billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,448
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 9, 2022 15:51:48 GMT -5
From your link: In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be most unwise. I present the election and inauguration of President Biden as exhibit A. i present the continued coup attempt as exhibit B. and i will paraphrase Popper to support my position that we should do something about it: In this formulation, I believe that we should sometimes suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; when rational counter-arguments fail. i think this is 100% consistent with Popper, bills. not only consistent, but necessary. these people will no more listen to reason than a rabid dog, imo. but they WILL listen to justice, the law, etc. they have no choice, ultimately. I am glad that you acknowledged "ultimately". Historically that is too frequently where this path does lead.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,051
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 9, 2022 15:56:56 GMT -5
A brother priest of mine has been lost to the dark side. Part of our training in college is philosophy (needed at least a minor in it) and that included some logic courses and basic critical thinking. Can't reason with him no, takes in everything from Fox News without applying any of his philosophical training. I'm so frustrated with him. I think in general he has been a good priest (although, I am in the parishes he was previously was at and see he wasn't doing some basic pastoral work: visiting the sick, nursing homes, being available in crisis situations) but he has now let his political views cloud his ministry. Have found many parishioners left (and now coming back) because he always was taking a black and white view on all issues. No nuance. This, I think, is a microcosm of what we are experiencing as a society. Which brings me back again to what has become a huge problem in our country: The combining of religion with partisan politics. I don't know how big of a problem it was prior to 1980, but I think it really began in earnest with Ronald Reagan embracing The Moral Majority and ushering them into the mainstream. The big problem, of course, was that for the most part they were neither moral nor a majority, and were trying to serve two masters. Combining religion and politics corrupts them both. Every step religion takes toward political power takes them away from both God and the Constitution. I have said it before, but I would bet any amount of money that a lot of these "Christians" are going to be very surprised when the words, "I never knew ye" figure prominently in their future. it was NOT a big problem, because it was considered taboo, for a variety of reasons.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,051
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 9, 2022 15:57:54 GMT -5
i present the continued coup attempt as exhibit B. and i will paraphrase Popper to support my position that we should do something about it: In this formulation, I believe that we should sometimes suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; when rational counter-arguments fail. i think this is 100% consistent with Popper, bills. not only consistent, but necessary. these people will no more listen to reason than a rabid dog, imo. but they WILL listen to justice, the law, etc. they have no choice, ultimately. I am glad that you acknowledged "ultimately". Historically that is too frequently where this path does lead. and i am glad that you recognize the exceptions that Popper is carving out. in the case of the last great horror, the path led to Nuremberg. would you have rather given the Nazi's a hug and a lecture? edit: for those of you that think i am comparing Trump's cronies to Nazi's, i am NOT. i am testing the limits of bills "tolerance". it is called Reducio ad Absurdum argumentative, and it is logically valid.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,448
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 9, 2022 16:11:45 GMT -5
I am glad that you acknowledged "ultimately". Historically that is too frequently where this path does lead. of course. just action will always meet with my approval. does it meet with yours? of course and just action is what I have been proposing here. But it doesn't seem to be meeting with your approval. Why is that?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,448
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 9, 2022 16:17:39 GMT -5
I am glad that you acknowledged "ultimately". Historically that is too frequently where this path does lead. and i am glad that you recognize the exceptions that Popper is carving out. in the case of the last great horror, the path led to Nuremberg. would you have rather given the Nazi's a hug and a lecture? edit: for those of you that think i am comparing Trump's cronies to Nazi's, i am NOT. i am testing the limits of bills "tolerance". it is called Reducio ad Absurdum argumentative, and it is logically valid. My mind went to The Killing Fields of Cambodia.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,051
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 9, 2022 16:28:11 GMT -5
and i am glad that you recognize the exceptions that Popper is carving out. in the case of the last great horror, the path led to Nuremberg. would you have rather given the Nazi's a hug and a lecture? edit: for those of you that think i am comparing Trump's cronies to Nazi's, i am NOT. i am testing the limits of bills "tolerance". it is called Reducio ad Absurdum argumentative, and it is logically valid. My mind went to The Killing Fields of Cambodia. thanks for sharing. i wasn't asking you about Cambodia. i was asking you about Nuremburg. do you think that was just action, or would you have preferred something more like the Truth and Reconciliation commission in South Africa, or that the J6 conspirators just WALK?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,051
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 9, 2022 16:42:31 GMT -5
of course. just action will always meet with my approval. does it meet with yours? of course and just action is what I have been proposing here. But it doesn't seem to be meeting with your approval. Why is that? probably not understanding you. that is normally what it is. but that remains to be seen. i have suggested several different versions of "just action". what is yours?
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,448
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 9, 2022 16:44:38 GMT -5
My mind went to The Killing Fields of Cambodia. thanks for sharing. i wasn't asking you about Cambodia. i was asking you about Nuremburg. do you think that was just action, or would you have preferred something more like the Truth and Reconciliation commission in South Africa, or that the J6 conspirators just WALK? She suggested in an approving manner that state legislatures might pass resolutions withdrawing certification of election results and forward them to Congress. And that Congress might act on them. Let that sink in for a second. She suggested in an approving manner that state legislatures might pass resolutions withdrawing certification of election results and forward them to Congress. And that Congress might act on them. And you are talking Nuremberg War Trials. I think you are doing a great job of making my case that we should not over-react.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,051
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 9, 2022 16:52:03 GMT -5
no, bills. i am asking you a philosophical question about crime and punishment.
you seem to think that tolerating these assholes is how we should deal with it. that we should just all sit down and kumbaya it into the past. and that is fine.
my question is this:
were the Nuremburg Trials justified?
to be clear, i am not suggesting we do something similar for ANYONE in the US. i am just trying to determine where you draw the line. or even IF you do it. it is truly not clear to me. you SAY you want justice, but afforded the opportunity to express the measure of it, you have thusfar declined.
i understand that you have conflated the two points, but they are separate.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,448
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 9, 2022 16:54:28 GMT -5
of course and just action is what I have been proposing here. But it doesn't seem to be meeting with your approval. Why is that? probably not understanding you. that is normally what it is. but that remains to be seen. i have suggested several different versions of "just action". what is yours? In the case of Bobb, whenever she opens her mouth what she says should be met with counter-arguments.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,051
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 9, 2022 16:55:46 GMT -5
probably not understanding you. that is normally what it is. but that remains to be seen. i have suggested several different versions of "just action". what is yours? In the case of Bobb, whenever she opens her mouth what she says should be met with counter-arguments. i wasn't asking about Bobb. sorry about the confusion. edit: to get back to the core of it, Popper is talking about the "existential case", where exercise of a principle threatens the existence of the principle. i am not sure how Bobb fits into that. she probably doesn't. so as far as i am concerned, she is not part of this exchange. again, sorry for the confusion.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,448
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 9, 2022 16:58:11 GMT -5
no, bills. i am asking you a philosophical question about crime and punishment. you seem to think that tolerating these assholes is how we should deal with it. that we should just all sit down and kumbaya it into the past. and that is fine. my question is this: k were the Nuremburg Trials justified? to be clear, i am not suggesting we do something similar for ANYONE in the US. i am just trying to determine where you draw the line. or even IF you do it. it is truly not clear to me. you SAY you want justice, but afforded the opportunity to express the measure of it, you have thusfar declined. i understand that you have conflated the two points, but they are separate. The Nuremberg Trials were justified.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,448
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 9, 2022 17:00:37 GMT -5
In the case of Bobb, whenever she opens her mouth what she says should be met with counter-arguments. i wasn't asking about Bobb. sorry about the confusion. edit: to get back to the core of it, Popper is talking about the "existential case", where exercise of a principle threatens the existence of the principle. i am not sure how Bobb fits into that. she probably doesn't. so as far as i am concerned, she is not part of this exchange. again, sorry for the confusion. There is no "just action" independent of specifics.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,051
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 9, 2022 17:02:07 GMT -5
no, bills. i am asking you a philosophical question about crime and punishment. you seem to think that tolerating these assholes is how we should deal with it. that we should just all sit down and kumbaya it into the past. and that is fine. my question is this: k were the Nuremburg Trials justified? to be clear, i am not suggesting we do something similar for ANYONE in the US. i am just trying to determine where you draw the line. or even IF you do it. it is truly not clear to me. you SAY you want justice, but afforded the opportunity to express the measure of it, you have thusfar declined. i understand that you have conflated the two points, but they are separate. The Nuremberg Trials were justified. ok. good. i just went over this entire exchange and i am not sure how Bobb got folded into it. i was talking more GENERALLY about the conspiracy to overturn the election. i don't know how she figures in, if at all. time will tell. first of all, would you call it (J6) a coup? i was calling it a SOFT COUP until i learned of the connection between the WH and the Proud Boys, which was significant, imo.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,051
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 9, 2022 17:02:43 GMT -5
i wasn't asking about Bobb. sorry about the confusion. edit: to get back to the core of it, Popper is talking about the "existential case", where exercise of a principle threatens the existence of the principle. i am not sure how Bobb fits into that. she probably doesn't. so as far as i am concerned, she is not part of this exchange. again, sorry for the confusion. There is no "just action" independent of specifics. right. the specifics didn't have to do with Bobb, nor was i suggesting Nuremberg for her. i also SPECIFICALLY said that i was not comparing J6'ers to Nazi's in post #32. i am merely trying to see what side of the Popper Fence you fall on.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,137
|
Post by tallguy on Jul 9, 2022 17:07:09 GMT -5
thanks for sharing. i wasn't asking you about Cambodia. i was asking you about Nuremburg. do you think that was just action, or would you have preferred something more like the Truth and Reconciliation commission in South Africa, or that the J6 conspirators just WALK? She suggested in an approving manner that state legislatures might pass resolutions withdrawing certification of election results and forward them to Congress. And that Congress might act on them. Let that sink in for a second. She suggested in an approving manner that state legislatures might pass resolutions withdrawing certification of election results and forward them to Congress. And that Congress might act on them. And you are talking Nuremberg War Trials. I think you are doing a great job of making my case that we should not over-react. No, he clearly stated it was a reductio ad absurdum argument. I would suggest, however, that it is not entirely inappropriate. The International Military Tribunal focused on the plotting and waging of war against other nations. Is the plotting and waging of an attempted violent coup by a former leader against one's own nation that much less of a crime, really? Only in that it failed. You can argue all you want about whether it ever had a real chance of success, but the attempt itself is worthy of execution as both punishment and deterrent.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,051
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 9, 2022 17:09:52 GMT -5
She suggested in an approving manner that state legislatures might pass resolutions withdrawing certification of election results and forward them to Congress. And that Congress might act on them. Let that sink in for a second. She suggested in an approving manner that state legislatures might pass resolutions withdrawing certification of election results and forward them to Congress. And that Congress might act on them. And you are talking Nuremberg War Trials. I think you are doing a great job of making my case that we should not over-react. No, he clearly stated it was a reductio ad absurdum argument. I would suggest, however, that it is not entirely inappropriate. The International Military Tribunal focused on the plotting and waging of war against other nations. Is the plotting and waging of an attempted violent coup by a former leader against one's own nation that much less of a crime, really? Only in that it failed. You can argue all you want about whether it ever had a real chance of success, but the attempt itself is worthy of execution as both punishment and deterrent. i am kinda getting tired of making intellectual arguments on this board. for some reason, they are always treated literally. i could blame myself, i guess. i shouldn't be so curious.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,448
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 9, 2022 17:13:48 GMT -5
The Nuremberg Trials were justified. ok. good. i just went over this entire exchange and i am not sure how Bobb got folded into it. i was talking more GENERALLY about the conspiracy to overturn the election. i don't know how she figures in, if at all. time will tell. first of all, would you call it (J6) a coup? i was calling it a SOFT COUP until i learned of the connection between the WH and the Proud Boys, which was significant, imo. The term coup d'état comes from French and literally means “stroke of state.” The attack on the Capitol was not such. Therefore I am still at a point where I call [Januay 6th] an insurrection. I am open to changing that if a tight connection to Trump is made. I do call some of the actions of Trump and other agents of the state a coup attempt.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,448
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 9, 2022 17:17:04 GMT -5
She suggested in an approving manner that state legislatures might pass resolutions withdrawing certification of election results and forward them to Congress. And that Congress might act on them. Let that sink in for a second. She suggested in an approving manner that state legislatures might pass resolutions withdrawing certification of election results and forward them to Congress. And that Congress might act on them. And you are talking Nuremberg War Trials. I think you are doing a great job of making my case that we should not over-react. No, he clearly stated it was a reductio ad absurdum argument. I would suggest, however, that it is not entirely inappropriate. The International Military Tribunal focused on the plotting and waging of war against other nations. Is the plotting and waging of an attempted violent coup by a former leader against one's own nation that much less of a crime, really? Only in that it failed. You can argue all you want about whether it ever had a real chance of success, but the attempt itself is worthy of execution as both punishment and deterrent. He is using my posts concerning her to make some great point. Oh well.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,051
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 9, 2022 17:19:54 GMT -5
ok. good. i just went over this entire exchange and i am not sure how Bobb got folded into it. i was talking more GENERALLY about the conspiracy to overturn the election. i don't know how she figures in, if at all. time will tell. first of all, would you call it (J6) a coup? i was calling it a SOFT COUP until i learned of the connection between the WH and the Proud Boys, which was significant, imo. The term coup d'état comes from French and literally means “stroke of state.” The attack on the Capitol was not such. Therefore I am still at a point where I call [Januay 6th] an insurrection. I am open to changing that if a tight connection to Trump is made. I do call some of the actions of Trump and other agents of the state a coup attempt. stroke of state is meaningless to me. what coup means in practice is illegally attempting to take control of the helm of government. there are two forms: soft and hard. here is how SOFT is defined. agree or disagree?: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_coupif you continue disagreeing with me about the fact that this was an attempted illegal takeover, then we will never agree on punishment, because from where you are resting, there was no crime. at least none that demands the kind of punishment that a coup does. i have one further thing to say after this, if you maintain your position.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,051
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 9, 2022 17:24:57 GMT -5
No, he clearly stated it was a reductio ad absurdum argument. I would suggest, however, that it is not entirely inappropriate. The International Military Tribunal focused on the plotting and waging of war against other nations. Is the plotting and waging of an attempted violent coup by a former leader against one's own nation that much less of a crime, really? Only in that it failed. You can argue all you want about whether it ever had a real chance of success, but the attempt itself is worthy of execution as both punishment and deterrent. He is using my posts concerning her to make some great point. Oh well. i have always found the grand principles more interesting than gossip. would you prefer that i don't comment at all on your threads? it would be no loss given your belittlement here (in bold).
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,448
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 9, 2022 17:33:59 GMT -5
The term coup d'état comes from French and literally means “stroke of state.” The attack on the Capitol was not such. Therefore I am still at a point where I call [Januay 6th] an insurrection. I am open to changing that if a tight connection to Trump is made. I do call some of the actions of Trump and other agents of the state a coup attempt. stroke of state is meaningless to me. what coup means in practice is illegally attempting to take control of the helm of government. there are two forms: soft and hard. here is how SOFT is defined. agree or disagree?: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_coupif you continue disagreeing with me about the fact that this was an attempted illegal takeover, then we will never agree on punishment, because from where you are resting, there was no crime. at least none that demands the kind of punishment that a coup does. i have one further thing to say after this, if you maintain your position. Please read my post and note the two bolded parts. The insurrectionists of January 6th were armed and violent so I don't see it fitting the definition in the link. And with due respect to Professor Sharp, I don't think the term he coined is a good descriptor.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,448
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 9, 2022 17:39:42 GMT -5
He is using my posts concerning her to make some great point. Oh well. i have always found the grand principles more interesting than gossip. would you prefer that i don't comment at all on your threads? it would be no loss given your belittlement here (in bold). Damn, I almost used the words "grand principle" instead of "great point" but didn't think there was a significant difference. Sorry to give offense. This isn't my thread.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,051
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 9, 2022 17:44:29 GMT -5
stroke of state is meaningless to me. what coup means in practice is illegally attempting to take control of the helm of government. there are two forms: soft and hard. here is how SOFT is defined. agree or disagree?: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_coupif you continue disagreeing with me about the fact that this was an attempted illegal takeover, then we will never agree on punishment, because from where you are resting, there was no crime. at least none that demands the kind of punishment that a coup does. i have one further thing to say after this, if you maintain your position. Please read my post and note the two bolded parts. The insurrectionists of January 6th were armed and violent so I don't see it fitting the definition in the link. And with due respect to Professor Sharp, I don't think the term he coined is a good descriptor. i don't know who professor Sharp is, and i don't understand his definition. i have read about coups for hours and hours over the last three months, and i understand what the term means. i believe what happened on J6 meets the definition, based on that study. you don't. fine: you don't think that what was done was an attempt to illegally overthrow our government. so yeah, i can see why you think that "making reasonable logical arguments" is the way out of it. one final note: i think the J6 insurrectionists, and no small portion of Trump voters see this as something akin to a holy war. they are not going to listen to reason. so liberals can either step up and defend their values and institutions, or those institutions and values will perish. it is really that simple. good day. and good luck. i hope you don't need it.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,051
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 9, 2022 17:47:32 GMT -5
i have always found the grand principles more interesting than gossip. would you prefer that i don't comment at all on your threads? it would be no loss given your belittlement here (in bold). Damn, I almost used the words "grand principle" instead of "great point" but didn't think there was a significant difference. Sorry to give offense. This isn't my thread. oh. i thought it was based on what you said earlier. as to the offense, i think we both come off as snarky once in a while. it is just how we post. and i should know better with you than to get offended. you mean well. i know that.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,448
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 9, 2022 17:53:43 GMT -5
Please read my post and note the two bolded parts. The insurrectionists of January 6th were armed and violent so I don't see it fitting the definition in the link. And with due respect to Professor Sharp, I don't think the term he coined is a good descriptor. i don't know who professor Sharp is, and i don't understand his definition. i have read about coups for hours and hours over the last three months, and i understand what the term means. i believe what happened on J6 meets the definition, based on that study. you don't. fine: you don't think that what was done was an attempt to illegally overthrow our government. so yeah, i can see why you think that hugs and talking are the way out of it. one final note: i think the J6 insurrectionists, and no small portion of Trump voters see this as something akin to a holy war. they are not going to listen to reason. so liberals can either step up and defend their values and institutions, or those institutions will disappear. it is really that simple. good day. and good luck. i hope you don't need it. wow
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,051
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 9, 2022 18:01:01 GMT -5
i don't know who professor Sharp is, and i don't understand his definition. i have read about coups for hours and hours over the last three months, and i understand what the term means. i believe what happened on J6 meets the definition, based on that study. you don't. fine: you don't think that what was done was an attempt to illegally overthrow our government. so yeah, i can see why you think that hugs and talking are the way out of it. one final note: i think the J6 insurrectionists, and no small portion of Trump voters see this as something akin to a holy war. they are not going to listen to reason. so liberals can either step up and defend their values and institutions, or those institutions will disappear. it is really that simple. good day. and good luck. i hope you don't need it. wow i was ending the discussion NICELY by using YOUR TERM. sugar often serves better than vinegar. but to be clear, i was talking about people swept up in the march, not those engaged in a seditious conspiracy, bills. the rest of what i said in that paragraph applies equally to the insurrectionists, the alt-right, the Three Percenters, The Oath Keepers, Proud Boys, Texas Freedom Force, members of Trump's inner circle that persisted in this ruse LONG after it was clear that they had crossed the line, etc. there are varying degrees of guilt here, imo. and so far, the courts have backed me up on that. and i am STILL counting on the judicial system to sort this all out. less confident than i was a month ago, but still reasonably sure it will.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,448
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 9, 2022 18:30:10 GMT -5
... I call [Januay 6th] an insurrection. ... I do call some of the actions of Trump and other agents of the state a coup attempt. ... you don't think that what was done was an attempt to illegally overthrow our government. ... I was rereading this thread and wanted to add something I realize I didn't specifically state in that first quote. I do consider insurrection and a coup (attempted) illegal acts to overthrow our government.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,051
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Jul 9, 2022 18:51:05 GMT -5
... I call [Januay 6th] an insurrection. ... I do call some of the actions of Trump and other agents of the state a coup attempt. ... you don't think that what was done was an attempt to illegally overthrow our government. ... I was rereading this thread and wanted to add something I realize I didn't specifically state in that first quote. I do consider insurrection and a coup (attempted) illegal acts to overthrow our government. ok, my definition of coup includes this: an insurrection designed to illegally overthrow the government.maybe we CAN continue this discussion. ok, what do you think is the appropriate punishment for such an action? NOTE: i have been quite clear that i think that people who were merely swept up in the fever of the event don't deserve a serious punishment. especially if they recognize the significance of what they did, and seem remorseful.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,448
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jul 9, 2022 19:16:28 GMT -5
I was rereading this thread and wanted to add something I realize I didn't specifically state in that first quote. I do consider insurrection and a coup (attempted) illegal acts to overthrow our government. ok, my definition of coup includes this: an insurrection designed to illegally overthrow the government.maybe we CAN continue this discussion. ok, what do you think is the appropriate punishment for such an action? NOTE: i have been quite clear that i think that people who were merely swept up in the fever of the event don't deserve a serious punishment. especially if they recognize the significance of what they did, and seem remorseful. I think that juries and/or judges who hear the specific details for each individual put on trial should determine the appropriate punishment for that individual. I think Congress should have found the former President guilty and banned him from holding office again. But that opportunity has passed. I don't think the Justice Department in a Biden Administration should bring criminal charges against him. There is no way to make that not look politically motivated. I think at this point we need to have faith in first the GOP primary voters and if they fail to reject him then the general election voters. Other former officials should go through Justice Department review, charged and tried as appropriate. Guilt and punishment determined therein.
|
|