[Split Thread] A second impeachment - Page 22

metacristi · 15th January 2021, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by turingtest

It's no "impeachment of free speech" to say that free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without any regard to consequences. In Trump's case, he gave no thought at all to what effect his speech, in context, might have beyond how he hoped it might benefit him politically. In a US president, that kind of unbalanced approach fits pretty well the political definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors," since what might not need sanction for somebody in a lesser position is kind of what the provision is for in the case of a greater one. So, no- anyone in the future is not going to be a victim, only the ones in a position like Trump's who might need the example.

I'd say that trying to prove at all costs that Trump incited violence and trying to loose the interpretation of the First Amendment are not at all rational (what in fact many are doing now, including you, following the well known 'progressive' recipe with the never ending dilution of what is a 'racist', 'fascist' and so on). Much more rational is this, we owe the modern world to it, the advent of minority identity politics after 1990 (largely internalized by the Democrats these days) actually brought us closer to the Middle Ages.

catsmate · 15th January 2021, 08:42 AM

Originally Posted by Horhang

This makes me unsure there will be a trial. There is no precedent for this after he has left office. Impeachment trials are to remove someone from public office. As of Jan 20 he no longer holds public office. I think this will wind up in the courts before it goes before the Senate.

Incorrect. Belknap.

johnny karate · 15th January 2021, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by metacristi

So were Trump's actions as well. Political in nature (in spite of his unsupported conspirational theory). The solution here is definitely not to apply the 'progressive' tactics of restraining free speech, 'diluting' ad infinitum what means to be 'racist' and saying at most half the truth (for he definitely does not invite people to violence, this reminds me of the mad accusations that Breivik was the result of criticism of islam, be it unsupported). It does matter how they try to eliminate Trump (no matter if you do not agree overall with Trump's actions), as I said if they succeed to 'cancel' him using this 'progressive' tactics then basically anyone can be a victim in the future. Punishing Trump should not become the impeachment of free speech.

When they came for the insurrectionists and right wing terrorists, I said “Good, they deserve it”.

But when they came for me, I said “I didn’t take part in a violent coup or commit acts of terrorism” and they said “You’re all good then. Carry on” and everything worked out fine because only a ******* idiot would think there’s a slippery slope here.

Darat · 15th January 2021, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by metacristi

I'd say that trying to prove at all costs that Trump incited violence and trying to loose the interpretation of the First Amendment are not at all rational (what in fact many are doing now, including you, following the well known 'progressive' recipe with the never ending dilution of what is a 'racist', 'fascist' and so on). Much more rational is this, we owe the modern world to it, the advent of minority identity politics after 1990 (largely internalized by the Democrats these days) actually brought us closer to the Middle Ages.

I agree that Trump has been the most prominent campaigner against the 1st amendment but what do you mean by the highlighted? Whilst he has tried his best to get around the first amendment do you have any evidence he has been successful?

johnny karate · 15th January 2021, 08:58 AM

Originally Posted by metacristi

I'd say that trying to prove at all costs that Trump incited violence and trying to loose the interpretation of the First Amendment are not at all rational (what in fact many are doing now, including you, following the well known 'progressive' recipe with the never ending dilution of what is a 'racist', 'fascist' and so on). Much more rational is this, we owe the modern world to it, the advent of minority identity politics after 1990 (largely internalized by the Democrats these days) actually brought us closer to the Middle Ages.

I bet the right wing terrorist at the Capitol wearing the “Camp Auschwitz” shirt has some interesting thoughts on minority identity politics.

metacristi · 15th January 2021, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

I agree that Trump has been the most prominent campaigner against the 1st amendment but what do you mean by the highlighted? Whilst he has tried his best to get around the first amendment do you have any evidence he has been successful?

I mean that they try now to use it to widen what is punishable, ultimately the effect is the same as introducing all kind of 'hate speech' laws based on the 'progressive justice' prevalent today (which by the way lead to the 'cancel culture' more and more rampant today; something which lead rather toward the 'justice' offered by Stalin is enough to make you wary). Not the best move I'd say.

Darat · 15th January 2021, 09:02 AM

Originally Posted by metacristi

I mean that they try now to use it to widen what is punishable, ultimately the effect is the same as introducing all kind of 'hate speech' laws based on the 'progressive justice' prevalent today (which by the way lead to the 'cancel culture' more and more rampant today; something which lead rather toward the 'justice' offered by Stalin is enough to make you wary). Not the best move I'd say.

Er.. “widening” the 1st amendment would mean less speech is covered. I think you have this back to front.

turingtest · 15th January 2021, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by metacristi

I'd say that trying to prove at all costs that Trump incited violence and trying to loose the interpretation of the First Amendment are not at all rational (what in fact many are doing now, including you, following the well known 'progressive' recipe with the never ending dilution of what is a 'racist', 'fascist' and so on). Much more rational is this, we owe the modern world to it, the advent of minority identity politics after 1990 (largely internalized by the Democrats these days) actually brought us closer to the Middle Ages.

Including me? I'm sorry, can you give some examples of me engaging in "the never ending dilution of what is a 'racist', 'fascist' and so on"? Because if you can't (and you won't), I'd suggest that it's you engaging in some strategic dilution- I would count myself as a progressive, yes, but the idea that that, by definition, means I must have cheapened the worth of those terms by overusing them is itself kind of a cheap and understuffed strawman.

So- whaddya got?

metacristi · 15th January 2021, 09:04 AM

Originally Posted by johnny karate

I bet the right wing terrorist at the Capitol wearing the “Camp Auschwitz” shirt has some interesting thoughts on minority identity politics.

Waste of time. This does not make the attempt to curve free speech via all sort of at most half truths morally or intellectually valid (of course ultimately justified via 'doing justice', the problem is that that sort of 'justice' is not that much far from what Stalin or Mao did). Try something else.

JoeMorgue · 15th January 2021, 09:06 AM

I love how many racists and fascists think that, even if true, the Left calling too many people racists and fascists would mean anything at all or in anyway excuse them.

Meadmaker · 15th January 2021, 09:09 AM

Originally Posted by metacristi

I'd say that trying to prove at all costs that Trump incited violence and trying to loose the interpretation of the First Amendment are not at all rational (what in fact many are doing now, including you, following the well known 'progressive' recipe with the never ending dilution of what is a 'racist', 'fascist' and so on). Much more rational is this, we owe the modern world to it, the advent of minority identity politics after 1990 (largely internalized by the Democrats these days) actually brought us closer to the Middle Ages.

He has been lying about the election since the morning after election day.

Does he have a right to do that? I suppose he does. And the elected representatives of the people have the right to throw the S.O.B. out for using his office to undermine American democracy.

I'll say it again. If everything he said were true, then the appropriate response would in fact be insurrection and revolution. The mob that he inspired was doing exactly what they ought to have done, if the statements Trump made had been true. By lying to them, and getting them to believe his lies, he prompted an entirely predictable response.

In my humble opinion, that sort of thing makes one unfit for the presidency, even if he would only be in office for a few more days. After his lies, which have been so poisonous to American democracy, one more day is one too many.

JoeMorgue · 15th January 2021, 09:11 AM

You can always tell when someone knows that they are wrong when they can never answer a question, only discuss the philosophy of the question.

The person who shouted fire in crowded theater always wants to talk about his right to free speech, never the people he got killed.

turingtest · 15th January 2021, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Er.. “widening” the 1st amendment would mean less speech is covered. I think you have this back to front.

I think he's overthinking the whole thing. By which I do not mean more actual thought is covered- in fact, it's one of those interesting terms that means essentially the same as what sounds like the opposite, "underthinking."

metacristi · 15th January 2021, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Darat

Er.. “widening” the 1st amendment would mean less speech is covered. I think you have this back to front.

Err they try now to punish for example "high crimes and misdemeanors" and so on even if no incitement to violence is clear in Trump's speeches. If all is let like that I will not be surprised if the First Amendment ceases to protect free speech effectively. As I said this is a much better idea.

dejudge · 15th January 2021, 09:21 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

(I know this is late)

In fact, the republicans could go a long way to "healing the nation" by coming out with a strong (and honest) statement that

1) There is no evidence of significant voter fraud,
2) They acknowledge that the election was not stolen
3) Biden is the duly elected president,
4) Legitimately chosen by a majority of voters in the US and by the electoral college, and
5) Those who continue to fight the outcome of the election are trying to subvert democracy and harming the country

It's really not that hard.

It must be noted that in 2017 it was VP Biden himself who rejected the Democrats objections and certified Trump as the winner of the 2016 Presidential election.

Now it is VP Pence's turn to certify Biden as the winner of the 2020 Presidential election, Trump supporters attempted to assassinate Pence because he certified Biden as President elect.

Whether or not the impeachment trial occurs it is clear the Republican party has committed political "suicide".

metacristi · 15th January 2021, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by turingtest

Including me? I'm sorry, can you give some examples of me engaging in "the never ending dilution of what is a 'racist', 'fascist' and so on"? Because if you can't (and you won't), I'd suggest that it's you engaging in some strategic dilution- I would count myself as a progressive, yes, but the idea that that, by definition, means I must have cheapened the worth of those terms by overusing them is itself kind of a cheap and understuffed strawman.

So- whaddya got?

You are specifically trying to claim that what Trump said is not covered by the First Amendment as free speech. That you may not accept the other parts of the 'progressive' tactics is immaterial, it's enough that the Democrats and many others do it plenty.

JoeMorgue · 15th January 2021, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by dejudge

Whether or not the impeachment trial occurs it is clear the Republican party has committed political "suicide".

The Republican Party has been committing suicide every other day or so ever since Nixon and seems sure as hell to be taking its sweet time actually getting around to dying.

Reformed Offlian · 15th January 2021, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by Minoosh

"I swear to tell the t-t-r-r-u ... excuse me, what is this word?"

Oh, now, let's be fair. Trumpies *love* the word 'truth'. It's the referent they have a fraught relationship with.

JoeMorgue · 15th January 2021, 09:34 AM

They love truth. They hate facts.

pgwenthold · 15th January 2021, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by metacristi

Err they try now to punish for example "high crimes and misdemeanors" and so on even if no incitement to violence is clear in Trump's speeches. If all is let like that I will not be surprised if the First Amendment ceases to protect free speech effectively. As I said this is a much better idea.

How do we know Trump incited the insurrectionists?

Easy.

Ask them.

"Why did you go and storm the Capitol?"

And they have been asked that question. And their answer is, "Because the President told us to."

We don't have to speculate about whether Trump incited them to act. They have affirmed the fact that he did.

turingtest · 15th January 2021, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by metacristi

You are specifically trying to claim that what Trump said is not covered by the First Amendment as free speech. That you may not accept the other parts of the 'progressive' tactics is immaterial, it's enough that the Democrats and many others do it plenty.

Beautiful. You got nothing, so the actual, specific thing you accused me of is now "immaterial," but, by implication, I still get lumped in with others who "do it plenty." That's some nice dilution you got going on there...

And you're missing the whole point. What I'm saying, at least, is that the fact that the First Amendment is a limit on the government doesn't make it an inexhaustible license for the speaker- there can be consequences for any speaker if he shows no regard for any foreseeable consequences from his speech. And for someone in a position like the US Presidency, the consequences from what he says can be so much more significant than from the average citizen's speech that "high crimes and misdemeanors" as a description of such complete disregard on Trump's part for anything but his own political profit is completely applicable.

It's not that what he said isn't covered by the First Amendment- it's that blatting "First Amendment!" doesn't excuse it. There's a difference between "free speech!" as something that will fit on a bumper sticker and "free speech" as a fact in real life.

metacristi · 15th January 2021, 10:09 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

How do we know Trump incited the insurrectionists?

Easy.

Ask them.

"Why did you go and storm the Capitol?"

And they have been asked that question. And their answer is, "Because the President told us to."

We don't have to speculate about whether Trump incited them to act. They have affirmed the fact that he did.

As i quoted in my first post here Trump also told them to make their voices heard peacefully, if I criticize something without inciting to violence I cannot be hold responsible for all sort of radicals which can go to the extremes. Trump is not without guilt of course but let's punish without resorting to eroding free speech, half truths and all the other tenets of 'progressive' thought which can lead to all kind of abuses. Isolating him politically would be a better idea, I understand that he can be barred from holding office with simple majority, I cannot agree more with the Congress doing just that after Biden takes office. But don't tell me that the (sometimes unconscious) 'progressive' thought popular now is the way ahead.

Darat · 15th January 2021, 10:14 AM

Originally Posted by metacristi

As i quoted in my first post here Trump also told them to make their voices heard peacefully, if I criticize something without inciting to violence I cannot be hold responsible for all sort of radicals which can go to the extremes. Trump is not without guilt of course but let's punish without resorting to eroding free speech, half truths and all the other tenets of 'progressive' thought which can lead to all kind of abuses. Isolating him politically would be a better idea, I understand that he can be barred from holding office with simple majority, I cannot agree more with the Congress doing just that after Biden takes office. But don't tell me that the (sometimes unconscious) 'progressive' thought popular now is the way ahead.

Which eroding of free speech?

Darat · 15th January 2021, 10:15 AM

Originally Posted by metacristi

Err they try now to punish for example "high crimes and misdemeanors" and so on even if no incitement to violence is clear in Trump's speeches. If all is let like that I will not be surprised if the First Amendment ceases to protect free speech effectively. As I said this is a much better idea.

Er.. that is still not widening the 1st amendment which was your claim.

Dr.Sid · 15th January 2021, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

We don't have to speculate about whether Trump incited them to act. They have affirmed the fact that he did.

Well not really. They affirmed that some people can take it as that. Some quite stupid people, who did want to storm something anyway.

For the impeachment it's kinda irrelevant though. It will be decided by vote of the lawmakers.

Segnosaur · 15th January 2021, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by metacristi

As i quoted in my first post here Trump also told them to make their voices heard peacefully, if I criticize something without inciting to violence I cannot be hold responsible for all sort of radicals which can go to the extremes.

Once again... context is important. And the word "peaceful" is not some sort of talisman that absolves Trump of his responsibility.

If you talk in front of a group where you KNOW violence is a strong possibility (they did find one planned attendee with weapons before hand), then a rational person should know that your 'peaceful' rally could turn violent

If you say the word 'peaceful' but then also sprinkle in the word 'fight', and other speakers talk of 'combat' then you should recognize that your talk of 'peace' may be overlooked by the use of violent rhetoric.

If the only reason people are at the rally is because you have been lying for months about the election results, you are culpable.

If your first reaction after violence breaks out is to express 'love' for the terrorists, you should be seen as accepting of the violence

Meadmaker · 15th January 2021, 10:26 AM

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

Well not really. They affirmed that some people can take it as that. Some quite stupid people, who did want to storm something anyway.

For the impeachment it's kinda irrelevant though. It will be decided by vote of the lawmakers.

No, Pwengthold is right. He definitely incited them. What you are getting at is whether he intentionally incited them.

Malevolence or incompetence? it's a question that has come up over and over these last four years.

Dr.Sid · 15th January 2021, 10:30 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

No, Pwengthold is right. He definitely incited them. What you are getting at is whether he intentionally incited them.

Malevolence or incompetence? it's a question that has come up over and over these last four years.

No, what I meant is that they were in fact not incited by Trump, even if they say so. They would do it even if Trump said 'don't do that'.

JoeMorgue · 15th January 2021, 10:32 AM

"It's not my fault I told the violent mob to burn down the orphanage, they would have done it anyway"

Yeah airtight defense that.

Meadmaker · 15th January 2021, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Dr.Sid

No, what I meant is that they were in fact not incited by Trump, even if they say so. They would do it even if Trump said 'don't do that'.

Oh. I see.

But I don't think it's accurate. If Trump had not called the rally and made that speech, I do not think the Capitol would have been attacked.

ETA: And, to repeat an earlier point, it wasn't just that speech. That speech was part of a months long campaign. It is conceivable that even without that speech, they would have stormed the Capitol anyway, but only because of two months of previous incitement.

turingtest · 15th January 2021, 10:37 AM

Originally Posted by metacristi

As i quoted in my first post here Trump also told them to make their voices heard peacefully, if I criticize something without inciting to violence I cannot be hold responsible for all sort of radicals which can go to the extremes. Trump is not without guilt of course but let's punish without resorting to eroding free speech, half truths and all the other tenets of 'progressive' thought which can lead to all kind of abuses. Isolating him politically would be a better idea, I understand that he can be barred from holding office with simple majority, I cannot agree more with the Congress doing just that after Biden takes office. But don't tell me that the (sometimes unconscious) 'progressive' thought popular now is the way ahead.

Then your understanding here is no better than it has been elsewhere in this thread. In order to be barred from office by that simple majority vote in the Senate, he must first be convicted by a 2/3 Senate majority of the charges brought by the impeachment. You getting this? What you "cannot agree more" should be done cannot be until after what you think should not be is. (Ok, but I like that sentence!)

And isn't it just a little inconsistent on your part to agree that he should be barred from office for an offense that you think he shouldn't be convicted for? The barring from office would be for the same thing- you're effectively saying he should do the time without any necessity of conviction for the crime.

JoeMorgue · 15th January 2021, 10:38 AM

Also they were what, 2 or 3 blocks from the Capitol specifically to see his speech?

No Other · 15th January 2021, 11:14 AM

“You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” Schumer to Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

Paul2 · 15th January 2021, 11:17 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

He has been lying about the election since ~~the morning after~~ before election day.

FTFY. He was saying before the election that, if he lost, it would only be because he was cheated.

Paul2 · 15th January 2021, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by metacristi

Err they try now to punish for example "high crimes and misdemeanors" and so on even if no incitement to violence is clear in Trump's speeches. If all is let like that I will not be surprised if the First Amendment ceases to protect free speech effectively. As I said this is a much better idea.

Impeachment is not a First Amendment issue, unless you want to claim that you could only impeach a president for what they do, and never for anything they say.

Mader Levap · 15th January 2021, 11:26 AM

I like how fascist degenerates whine about free speech (or rather their strawman of it), though it would be one of first things to go if they had any say.

Newsflash: borders of free speech were already determined long ago, like in famous "shouting fire in theatre" example. You tell people stupid things that lead to their death, you are responsible for that. No, winking while saying "be peaceful" won't absolve your fuhrer from that.

pgwenthold · 15th January 2021, 11:45 AM

Originally Posted by metacristi

As i quoted in my first post here Trump also told them to make their voices heard peacefully, if I criticize something without inciting to violence I cannot be hold responsible for all sort of radicals which can go to the extremes.

Maybe he said that on Wednesday Jan 6, in one speech, but we don't have to restrict our analysis of his role to just that speech.

Do you think the insurrectionists are lying when they said they believe that Trump sent them to storm the Capitol?

Irrespective of what words you want to parse, his message was very clear to them. They were not confused about what he meant.

He spent 2 months on the attack. You can't just excuse him because he said "oh and be peaceful" at the last minute.

pgwenthold · 15th January 2021, 11:48 AM

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

Oh. I see.

But I don't think it's accurate. If Trump had not called the rally and made that speech, I do not think the Capitol would have been attacked.

ETA: And, to repeat an earlier point, it wasn't just that speech. That speech was part of a months long campaign. It is conceivable that even without that speech, they would have stormed the Capitol anyway, but only because of two months of previous incitement.

The ETA is important.

I think they absolutely would have done it if he hadn't called the rally and made the speech. That's why they showed up to DC prepared for storming the Capitol. They have statements on social media boasting that they were going to do it.

And it's because he sent them the message to do it.

pgwenthold · 15th January 2021, 11:50 AM

BTW, regarding "you can't impeach him because he has free speech"

How many Trump employees have been fired because they said something in opposition to Dear Leader?

The head of Cyber Security was fired because he had the audacity to say that the election was secure.

Where were all these wonderful free speech warriors then?

So take your free speech crap and shove it. We can see it's a lie.

Fast Eddie B · 15th January 2021, 11:51 AM

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Do you think the insurrectionists are lying when they said they believe that Trump sent them to storm the Capitol?

You really can’t blame them for thinking they were in an “army”, since he had invited them to join one!

15th January 2021, 08:41 AM	#841
metacristi Muse Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 755	Originally Posted by turingtest It's no "impeachment of free speech" to say that free speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you want without any regard to consequences. In Trump's case, he gave no thought at all to what effect his speech, in context, might have beyond how he hoped it might benefit him politically. In a US president, that kind of unbalanced approach fits pretty well the political definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors," since what might not need sanction for somebody in a lesser position is kind of what the provision is for in the case of a greater one. So, no- anyone in the future is not going to be a victim, only the ones in a position like Trump's who might need the example. I'd say that trying to prove at all costs that Trump incited violence and trying to loose the interpretation of the First Amendment are not at all rational (what in fact many are doing now, including you, following the well known 'progressive' recipe with the never ending dilution of what is a 'racist', 'fascist' and so on). Much more rational is this, we owe the modern world to it, the advent of minority identity politics after 1990 (largely internalized by the Democrats these days) actually brought us closer to the Middle Ages.
metacristi Muse Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 755	__________________ “It is often said that knowledge is power, but it might be more correct to say that [critical] thinking is power.” ibn Warraq - Why I am not a Muslim Knight Tube: Brendan O'Neill on identity politics Last edited by metacristi; 15th January 2021 at 08:43 AM.

15th January 2021, 08:42 AM	#842
catsmate No longer the 1 Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 23,809	Originally Posted by Horhang This makes me unsure there will be a trial. There is no precedent for this after he has left office. Impeachment trials are to remove someone from public office. As of Jan 20 he no longer holds public office. I think this will wind up in the courts before it goes before the Senate. Incorrect. Belknap.
	__________________ As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

15th January 2021, 08:49 AM	#844
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,819	Originally Posted by metacristi I'd say that trying to prove at all costs that Trump incited violence and trying to loose the interpretation of the First Amendment are not at all rational (what in fact many are doing now, including you, following the well known 'progressive' recipe with the never ending dilution of what is a 'racist', 'fascist' and so on). Much more rational is this, we owe the modern world to it, the advent of minority identity politics after 1990 (largely internalized by the Democrats these days) actually brought us closer to the Middle Ages. I agree that Trump has been the most prominent campaigner against the 1st amendment but what do you mean by the highlighted? Whilst he has tried his best to get around the first amendment do you have any evidence he has been successful?
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

15th January 2021, 08:59 AM	#846
metacristi Muse Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 755	Originally Posted by Darat I agree that Trump has been the most prominent campaigner against the 1st amendment but what do you mean by the highlighted? Whilst he has tried his best to get around the first amendment do you have any evidence he has been successful? I mean that they try now to use it to widen what is punishable, ultimately the effect is the same as introducing all kind of 'hate speech' laws based on the 'progressive justice' prevalent today (which by the way lead to the 'cancel culture' more and more rampant today; something which lead rather toward the 'justice' offered by Stalin is enough to make you wary). Not the best move I'd say.
metacristi Muse Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 755	__________________ “It is often said that knowledge is power, but it might be more correct to say that [critical] thinking is power.” ibn Warraq - Why I am not a Muslim Knight Tube: Brendan O'Neill on identity politics

15th January 2021, 09:02 AM	#847
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,819	Originally Posted by metacristi I mean that they try now to use it to widen what is punishable, ultimately the effect is the same as introducing all kind of 'hate speech' laws based on the 'progressive justice' prevalent today (which by the way lead to the 'cancel culture' more and more rampant today; something which lead rather toward the 'justice' offered by Stalin is enough to make you wary). Not the best move I'd say. Er.. “widening” the 1st amendment would mean less speech is covered. I think you have this back to front.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

15th January 2021, 08:43 AM	#843
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 14,357	Originally Posted by metacristi So were Trump's actions as well. Political in nature (in spite of his unsupported conspirational theory). The solution here is definitely not to apply the 'progressive' tactics of restraining free speech, 'diluting' ad infinitum what means to be 'racist' and saying at most half the truth (for he definitely does not invite people to violence, this reminds me of the mad accusations that Breivik was the result of criticism of islam, be it unsupported). It does matter how they try to eliminate Trump (no matter if you do not agree overall with Trump's actions), as I said if they succeed to 'cancel' him using this 'progressive' tactics then basically anyone can be a victim in the future. Punishing Trump should not become the impeachment of free speech. When they came for the insurrectionists and right wing terrorists, I said “Good, they deserve it”. But when they came for me, I said “I didn’t take part in a violent coup or commit acts of terrorism” and they said “You’re all good then. Carry on” and everything worked out fine because only a ******* idiot would think there’s a slippery slope here.

15th January 2021, 08:58 AM	#845
johnny karate ... and your little dog too. Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 14,357	Originally Posted by metacristi I'd say that trying to prove at all costs that Trump incited violence and trying to loose the interpretation of the First Amendment are not at all rational (what in fact many are doing now, including you, following the well known 'progressive' recipe with the never ending dilution of what is a 'racist', 'fascist' and so on). Much more rational is this, we owe the modern world to it, the advent of minority identity politics after 1990 (largely internalized by the Democrats these days) actually brought us closer to the Middle Ages. I bet the right wing terrorist at the Capitol wearing the “Camp Auschwitz” shirt has some interesting thoughts on minority identity politics.

15th January 2021, 09:04 AM	#848
turingtest Mistral, mistral wind... Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Embedded, reporting from Mississippi Posts: 4,673	Originally Posted by metacristi I'd say that trying to prove at all costs that Trump incited violence and trying to loose the interpretation of the First Amendment are not at all rational (what in fact many are doing now, including you, following the well known 'progressive' recipe with the never ending dilution of what is a 'racist', 'fascist' and so on). Much more rational is this, we owe the modern world to it, the advent of minority identity politics after 1990 (largely internalized by the Democrats these days) actually brought us closer to the Middle Ages. Including me? I'm sorry, can you give some examples of me engaging in "the never ending dilution of what is a 'racist', 'fascist' and so on"? Because if you can't (and you won't), I'd suggest that it's you engaging in some strategic dilution- I would count myself as a progressive, yes, but the idea that that, by definition, means I must have cheapened the worth of those terms by overusing them is itself kind of a cheap and understuffed strawman. So- whaddya got?
	__________________ I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV; I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems Deep Purple- "The Aviator" Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King Last edited by turingtest; 15th January 2021 at 09:06 AM. Reason: grammar

15th January 2021, 09:04 AM	#849
metacristi Muse Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 755	Originally Posted by johnny karate I bet the right wing terrorist at the Capitol wearing the “Camp Auschwitz” shirt has some interesting thoughts on minority identity politics. Waste of time. This does not make the attempt to curve free speech via all sort of at most half truths morally or intellectually valid (of course ultimately justified via 'doing justice', the problem is that that sort of 'justice' is not that much far from what Stalin or Mao did). Try something else.
metacristi Muse Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 755	__________________ “It is often said that knowledge is power, but it might be more correct to say that [critical] thinking is power.” ibn Warraq - Why I am not a Muslim Knight Tube: Brendan O'Neill on identity politics Last edited by metacristi; 15th January 2021 at 09:18 AM.

15th January 2021, 09:06 AM	#850
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,542	I love how many racists and fascists think that, even if true, the Left calling too many people racists and fascists would mean anything at all or in anyway excuse them.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

15th January 2021, 09:09 AM	#851
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,187	Originally Posted by metacristi I'd say that trying to prove at all costs that Trump incited violence and trying to loose the interpretation of the First Amendment are not at all rational (what in fact many are doing now, including you, following the well known 'progressive' recipe with the never ending dilution of what is a 'racist', 'fascist' and so on). Much more rational is this, we owe the modern world to it, the advent of minority identity politics after 1990 (largely internalized by the Democrats these days) actually brought us closer to the Middle Ages. He has been lying about the election since the morning after election day. Does he have a right to do that? I suppose he does. And the elected representatives of the people have the right to throw the S.O.B. out for using his office to undermine American democracy. I'll say it again. If everything he said were true, then the appropriate response would in fact be insurrection and revolution. The mob that he inspired was doing exactly what they ought to have done, if the statements Trump made had been true. By lying to them, and getting them to believe his lies, he prompted an entirely predictable response. In my humble opinion, that sort of thing makes one unfit for the presidency, even if he would only be in office for a few more days. After his lies, which have been so poisonous to American democracy, one more day is one too many.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?

15th January 2021, 09:11 AM	#852
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,542	You can always tell when someone knows that they are wrong when they can never answer a question, only discuss the philosophy of the question. The person who shouted fire in crowded theater always wants to talk about his right to free speech, never the people he got killed.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate." Last edited by JoeMorgue; 15th January 2021 at 09:13 AM.

15th January 2021, 09:12 AM	#853
turingtest Mistral, mistral wind... Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Embedded, reporting from Mississippi Posts: 4,673	Originally Posted by Darat Er.. “widening” the 1st amendment would mean less speech is covered. I think you have this back to front. I think he's overthinking the whole thing. By which I do not mean more actual thought is covered- in fact, it's one of those interesting terms that means essentially the same as what sounds like the opposite, "underthinking."
	__________________ I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV; I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems Deep Purple- "The Aviator" Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King

15th January 2021, 09:13 AM	#854
metacristi Muse Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 755	Originally Posted by Darat Er.. “widening” the 1st amendment would mean less speech is covered. I think you have this back to front. Err they try now to punish for example "high crimes and misdemeanors" and so on even if no incitement to violence is clear in Trump's speeches. If all is let like that I will not be surprised if the First Amendment ceases to protect free speech effectively. As I said this is a much better idea.
metacristi Muse Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 755	__________________ “It is often said that knowledge is power, but it might be more correct to say that [critical] thinking is power.” ibn Warraq - Why I am not a Muslim Knight Tube: Brendan O'Neill on identity politics

15th January 2021, 09:21 AM	#855
dejudge Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 5,825	Originally Posted by pgwenthold (I know this is late) In fact, the republicans could go a long way to "healing the nation" by coming out with a strong (and honest) statement that 1) There is no evidence of significant voter fraud, 2) They acknowledge that the election was not stolen 3) Biden is the duly elected president, 4) Legitimately chosen by a majority of voters in the US and by the electoral college, and 5) Those who continue to fight the outcome of the election are trying to subvert democracy and harming the country It's really not that hard. It must be noted that in 2017 it was VP Biden himself who rejected the Democrats objections and certified Trump as the winner of the 2016 Presidential election. Now it is VP Pence's turn to certify Biden as the winner of the 2020 Presidential election, Trump supporters attempted to assassinate Pence because he certified Biden as President elect. Whether or not the impeachment trial occurs it is clear the Republican party has committed political "suicide".
dejudge Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 5,825

15th January 2021, 09:23 AM	#856
metacristi Muse Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 755	Originally Posted by turingtest Including me? I'm sorry, can you give some examples of me engaging in "the never ending dilution of what is a 'racist', 'fascist' and so on"? Because if you can't (and you won't), I'd suggest that it's you engaging in some strategic dilution- I would count myself as a progressive, yes, but the idea that that, by definition, means I must have cheapened the worth of those terms by overusing them is itself kind of a cheap and understuffed strawman. So- whaddya got? You are specifically trying to claim that what Trump said is not covered by the First Amendment as free speech. That you may not accept the other parts of the 'progressive' tactics is immaterial, it's enough that the Democrats and many others do it plenty.
metacristi Muse Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 755	__________________ “It is often said that knowledge is power, but it might be more correct to say that [critical] thinking is power.” ibn Warraq - Why I am not a Muslim Knight Tube: Brendan O'Neill on identity politics

15th January 2021, 09:23 AM	#857
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,542	Originally Posted by dejudge Whether or not the impeachment trial occurs it is clear the Republican party has committed political "suicide". The Republican Party has been committing suicide every other day or so ever since Nixon and seems sure as hell to be taking its sweet time actually getting around to dying.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

15th January 2021, 09:32 AM	#858
Reformed Offlian Critical Thinker Join Date: Apr 2020 Location: USA Posts: 347	Originally Posted by Minoosh "I swear to tell the t-t-r-r-u ... excuse me, what is this word?" Oh, now, let's be fair. Trumpies love the word 'truth'. It's the referent they have a fraught relationship with.

15th January 2021, 09:34 AM	#859
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,542	They love truth. They hate facts.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

15th January 2021, 09:37 AM	#860
pgwenthold Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 20,127	Originally Posted by metacristi Err they try now to punish for example "high crimes and misdemeanors" and so on even if no incitement to violence is clear in Trump's speeches. If all is let like that I will not be surprised if the First Amendment ceases to protect free speech effectively. As I said this is a much better idea. How do we know Trump incited the insurrectionists? Easy. Ask them. "Why did you go and storm the Capitol?" And they have been asked that question. And their answer is, "Because the President told us to." We don't have to speculate about whether Trump incited them to act. They have affirmed the fact that he did.
	__________________ "As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Chloe, Secret Life of Pets

15th January 2021, 09:56 AM	#861
turingtest Mistral, mistral wind... Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Embedded, reporting from Mississippi Posts: 4,673	Originally Posted by metacristi You are specifically trying to claim that what Trump said is not covered by the First Amendment as free speech. That you may not accept the other parts of the 'progressive' tactics is immaterial, it's enough that the Democrats and many others do it plenty. Beautiful. You got nothing, so the actual, specific thing you accused me of is now "immaterial," but, by implication, I still get lumped in with others who "do it plenty." That's some nice dilution you got going on there... And you're missing the whole point. What I'm saying, at least, is that the fact that the First Amendment is a limit on the government doesn't make it an inexhaustible license for the speaker- there can be consequences for any speaker if he shows no regard for any foreseeable consequences from his speech. And for someone in a position like the US Presidency, the consequences from what he says can be so much more significant than from the average citizen's speech that "high crimes and misdemeanors" as a description of such complete disregard on Trump's part for anything but his own political profit is completely applicable. It's not that what he said isn't covered by the First Amendment- it's that blatting "First Amendment!" doesn't excuse it. There's a difference between "free speech!" as something that will fit on a bumper sticker and "free speech" as a fact in real life.
	__________________ I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV; I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems Deep Purple- "The Aviator" Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King Last edited by turingtest; 15th January 2021 at 10:06 AM. Reason: clarify

15th January 2021, 10:09 AM	#862
metacristi Muse Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 755	Originally Posted by pgwenthold How do we know Trump incited the insurrectionists? Easy. Ask them. "Why did you go and storm the Capitol?" And they have been asked that question. And their answer is, "Because the President told us to." We don't have to speculate about whether Trump incited them to act. They have affirmed the fact that he did. As i quoted in my first post here Trump also told them to make their voices heard peacefully, if I criticize something without inciting to violence I cannot be hold responsible for all sort of radicals which can go to the extremes. Trump is not without guilt of course but let's punish without resorting to eroding free speech, half truths and all the other tenets of 'progressive' thought which can lead to all kind of abuses. Isolating him politically would be a better idea, I understand that he can be barred from holding office with simple majority, I cannot agree more with the Congress doing just that after Biden takes office. But don't tell me that the (sometimes unconscious) 'progressive' thought popular now is the way ahead.
metacristi Muse Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 755	__________________ “It is often said that knowledge is power, but it might be more correct to say that [critical] thinking is power.” ibn Warraq - Why I am not a Muslim Knight Tube: Brendan O'Neill on identity politics

15th January 2021, 10:14 AM	#863
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,819	Originally Posted by metacristi As i quoted in my first post here Trump also told them to make their voices heard peacefully, if I criticize something without inciting to violence I cannot be hold responsible for all sort of radicals which can go to the extremes. Trump is not without guilt of course but let's punish without resorting to eroding free speech, half truths and all the other tenets of 'progressive' thought which can lead to all kind of abuses. Isolating him politically would be a better idea, I understand that he can be barred from holding office with simple majority, I cannot agree more with the Congress doing just that after Biden takes office. But don't tell me that the (sometimes unconscious) 'progressive' thought popular now is the way ahead. Which eroding of free speech?
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

15th January 2021, 10:15 AM	#864
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 96,819	Originally Posted by metacristi Err they try now to punish for example "high crimes and misdemeanors" and so on even if no incitement to violence is clear in Trump's speeches. If all is let like that I will not be surprised if the First Amendment ceases to protect free speech effectively. As I said this is a much better idea. Er.. that is still not widening the 1st amendment which was your claim.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

15th January 2021, 10:17 AM	#865
Dr.Sid Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic Posts: 3,167	Originally Posted by pgwenthold We don't have to speculate about whether Trump incited them to act. They have affirmed the fact that he did. Well not really. They affirmed that some people can take it as that. Some quite stupid people, who did want to storm something anyway. For the impeachment it's kinda irrelevant though. It will be decided by vote of the lawmakers.

15th January 2021, 10:19 AM	#866
Segnosaur Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Canada, eh? Posts: 17,094	Originally Posted by metacristi As i quoted in my first post here Trump also told them to make their voices heard peacefully, if I criticize something without inciting to violence I cannot be hold responsible for all sort of radicals which can go to the extremes. Once again... context is important. And the word "peaceful" is not some sort of talisman that absolves Trump of his responsibility. If you talk in front of a group where you KNOW violence is a strong possibility (they did find one planned attendee with weapons before hand), then a rational person should know that your 'peaceful' rally could turn violent If you say the word 'peaceful' but then also sprinkle in the word 'fight', and other speakers talk of 'combat' then you should recognize that your talk of 'peace' may be overlooked by the use of violent rhetoric. If the only reason people are at the rally is because you have been lying for months about the election results, you are culpable. If your first reaction after violence breaks out is to express 'love' for the terrorists, you should be seen as accepting of the violence
	__________________ Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu We are Groot - Groot

15th January 2021, 10:26 AM	#867
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,187	Originally Posted by Dr.Sid Well not really. They affirmed that some people can take it as that. Some quite stupid people, who did want to storm something anyway. For the impeachment it's kinda irrelevant though. It will be decided by vote of the lawmakers. No, Pwengthold is right. He definitely incited them. What you are getting at is whether he intentionally incited them. Malevolence or incompetence? it's a question that has come up over and over these last four years.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information?

15th January 2021, 10:30 AM	#868
Dr.Sid Illuminator Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic Posts: 3,167	Originally Posted by Meadmaker No, Pwengthold is right. He definitely incited them. What you are getting at is whether he intentionally incited them. Malevolence or incompetence? it's a question that has come up over and over these last four years. No, what I meant is that they were in fact not incited by Trump, even if they say so. They would do it even if Trump said 'don't do that'.

15th January 2021, 10:32 AM	#869
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,542	"It's not my fault I told the violent mob to burn down the orphanage, they would have done it anyway" Yeah airtight defense that.
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

15th January 2021, 10:36 AM	#870
Meadmaker Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2004 Posts: 25,187	Originally Posted by Dr.Sid No, what I meant is that they were in fact not incited by Trump, even if they say so. They would do it even if Trump said 'don't do that'. Oh. I see. But I don't think it's accurate. If Trump had not called the rally and made that speech, I do not think the Capitol would have been attacked. ETA: And, to repeat an earlier point, it wasn't just that speech. That speech was part of a months long campaign. It is conceivable that even without that speech, they would have stormed the Capitol anyway, but only because of two months of previous incitement.
	__________________ Yes, yes. I know you're right, but would it hurt you to actually provide some information? Last edited by Meadmaker; 15th January 2021 at 10:37 AM.

15th January 2021, 10:37 AM	#871
turingtest Mistral, mistral wind... Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Embedded, reporting from Mississippi Posts: 4,673	Originally Posted by metacristi As i quoted in my first post here Trump also told them to make their voices heard peacefully, if I criticize something without inciting to violence I cannot be hold responsible for all sort of radicals which can go to the extremes. Trump is not without guilt of course but let's punish without resorting to eroding free speech, half truths and all the other tenets of 'progressive' thought which can lead to all kind of abuses. Isolating him politically would be a better idea, I understand that he can be barred from holding office with simple majority, I cannot agree more with the Congress doing just that after Biden takes office. But don't tell me that the (sometimes unconscious) 'progressive' thought popular now is the way ahead. Then your understanding here is no better than it has been elsewhere in this thread. In order to be barred from office by that simple majority vote in the Senate, he must first be convicted by a 2/3 Senate majority of the charges brought by the impeachment. You getting this? What you "cannot agree more" should be done cannot be until after what you think should not be is. (Ok, but I like that sentence!) And isn't it just a little inconsistent on your part to agree that he should be barred from office for an offense that you think he shouldn't be convicted for? The barring from office would be for the same thing- you're effectively saying he should do the time without any necessity of conviction for the crime.
	__________________ I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV; I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems Deep Purple- "The Aviator" Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King

15th January 2021, 10:38 AM	#872
JoeMorgue Self Employed Remittance Man Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Florida Posts: 30,542	Also they were what, 2 or 3 blocks from the Capitol specifically to see his speech?
	__________________ Yahtzee: "You're doing that thing again where when asked a question you just discuss the philosophy of the question instead of answering the bloody question." Gabriel: "Well yeah, you see..." Yahtzee: "No. When you are asked a Yes or No question the first word out of your mouth needs to be Yes or No. Only after that have you earned the right to elaborate."

15th January 2021, 11:14 AM	#873
No Other Muse Join Date: Feb 2016 Posts: 670	“You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.” Schumer to Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.
No Other Muse Join Date: Feb 2016 Posts: 670

15th January 2021, 11:17 AM	#874
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,581	Originally Posted by Meadmaker He has been lying about the election since ~~the morning after~~ before election day. FTFY. He was saying before the election that, if he lost, it would only be because he was cheated.
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,581	__________________ It's nice to be nice to the nice. Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell

15th January 2021, 11:19 AM	#875
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,581	Originally Posted by metacristi Err they try now to punish for example "high crimes and misdemeanors" and so on even if no incitement to violence is clear in Trump's speeches. If all is let like that I will not be surprised if the First Amendment ceases to protect free speech effectively. As I said this is a much better idea. Impeachment is not a First Amendment issue, unless you want to claim that you could only impeach a president for what they do, and never for anything they say.
Paul2 Philosopher Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 6,581	__________________ It's nice to be nice to the nice. Aristotle, so far as I know, was the first man to proclaim explicitly that man is a rational animal. His reason for this view was one which does not now seem very impressive: it was, that some people can do sums. - Bertrand Russell