|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 27, 2021 15:20:48 GMT -8
Insurrection is crime in the United States. Here's is the specific law. 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
How about the January 6th incident in DC? Was it an insurrection under the above cited law? Many people (some are serious and non-crazy, some are ultra Trump-haters who --- well, you know what I think of them) are convinced that insurrection is the correct term. I prefer the word riot, but unlike the Trump haters, I recognize that I may be wrong. Well! With many arrested in connection with the Jan. 6th incident, one would think that many of those would be charged under the insurrection law. Apparently one would be wrong in thinking that. Reuters, a reputable news source, has reported the following . . . WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (Reuters) - The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.
Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.
"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. "Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages."
.......................
“More than 170 people have been charged so far with assaulting or impeding a police officer, according to the Justice Department,” the report added. “But one source said there has been little, if any, recent discussion by senior Justice Department officials of filing charges such as ‘seditious conspiracy’ to accuse defendants of trying to overthrow the government.www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/I, as well as all leading Republican officials (in addition to virtually all Americans), quickly condemned what happened in DC on the 6th of January. There can be no excuse for those events. But it's important to keep the proper perspective and not blow things out of proportion. It was not a mortal threat to the Republic. And it should not be used by one political party to tar and feather the other major party in an obvious attempt to seize and hold political power for the next several decades. That's why the Democrats have made sure that those who either support Donald Trump or simply want an unbiased investigation of the event, will be able to condemn the House committee as a totally partisan effort to destroy the GOP. Again I will cite my analogy of a crooked bettor who is virtually certain that his horse will win but fixes the race anyway. If Pelosi and the other Dems are so sure that the committee would reveal that Donald Trump was behind the whole thing, they would have let Republicans like Jim Jordan to sit on he committee. If they are right in their belief that it was all Trump's fault, there is no way in hell that Jordan could obscure that fact. My guess is that the Dems know full well that they could never prove to the satisfaction of an unbiased jury (which would be virtually impossible to assemble, I admit) that this was totally planned ahead of time and coordinated by Trump. Seems to me that a balanced committee (even the 7 Dems and only 5 Republicans originally designed by Pelosi) would have had plenty of dirt to legitimately throw Trump's way. But no, dirt thrown on the Donald was not enough. Nothing short of a stake through the political heart would suffice. I'm beginning to think that whose in charge of the Democratic Party are stupid. They should do everything within their power to make sure that Trump runs in 2024. His candidacy, in my view, would almost certainly enable the Dems to win the White House. Back to the main point of this thread. If Jan. 6th was an insurrection, why is the Biden DOJ not charging any any of those arrested with insurrection? Maybe because, as unacceptable as the riot was, as serious an affront to government under the law as was, it was NOT the result of a planned attempt on the part of the prior POTUS to stage a fascist coup. Whatever it was, it should be and has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of Americans. That's the important thing. So far, it looks like the perpetrators are feeling the weight of the law. That weight seems appropriate, though many on the Left will be disappointed that no one (at least so far) is getting life in prison on charges of treason. Deal with it. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 27, 2021 15:32:39 GMT -8
In my latest post, I opined that the Democrats seem convinced that they have to make sure that Donald Trump will not be allowed to run again for President. Why do they believe that? Anybody with half a brain can realize that if be runs if will benefit them.
If Trump runs as an independent, it will split the right-wing vote. If he gets the GOP nomination, his unpopularity would probably be so great that the Dems would win head-to-head. I have to think that the Dems are afraid on him, but I can't figure out why.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by azson on Aug 27, 2021 15:48:27 GMT -8
Why are you starting a new thread on this topic when we already have one?
Could it be you want to avoid the inconvenient truths and unanswered questions posed to you there?
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 27, 2021 17:27:19 GMT -8
Why are you starting a new thread on this topic when we already have one? Could it be you want to avoid the inconvenient truths and unanswered questions posed to you there? Seriously. We get long-winded dictionary answers when the simple answer is "Yes." |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 27, 2021 17:28:08 GMT -8
In my latest post, I opined that the Democrats seem convinced that they have to make sure that Donald Trump will not be allowed to run again for President. Why do they believe that? Anybody with half a brain can realize that if be runs if will benefit them. If Trump runs as an independent, it will split the right-wing vote. If he gets the GOP nomination, his unpopularity would probably be so great that the Dems would win head-to-head. I have to think that the Dems are afraid on him, but I can't figure out why. AzWm .....The obviousness of this is alarmimg to the point where you can't see it. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 27, 2021 17:30:06 GMT -8
Insurrection is crime in the United States. Here's is the specific law. 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)
How about the January 6th incident in DC? Was it an insurrection under the above cited law? Many people (some are serious and non-crazy, some are ultra Trump-haters who --- well, you know what I think of them) are convinced that insurrection is the correct term. I prefer the word riot, but unlike the Trump haters, I recognize that I may be wrong. Well! With many arrested in connection with the Jan. 6th incident, one would think that many of those would be charged under the insurrection law. Apparently one would be wrong in thinking that. Reuters, a reputable news source, has reported the following . . . WASHINGTON, Aug 20 (Reuters) - The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result, according to four current and former law enforcement officials.
Though federal officials have arrested more than 570 alleged participants, the FBI at this point believes the violence was not centrally coordinated by far-right groups or prominent supporters of then-President Donald Trump, according to the sources, who have been either directly involved in or briefed regularly on the wide-ranging investigations.
"Ninety to ninety-five percent of these are one-off cases," said a former senior law enforcement official with knowledge of the investigation. "Then you have five percent, maybe, of these militia groups that were more closely organized. But there was no grand scheme with Roger Stone and Alex Jones and all of these people to storm the Capitol and take hostages."
.......................
“More than 170 people have been charged so far with assaulting or impeding a police officer, according to the Justice Department,” the report added. “But one source said there has been little, if any, recent discussion by senior Justice Department officials of filing charges such as ‘seditious conspiracy’ to accuse defendants of trying to overthrow the government.www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-fbi-finds-scant-evidence-us-capitol-attack-was-coordinated-sources-2021-08-20/I, as well as all leading Republican officials (in addition to virtually all Americans), quickly condemned what happened in DC on the 6th of January. There can be no excuse for those events. But it's important to keep the proper perspective and not blow things out of proportion. It was not a mortal threat to the Republic. And it should not be used by one political party to tar and feather the other major party in an obvious attempt to seize and hold political power for the next several decades. That's why the Democrats have made sure that those who either support Donald Trump or simply want an unbiased investigation of the event, will be able to condemn the House committee as a totally partisan effort to destroy the GOP. Again I will cite my analogy of a crooked bettor who is virtually certain that his horse will win but fixes the race anyway. If Pelosi and the other Dems are so sure that the committee would reveal that Donald Trump was behind the whole thing, they would have let Republicans like Jim Jordan to sit on he committee. If they are right in their belief that it was all Trump's fault, there is no way in hell that Jordan could obscure that fact. My guess is that the Dems know full well that they could never prove to the satisfaction of an unbiased jury (which would be virtually impossible to assemble, I admit) that this was totally planned ahead of time and coordinated by Trump. Seems to me that a balanced committee (even the 7 Dems and only 5 Republicans originally designed by Pelosi) would have had plenty of dirt to legitimately throw Trump's way. But no, dirt thrown on the Donald was not enough. Nothing short of a stake through the political heart would suffice. I'm beginning to think that whose in charge of the Democratic Party are stupid. They should do everything within their power to make sure that Trump runs in 2024. His candidacy, in my view, would almost certainly enable the Dems to win the White House. Back to the main point of this thread. If Jan. 6th was an insurrection, why is the Biden DOJ not charging any any of those arrested with insurrection? Maybe because, as unacceptable as the riot was, as serious an affront to government under the law as was, it was NOT the result of a planned attempt on the part of the prior POTUS to stage a fascist coup. Whatever it was, it should be and has been rejected by the overwhelming majority of Americans. That's the important thing. So far, it looks like the perpetrators are feeling the weight of the law. That weight seems appropriate, though many on the Left will be disappointed that no one (at least so far) is getting life in prison on charges of treason. Deal with it. AzWm All of this was addressed in the other thread. "Deal with it" when you choose to step up and answer the questions you have ducked for weeks now. The indignation is unbelievable here. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 27, 2021 18:22:23 GMT -8
Ryan, help me out here. The "Riot or insurrection" thread did not discuss, unless I've forgotten how to read, the information contained in the Reuters item discussed in this thread. I would like to know what your reaction is to that information specifically.
It's my understanding that you, and some others, consider the January 6th DC events to be an attempt to mount an insurrection by Trump and his supporters. As I've stated, my opinion is that the Jan. 6th was a riot. Totally unacceptable, but something less than an a serious attempt to overthrow the government.
So, what was the nature of the Jan. 6 events? Riot or insurrection? (Keep in mind that whether those events were good or bad is Not in question.) I suggest that how those arrested in connection with those events are treated by the criminal justice system is at least one good way to arrive at an answer. If the DOJ were charging the defendants under 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection, your case would be strong. In fact, I would have to change my mind on the matter.
However, at least to my knowledge, the DOJ (at least to this point) is NOT charging anyone involved under that law. Why not? You can call it an insurrection a million times if you wish, but the Biden DOJ seems to disagree with you.
Let's see if the DOJ changes it's mind. Apparently, some of the perpetrators may yet merit the insurrection charge. What bothers me is that it is 100% obvious that the Democratic Party intends to claim that Trump, the GOP, and by extension those who voted for the previous POTUS are guilty of treason. Hell, they ran against Hoover for 20 years, charging him with creating the Depression. (He did not start it, but some of his decisions did not help matters.)
Ryan, I hold my breathe hoping that you will address the question of why the DOJ has so far not charged anyone with insurrection.
I lie. I am not holding my breathe. I'm not that stupid.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 27, 2021 22:24:36 GMT -8
Ryan, help me out here. The "Riot or insurrection" thread did not discuss, unless I've forgotten how to read, the information contained in the Reuters item discussed in this thread. I would like to know what your reaction is to that information specifically. It's my understanding that you, and some others, consider the January 6th DC events to be an attempt to mount an insurrection by Trump and his supporters. As I've stated, my opinion is that the Jan. 6th was a riot. Totally unacceptable, but something less than an a serious attempt to overthrow the government. So, what was the nature of the Jan. 6 events? Riot or insurrection? (Keep in mind that whether those events were good or bad is Not in question.) I suggest that how those arrested in connection with those events are treated by the criminal justice system is at least one good way to arrive at an answer. If the DOJ were charging the defendants under 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection, your case would be strong. In fact, I would have to change my mind on the matter. However, at least to my knowledge, the DOJ (at least to this point) is NOT charging anyone involved under that law. Why not? You can call it an insurrection a million times if you wish, but the Biden DOJ seems to disagree with you. Let's see if the DOJ changes it's mind. Apparently, some of the perpetrators may yet merit the insurrection charge. What bothers me is that it is 100% obvious that the Democratic Party intends to claim that Trump, the GOP, and by extension those who voted for the previous POTUS are guilty of treason. Hell, they ran against Hoover for 20 years, charging him with creating the Depression. (He did not start it, but some of his decisions did not help matters.) Ryan, I hold my breathe hoping that you will address the question of why the DOJ has so far not charged anyone with insurrection. I lie. I am not holding my breathe. I'm not that stupid. AzWm Definitely was addressed, more than once, by me personally in that thread and others An insurrection is a violent uprising against a body of government or authority. That's the textbook definition of what took place January 6th. The insurrectionists were there to try and overturn or stop the certification of the election. Period. That's an insurrection, not a riot, to the letter. What you're trying to achieve here lacks some obvious foresight. Sedition, or insurrection, is ridiculously hard to prosecute and has been struck down repeatedly over time because the burden of proof is so high that it's not worth wasting a potential acquittal on. That does NOT mean, under any circumstances, that the act didn't take place. It did. We saw it. It happened. What you can prove legally and lawfully isn't the same thing as an act not occurring. It's very similar to the George Floyd murder, as premeditated acts are hard to prove in some instances. Prosecutors want to give themselves the best chance to secure a guilty verdict, that's all they care about. Regarding the former president, the narrow nature of the Treason Clause makes a treason case difficult to build. But we know, for certain, that there was a coordinated effort to overturn the election by members of the president's inner circle, with calls to Tommy Tubverille and Kevin McCarthy at a minimum and direct campaign fundraising to the event that took place. The Constitution only defines one crime in its entirety and it happens to be treason. It requires two witnesses and an example of "levying war against the United States." I think that definition was clearly met, but the standard is so obscenely high that it will never be invoked. www.csis.org/analysis/understanding-insurrection-and-sedition |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 28, 2021 9:43:38 GMT -8
Ryan, help me out here. The "Riot or insurrection" thread did not discuss, unless I've forgotten how to read, the information contained in the Reuters item discussed in this thread. I would like to know what your reaction is to that information specifically. It's my understanding that you, and some others, consider the January 6th DC events to be an attempt to mount an insurrection by Trump and his supporters. As I've stated, my opinion is that the Jan. 6th was a riot. Totally unacceptable, but something less than an a serious attempt to overthrow the government. So, what was the nature of the Jan. 6 events? Riot or insurrection? (Keep in mind that whether those events were good or bad is Not in question.) I suggest that how those arrested in connection with those events are treated by the criminal justice system is at least one good way to arrive at an answer. If the DOJ were charging the defendants under 18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection, your case would be strong. In fact, I would have to change my mind on the matter. However, at least to my knowledge, the DOJ (at least to this point) is NOT charging anyone involved under that law. Why not? You can call it an insurrection a million times if you wish, but the Biden DOJ seems to disagree with you. Let's see if the DOJ changes it's mind. Apparently, some of the perpetrators may yet merit the insurrection charge. What bothers me is that it is 100% obvious that the Democratic Party intends to claim that Trump, the GOP, and by extension those who voted for the previous POTUS are guilty of treason. Hell, they ran against Hoover for 20 years, charging him with creating the Depression. (He did not start it, but some of his decisions did not help matters.) Ryan, I hold my breathe hoping that you will address the question of why the DOJ has so far not charged anyone with insurrection. I lie. I am not holding my breathe. I'm not that stupid. AzWm Definitely was addressed, more than once, by me personally in that thread and others An insurrection is a violent uprising against a body of government or authority. That's the textbook definition of what took place January 6th. The insurrectionists were there to try and overturn or stop the certification of the election. Period. That's an insurrection, not a riot, to the letter. What you're trying to achieve here lacks some obvious foresight. Sedition, or insurrection, is ridiculously hard to prosecute and has been struck down repeatedly over time because the burden of proof is so high that it's not worth wasting a potential acquittal on. That does NOT mean, under any circumstances, that the act didn't take place. It did. We saw it. It happened. What you can prove legally and lawfully isn't the same thing as an act not occurring. It's very similar to the George Floyd murder, as premeditated acts are hard to prove in some instances. Prosecutors want to give themselves the best chance to secure a guilty verdict, that's all they care about. Regarding the former president, the narrow nature of the Treason Clause makes a treason case difficult to build. But we know, for certain, that there was a coordinated effort to overturn the election by members of the president's inner circle, with calls to Tommy Tubverille and Kevin McCarthy at a minimum and direct campaign fundraising to the event that took place. The Constitution only defines one crime in its entirety and it happens to be treason. It requires two witnesses and an example of "levying war against the United States." I think that definition was clearly met, but the standard is so obscenely high that it will never be invoked. www.csis.org/analysis/understanding-insurrection-and-seditionI consider your latest post to be an excellent response to my question. I thank you for it. Your position is, if I understand it correctly, that whether the DOJ charges the Jan. 6th perpetrators is irrelevant. What matters, you believe, is that YOU think it was an insurrection. And you have made a good case that the event was in fact an insurrection. Again, I appreciate your taking the time to explain your position in detail. However, if labeling Jan. 6th an insurrection is based on your opinion and not on whether the perpetrators are charged under the relevant law, what's the point of having a law making insurrection a crime in the first place? I understand that in some cases, cases which the public considers pretty close to open and shut, prosecutors choose, for whatever reason, not to bring the matter to trial. In this case, however, perhaps the DOJ should not back off. Here's why I say that. You have convinced me that the DOJ really should try at least some of the defendants using 18 U.S. Code § 2383. Since I consider the events of Jan. 6th to be a serious breach of the law as well as an affront to the concept of what the United States stands for, people who in some way planned this attack on the Capitol should be held accountable. Accountability should be of a legal nature, not merely statements of condemnation issued by private citizens. You say "I think that definition was clearly met, but the standard is so obscenely high that it will never be invoked." Perhaps it's just as well that the standard is high. Just how low do you want the standard to be? Personally, I do not want it so low that a party might conceivably be tempted to use a lower standard to prosecute its political opponents. Perhaps you think politicians you favor would never do that. On the other hand, I imagine that you think that Trump tried to use the government to do that very thing. I'm still asking why the Democrats are so afraid of Donald Trump's possible run in 2024. As I see it, Trump's candidacy in '24 would help the Dems immeasurably. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 28, 2021 9:52:06 GMT -8
Definitely was addressed, more than once, by me personally in that thread and others An insurrection is a violent uprising against a body of government or authority. That's the textbook definition of what took place January 6th. The insurrectionists were there to try and overturn or stop the certification of the election. Period. That's an insurrection, not a riot, to the letter. What you're trying to achieve here lacks some obvious foresight. Sedition, or insurrection, is ridiculously hard to prosecute and has been struck down repeatedly over time because the burden of proof is so high that it's not worth wasting a potential acquittal on. That does NOT mean, under any circumstances, that the act didn't take place. It did. We saw it. It happened. What you can prove legally and lawfully isn't the same thing as an act not occurring. It's very similar to the George Floyd murder, as premeditated acts are hard to prove in some instances. Prosecutors want to give themselves the best chance to secure a guilty verdict, that's all they care about. Regarding the former president, the narrow nature of the Treason Clause makes a treason case difficult to build. But we know, for certain, that there was a coordinated effort to overturn the election by members of the president's inner circle, with calls to Tommy Tubverille and Kevin McCarthy at a minimum and direct campaign fundraising to the event that took place. The Constitution only defines one crime in its entirety and it happens to be treason. It requires two witnesses and an example of "levying war against the United States." I think that definition was clearly met, but the standard is so obscenely high that it will never be invoked. www.csis.org/analysis/understanding-insurrection-and-seditionI consider your latest post to be an excellent response to my question. I thank you for it. Your position is, if I understand it correctly, that whether the DOJ charges the Jan. 6th perpetrators is irrelevant. What matters, you believe, is that YOU think it was an insurrection. And you have made a good case that the event was in fact an insurrection. Again, I appreciate your taking the time to explain your position in detail. However, if labeling Jan. 6th an insurrection is based on your opinion and not on whether the perpetrators are charged under the relevant law, what's the point of having a law making insurrection a crime in the first place? I understand that in some cases, cases which the public considers pretty close to open and shut, prosecutors choose, for whatever reason, not to bring the matter to trial. In this case, however, perhaps the DOJ should not back off. Here's why I say that. First, you say "I think that definition was clearly met, but the standard is so obscenely high that it will never be invoked." Perhaps it's just as well that the standard is high. Just how low do you want the standard to be? Personally, I do not want it so low that a party might conceivably be tempted to use a lower standard to prosecute its political opponents. Perhaps you think politicians you favor would never do that. On the other hand, I imagine that you think that Trump tried to use the government to do that very thing. In any case, you have convinced me that the DOJ really should try at least some of the defendants using 18 U.S. Code § 2383. Since I consider the events of Jan. 6th to be a serious breach of the law as well as an affront to the concept of what the United States stands for, people who in some way planned this attack on the Capitol should be held accountable. Accountability should be of a legal nature, not merely statements of condemnation issued by private citizens. I'm still asking why the Democrats are so afraid of Donald Trump's possible run in 2024. As I see it, Trump's candidacy in '24 would help the Dems immeasurably. AzWm My opinion is irrelevant. The dictionary definition and legal definition are clear, however. That's nowhere near the same as a prosecutorial standard, however. Proving a seditious conspiracy is difficult. The FBI's lack of transparency is pretty laughable. I don't know on what planet you think Trump running is good for the Democrats...He would easily win the GOP nomination. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 28, 2021 10:01:26 GMT -8
Ryan, I say that for pretty good reasons. Yes, there are still many people who would vote for Trump. But there are many in the GOP who correctly see The Donald as damaged goods. It's not at all certain that he would get the GOP nomination. In any case there would be a bloodbath in the GOP.
If Trump were to gain the nomination, millions of Republicans would choose to vote for someone else, or not vote at all for POTUS. And independents would be lost.
If Trump failed to win the GOP nomination he might (though this is not certain) run third party. The Dems would win in a walk in that case.
Why do YOU think the Dems fear Trump?
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 28, 2021 10:24:56 GMT -8
Ryan, I say that for pretty good reasons. Yes, there are still many people who would vote for Trump. But there are many in the GOP who correctly see The Donald as damaged goods. It's not at all certain that he would get the GOP nomination. In any case there would be a bloodbath in the GOP. If Trump were to gain the nomination, millions of Republicans would choose to vote for someone else, or not vote at all for POTUS. And independents would be lost. If Trump failed to win the GOP nomination he might (though this is not certain) run third party. The Dems would win in a walk in that case. Why do YOU think the Dems fear Trump? AzWm I don't know where you are seeing this. There is VERY little pushback on the Republican level within their own party and if the Democrats don't produce a candidate worth a dime, he could easily win again. Disastrous. He can't be allowed to run again after what transpired. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 28, 2021 10:38:57 GMT -8
Ryan, I say that for pretty good reasons. Yes, there are still many people who would vote for Trump. But there are many in the GOP who correctly see The Donald as damaged goods. It's not at all certain that he would get the GOP nomination. In any case there would be a bloodbath in the GOP. If Trump were to gain the nomination, millions of Republicans would choose to vote for someone else, or not vote at all for POTUS. And independents would be lost. If Trump failed to win the GOP nomination he might (though this is not certain) run third party. The Dems would win in a walk in that case. Why do YOU think the Dems fear Trump? AzWm I don't know where you are seeing this. There is VERY little pushback on the Republican level within their own party and if the Democrats don't produce a candidate worth a dime, he could easily win again. Disastrous. He can't be allowed to run again after what transpired. It's a long way to 2024, but my guess is that Trump's stock will fall. In any case, if the Dems can't pick someone better than our current POTUS and his Veep, they deserve to lose. I agree with you on one point especially; I do not want to see another Trump administration. AzWm |
|
|
|
Post by sdsuball on Aug 28, 2021 20:41:12 GMT -8
Ryan, I say that for pretty good reasons. Yes, there are still many people who would vote for Trump. But there are many in the GOP who correctly see The Donald as damaged goods. It's not at all certain that he would get the GOP nomination. In any case there would be a bloodbath in the GOP. If Trump were to gain the nomination, millions of Republicans would choose to vote for someone else, or not vote at all for POTUS. And independents would be lost. If Trump failed to win the GOP nomination he might (though this is not certain) run third party. The Dems would win in a walk in that case. Why do YOU think the Dems fear Trump? AzWm I don't know where you are seeing this. There is VERY little pushback on the Republican level within their own party and if the Democrats don't produce a candidate worth a dime, he could easily win again. Disastrous. He can't be allowed to run again after what transpired. There was a lot of Voter pushback from Republican voters and Independent voters - projects such as the Lincoln Project, for example. There is very little Republican Party pushback to Donald Trump - the party leadership mostly embraces him, and those that don't are attacked (see Liz Cheney). Thus, it is very easy to see a scenario where he wins the nomination but loses the general election. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 30, 2021 10:54:35 GMT -8
I repeat; the 2024 election is a long way off. If I had to bet, I'd put money on Trump losing whether he was the GOP candidate or running as an independent.
What America needs is a party that stands for individual rights and sensible national policy. That latter would include a strong effort to fight against the constant increase in the power of the federal government.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 30, 2021 10:59:33 GMT -8
Ryan, I say that for pretty good reasons. Yes, there are still many people who would vote for Trump. But there are many in the GOP who correctly see The Donald as damaged goods. It's not at all certain that he would get the GOP nomination. In any case there would be a bloodbath in the GOP. If Trump were to gain the nomination, millions of Republicans would choose to vote for someone else, or not vote at all for POTUS. And independents would be lost. If Trump failed to win the GOP nomination he might (though this is not certain) run third party. The Dems would win in a walk in that case. Why do YOU think the Dems fear Trump? AzWm Because he's an incredibly powerful and divisive figure that has fooled a large chunk of people into thinking an election was stolen from him, while the Democrats can't put a viable candidate out if they were paid to do so. Both parties obviously want control and high-ranking GOP'ers with party influence are still very, very attached to Trump. And the massive unknown here (to get this back on topic) is how deep the involvement goes within the party on what happened on January 6th. The campaign helped financed the Stop the Steal event. Kevin McCarthy and Jim Jordan had conversations with Trump on January 6th. The Capitol tours from Lauren Boebert? The phone logs? The meetings with Brooks, Tuberville and others? |
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 30, 2021 14:21:42 GMT -8
I don't know where you are seeing this. There is VERY little pushback on the Republican level within their own party and if the Democrats don't produce a candidate worth a dime, he could easily win again. Disastrous. He can't be allowed to run again after what transpired. It's a long way to 2024, but my guess is that Trump's stock will fall. In any case, if the Dems can't pick someone better than our current POTUS and his Veep, they deserve to lose. I agree with you on one point especially; I do not want to see another Trump administration. AzWm Would love to get thoughts on this. |
|
|
|
Post by azson on Aug 30, 2021 14:29:52 GMT -8
It's a long way to 2024, but my guess is that Trump's stock will fall. In any case, if the Dems can't pick someone better than our current POTUS and his Veep, they deserve to lose. I agree with you on one point especially; I do not want to see another Trump administration. AzWm Would love to get thoughts on this.  |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Aug 30, 2021 14:59:13 GMT -8
I would feel better about the chances of the House committee producing valid conclusions that would generally be accepted by the public if Pelosi had rounded up five GOP members to fill out the five slots that she so generously gave the opposition party. Again I ask, were two of the most anti-Trump Republicans the ONLY ones she could convince to serve? Seems to me that her policy is a bit like the prosecution choosing the jurors. And only jurors whom the prosecution felt sure would vote to convict.
And again I add that I am sure there is a lot of bad stuff that can legitimately be charged to DJT. But even the most heinous of defendants are allowed to have a defense attorney. If Trump is so obviously guilty, no matter how biased the Republican members on the committee might be, they could not hid the truth.
Those who disagree with me may not realize that 7 Dems and 2 openly anti-Trump Republicans will look a bit suspicious to a whole lot of Americans. It will not look quite fair. It's those, the millions of Trump supporters, that we should want to convince.
Remember, even the leading Nazis were represented by defense attorneys in Nuremberg. Of course, I tend to forget that some anti-Trumpers apparently consider Donald Trump to be much, much worse than Adolf Hitler.
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecryan on Aug 30, 2021 16:12:34 GMT -8
I would feel better about the chances of the House committee producing valid conclusions that would generally be accepted by the public if Pelosi had rounded up five GOP members to fill out the five slots that she so generously gave the opposition party. Again I ask, were two of the most anti-Trump Republicans the ONLY ones she could convince to serve? Seems to me that her policy is a bit like the prosecution choosing the jurors. And only jurors whom the prosecution felt sure would vote to convict. And again I add that I am sure there is a lot of bad stuff that can legitimately be charged to DJT. But even the most heinous of defendants are allowed to have a defense attorney. If Trump is so obviously guilty, no matter how biased the Republican members on the committee might be, they could not hid the truth. Those who disagree with me may not realize that 7 Dems and 2 openly anti-Trump Republicans will look a bit suspicious to a whole lot of Americans. It will not look quite fair. It's those, the millions of Trump supporters, that we should want to convince. Remember, even the leading Nazis were represented by defense attorneys in Nuremberg. Of course, I tend to forget that some anti-Trumpers apparently consider Donald Trump to be much, much worse than Adolf Hitler. AzWm Here we go again with the hysterical comparisons to unrelated situations. This isn't Nuremberg. It's not even a trial. It's a commission. A bipartisan commission, of which you'd be remiss to forget that an attempt to construct one outside of Congress was tanked by the Republicans in the Senate. There is no need for sensationalism here.. The GOP had a perfectly valid chance to be represented - They REFUSED after their nominees (Jordan and Banks) were refused, for perfectly valid reasons. Kevin McCarthy chose to pull *all* of his picks. Why, is what you should be asking. But why are you ignoring things we already know trying to paint Democrats in a bad light? I could post weeks of content here vilifying Republicans with actual quoted statements and actions taken. Is that the path you really want? And secondly, HELL no. Emphatically. The majority of Trump supporters who believe the election was stolen aren't going to change their minds over a commission. They are dug in, their actions prove that. I can post dozens of confirmations of that. I don't think you are being genuine here in the slightest. It's a disservice to civil discourse and to open conversation. We don't need to convince anyone that the election wasn't *stolen*....at all. Question: Should Banks and Jordan be allowed to serve on the committee? Question: Do you believe that Kevin McCarthy acted in good faith in the nomination process? Question: With the lack of cooperation from McCarthy on January 6th (We know that he talked to the president at least twice), why is he allowed to grandstand here? Question: Why are you attempting to blame Pelosi for the entirety of this process when it's clear who is ultimately responsible? Why? |
|
