You may close your mind all you want but the whole watching world saw an insurrection. And an accompanying conspiracy whose participants have begun to accept their complicity and acknowledge their participation.
The end of Democracy?
- Thread starter Chobham
- Start date
SgtSpiderMan
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2003
- Posts
- 26,390
Yet there are multiple people who were convicted and in jail for trying to overthrow the government that day.
ll74
Your Best Friend
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2013
- Posts
- 48,796
All of the courts. The Colorado courts decided as did Maine's SoS based on the information they were provided and determined that an insurrection occurred and that 45 took part. Now SCOTUS will do the same.
icanhelp1
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2019
- Posts
- 17,199
Presumption of guilt without due process, the left once again tearing down the fabric of our republic sidestepping the rule of law for political gain. More destroying democracy to save democracy. What a sad state of affairs.
ll74
Your Best Friend
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2013
- Posts
- 48,796
The courts ruled based on all the information available. 45 had an opportunity to submit evidence.
DeluxAuto
AntiSocial Extrovert
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Posts
- 15,666
If democracy, much like your ego, is so fragile, maybe it's time for a remix.
jomar
chillin
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2006
- Posts
- 26,865
So let’s hear your view on the matter. Tell us your reasoning.
Nice sidestep.
No due process in conducting a conspiracy to overturn an election either, but doesn’t that count?
HisArpy
Loose canon extraordinair
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2016
- Posts
- 37,740
I'll bet they laughed at you too.
HisArpy
Loose canon extraordinair
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2016
- Posts
- 37,740
He needs a better grindstone.
icanhelp1
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2019
- Posts
- 17,199
So what you’re ‘re saying is that our democracy is not so fragile after all, that’s what I believe. What happened J/6 was never a threat to our democracy, agreed!
Your reading comprehension sucks. Did you even go to high school?
IrezumiKiss
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2007
- Posts
- 73,778
I gave him a break, I think he just forgot to edit it. He's been triggered so much lately....
He always has troubles with the “new platform”….
It gives him so many troubles. Also, why should he be bothered to proofread anything, it’s not like this is a site for the written word…
@icanhelp1
I still say he has just too much deep fryer residue on him, he has trouble with so many things (logic included)- poor guy.
Comshaw
VAGITARIAN
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2000
- Posts
- 11,631
No there isn't, but the section I cited does have it, IE:
"When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States..."
While I stated there were only three reasons a President can be barred from running for office I will admit my error and add that if they are found guilty of the charges of insurrection or rebellion after the fact it would also bar them from office. However, they need to be found guilty of the charges, not just accused.
On that note let's take up what you insist is true: That a person (the President) can be declared guilty and sentenced WITHOUT having been found guilty by, or having the opportunity to defend themselves in a tribunal. This is contrary to the rule of law, the very foundation of our freedom. A person is innocent UNTIL PROVEN guilty. It doesn't matter who they are or what they are charged of or how many BELIEVE they are guilty. It needs be PROVEN in a tribunal. And so far that has not happened with the donald. He was acquitted in an Impeachment trial by the Senate.
The thing that scares me, that shows how some on the left are as set on destroying our freedoms as some for the right are, is this: by insisting that a President (or anyone for that matter) can be guilty by popular opinion, can be punished according to the opinion of the opposition, that you are supporting concepts that are just as dangerous as any Trump has voiced. The freedoms we demand, such as a trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty, MUST extend to everyone, not just those we agree with. Anything less is dangerous and contrary to our nation's laws.
Comshaw
DeluxAuto
AntiSocial Extrovert
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2010
- Posts
- 15,666
The only reason j6 wasn't a threat was because you and your elk are ineffectual nothings.
Attempted murder still puts you in prison, dumbass.
Some people are in jail for insurrection, some pleaded guilty following advice from actual qualified lawyers. So you can bleat that there wasn't an insurrection as much as you like, but the evidence that there was exceeds whatever there was that voting machines were corrupted, that noise from windmills causes cancer, or that Obama is a Muslim born in Kenya.
jaF0
Watcher
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Posts
- 38,469
Whatever section you're quoting is not relevant to 14-3.
AlexBailey
Kinky Tomgurl
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2019
- Posts
- 9,862
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/insurrection
Insurrection
A rising or rebellion of citizens against their government, usually manifested by acts of violence.Under federal law, it is a crime to incite, assist, or engage in such conduct against the United States.
Comshaw
VAGITARIAN
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2000
- Posts
- 11,631
Whatever section I'm quoting? so you didn't bother to either read or understand the part of the Constitution I cited earlier? And your trying to make a cognitive argument that I'm wrong without ever reading it? Really? Really, really? FFS.
Your argument is called an appeal to authority and it's an informal logic fallacy, IE: The fallacy of appeal to authority makes the argument that if one credible source believes something that it must be true.
https://www.logicalfallacies.org/appeal-to-authority.html
While those who are "professionals" can make a strong argument for their opinion, it does not mean they are correct or infallible. The thing about it is Trump's lawyers have as much legal experience (think Rudy) as those you cited. That being the case since they do possess the same amount of legal experience as those you quote, shall we take their word too? Ascribe to their opinion the concrete status of fact as you are trying to do with those you cite? Yeah, I thought not.
As far as the article from the Atlantic is concerned, I couldn't read the thing because I refuse to sign up for a"free trial" so I have no idea what they actually said.
You keep citing the 14th. as if its passage says we can find a person guilty on opinion alone. That is dangerous in the extreme. But I can see you will not be dissuaded from your opinion, nor quoting opinions of others as fact so I will withdraw and allow you to assume to won the argument.
Comshaw
jaF0
Watcher
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2009
- Posts
- 38,469
What you quoted is about Impeachment, which is not related to the 14th. It is a fully separate matter.
Comshaw
VAGITARIAN
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2000
- Posts
- 11,631
My disagreement wasn't about Impeachment OR insurrection. It isn't about the 14th Amendment or Article I or II of the Constitution. I quote those to show that NO ONE can be held as guilty UNTIL they are found guilty in a tribunal. You keep tap dancing around the fact that you are insisting that someone can be found guilty of insurrection WITHOUT having a trial. Now if you can't understand plain English I'll get out of here and just let you be wrong.
Comshaw
