trump. But, what's the point of telling such lies? Why? What good does it do?
CD Richards
Poet Rating
Rank: 87
Short Works Rating
Novel Rating
Review Stars
Rank: 200
RE: This is Amazing Logic
Lancellot, you repeatedly make up the most idiotic shit here, and accuse others of lying. You really should concentrate on your porno writing. You might be good at that, though I wouldn't know.
RE: This is Amazing Logic
"10 hours ago
RE: This is Amazing Logic
Seems like a pointless question to me. At least two courts found him guilty of insurrection. Even SCOTUS, which, of course, he stacked to favour himself, didn't find otherwise."
CD, this is an outright LIE. When were the trials? Where were the trials? When was Trump charged or indited for insurrection? When was he convicted guilty? What was his sentence? Was it a felony offense? Who were the prosecutors? Who was Trump's defense lawyer? Who was on the juries? Come on, you are an advocate for Due Process, remember? When was this Due Process?
Please... CD, show everyone you're not a liar. OR be a man and admit you lied. It's okay to hate Trump. He does a lot things, so you don't have to lie.
So, why do it?
RE: This is Amazing Logic
Message edited:
*dupe*
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 -31- 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
