Senator Murkowski threatens to quit GOP giving the Democrats a clear Senate majority unless Trump...

Proofs (extensions of foundational axioms) are not used in alcohol. You are speaking about a word used that refers to a measure of the strength of alcohol.

 

One guy with 5-6 zip ties is not a "coup" under any rational use of the English language. It's every bit as insane as if people tried to label "Code Pink" as "insurrectionists" for "interfering with the work of Congress":



I don't remember that being a common refrain at the time.

 

What nonsense! Read the post I'm responding to.

"Interfering"???? They weren't "interfering". They were demanding that the result of the elections be overturned and Trump be designated the winner.

You are actually comparing a President inciting a mob of hundreds of people to violently take over Congress so as to overturn the result of a democratically held election, to somebody heckling?

 

Hard to believe isn't it?

Yet, these are the same people who are Attempting (in an Epically FAILED "Talking point") to "Equate" the Storming of the U.S. Capitol with unrelated events that took place last summer.

The Constant, Repetitive Stream (from Trump's "defenders") of Egregiously Misguided "Whataboutism" has long since jumped the shark beyond comical.

Once again, just imagine this:

Someone actually trying to equate a picture of a Single Woman in a Hearing Room, to a Deadly Violent Mob Attacking and Occupying the Capitol?

Clearly, the 2 incidents aren't even on the Same Planet.

The Storming of the U.S. Capitol is (Exponentially) WORSE (by a factor of a Trillion).

BUT, some people actually exist that would try to "equate" the two?

The only explanation that I can see is the phenomenon of:
Trump-Inspired Disengagement From Reality.

Anyway, back on-topic, to Murkowski.

Hopefully, we can count on her as a YES vote at the Impeachment Trial.

 

This whole thing strikes me as a symbolic gesture. A coup is practical. If I went to the White House today and tried to occupy it, you couldn't describe my act as a failed coup. A violent message, yes, but still just a message. Even if I brought a few thousand people. Even if I wanted to kill members of the government. That's assassination, not a coup.

For example, Hitler staged a coup. He had a high ranking famous general to help win over the military. He had the police chief at gunpoint. He had his thugs not haphazardly occupying a building that is only symbolic, but deployed at various specific locations to block authorities from assisting their kidnapped government. That's what it looks like, and it should be easy to determine if Trump attempted anything like it in conjunction with this riot.

 

Racist dog whistle rhetoric is protected free speech. Pelosi is attempting to undermine the Constitution by using the law against it. We don't need the first amendment to protect speech like, "I love you"; it is cases like this in which the Constitution is in peril.

 

Yes, impeached or not, if he's alive, he will be rallying in 2024. If not impeached, he will be campaigning for himself. If impeached, I agree, whoever he picks.

 

The violent take-over may have occurred later, but my recollection is that the General was a WW I hero, General Hindenburg, who was head of the German Conservative Party and President of the Weimar Republic. A Conservative member of the Government (and Party) convinced Hindenburg to form a coalition with the Nazis (Weimar had a parliamentary system). The Conservatives and the Nazis then had a majority vote, which was used to make Hitler Chancellor of Germany (similar to the Prime Minister), with the Nazis the larger party of the coalition. When the Reichstag fire occurred, Hitler used it as the excuse to go to the Reichstag (the equivalent of a House of Commons or our Congress) and ask them for the "emergency powers." They voted to give them to him and he never relinquished them. He came to power legally, he maintained it illegally. As for Trump, McConnell's statement today about Trump provoking the attack on the Capitol is significant. I think we're at the beginning of the investigation, and it will be eventually revealed that it was an attempted coup, with "others" (as McConnell noted) involved with the provocation of the rally attendees to storm the Capitol.

And, yes, if you went to storm the White House with a few thousand people, it would be considered a coup attempt and there would probably be even more violence than at the Capitol last week. Seems to me as if you are trying to argue that unsuccessful coups are only "violent messages." Where is that used in law?

 

Oh brother.

 

You voted in the Dem primaries??? Wow.

 

No, racists are in peril when in power, as they should be.

 

Yeah, just make sure you don't shatter the 1st while you're at it.

 

There has to be an attempt to take control of the GOVERNMENT, not a BUILDING, to be considered a coup. And I was talking about Hitlers first coup, which failed.

 

The 1st Amendment is not in peril.

In the colloquial sense, "free speech" must be weighed against the results of the spread of disinformation. What we have before us isn't a simple matter of a drug lord ordering a hit. It's a complex web of money, politics and psychology.

We do need to have this discussion, but the decisions regarding free speech have been made by private companies. So far, the government needn't involve itself.

 

No that is totally against what the founders, and dozens of SCOTUS judges, intended. Speech is not to be weighed for disinformation.

 

My guess is that he thinks evidence would suffice.

 

Ah...the Munich one...called the Beer Hall Putsch, no? Despite the drinking habits of some of our elected Congressional members, I don't think the U.S. Capitol compares to a Beer Hall. Yes...the Capitol is considered the seat of the federal government.

 

What I meant by "colloquial" was in the informal sense. The government needn't involve itself, as I stated.

I'm talking about society as a whole. A serious discussion on the effects of disinformation must be had.

 

He's not asking for evidence. He is asking for proof.

Evidence for the Christian God exists all over the place. The Holy Bible is one such evidence. Life itself is another such evidence. The extreme "fine tuning" of the universe (and all within it, including the extreme intricacy of the "circle of life") is another such evidence.

However, since it is not evidence that he is actually looking for, since he is already a devout member of the Church of No God, he will continue to conflate 'evidence' with 'proof' and continue telling me that I have no "evidence" (meaning proof) for God's existence, of which I have already openly said that proving God's existence is not possible and that I believe in it purely on a faith basis.

The difference between him and I is that I am not a fundamentalist believer in my faith. He, however, IS a fundamentalist believer in his faith. He attempts to prove his faith, while I don't.

 

I guess it depends on how you define god. For me god is what you would call mother nature or the laws of physics. Nobody needs evidence or proof that it exists. The bible is a fine document written in the second and third centuries with moral lessons. It is advice, not evidence of anything. Accept that the existence of god as you define god is a matter of faith, not a matter of nature.

 

If the silencing is occurring as a result of a violation of the law, such as collusion in a monopolistic fashion, then the government should get involved.

 

Anti-trust law has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

 

What is speech? Only the government can affect it?

Democracy is supposed to reflect the will of the people, not whoever is most proficient with a tool that someone has a monopoly on.

 

The President didn't "incite" anyone to do anything but "cheer". And the crowd of protesters on January 6 just wanted to heckle Congress too. The DOJ already admitted the claims about "capture / kill" were liberal embellishments.

 

The mob participants who were arrest said they were following Trump’s direction. They even expected pardons from Trump. The mob admits they were incited to takeover the capital. That’s their defense. Sounds like pretty good evidence at the impeachment trials.