Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Trump Post-Presidency and Insurrection
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 77 of 438 (884129)
01-23-2021 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Percy
01-23-2021 11:38 AM


Re: The big legal issue I wonder about:
My phone needs charging. My other phone has a loose sim card that boots me from the internet.
Here is one quote, but I have a cluster that covers your post 73 quote. I would have already pasted your post 73 quote if I could. I actually wanted to comment on its referent yesterday. Before you quoted it today.
Here is one scattered quote:
And we got to remember, in a year from now, you're going to start working on Congress. And we got to get rid of the weak congresspeople, the ones that aren't any good, the Liz Cheney's of the world. We got to get rid of them
(I will have more later, phone is at 4% power left)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Percy, posted 01-23-2021 11:38 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Phat, posted 01-23-2021 12:30 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied
 Message 86 by Percy, posted 01-23-2021 1:03 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 89 of 438 (884141)
01-23-2021 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Percy
01-23-2021 12:54 PM


Post 73 disambiguation.
I am on a phone that boots me at least once every hour. My post can't be long.
I prefer to take these things one issue at a time, and the bronco gallops will prevent any clarity.
You quoted my response to your post 45.
You clearly understood that there is going to be a big debate over who Trump is referring to when he talks about a need to show strength: marchers or Senators. It will gave legal repercussions ( though the Senate will be so political , that its vote to remove should be deemed irrelevant to the actual legal arguments. The witnesses and lawyers will be held in high esteem by myself, with exceptions, of course)
I can see you understood because, in the post 73 we are discussing, you put in another quote ( from much earlier in the speech) which represented your attempt to present evidence that Trump was talking about marchers using strength toward something or somebody working at the Capitol.
Keep in mind I was still in a mode-of-operation which thought which felt we needed to cover the post 45 (your first selected quote, aside from the big post 28 quote of the entire speech) quote, but let me put that slightly aside, for a moment.
Your new post 73 quote, which you felt was evidence, in and of itself, for Trump telling marchers to show strength (further stretched by you to mean physical violence), was the opposite of what I wanted to demonstrate in a future post. This is the quote that I earlier said that I wanted to be able to paste & comment on yesterday, BEFORE YOU POSTED IT TODAY.
I feel like your new post 73 quote is going to require debate as to who the ones are Trump wants to be strong. I strongly feel he is referring to members of Congress.
Back to your post 45 quote.
I dont feel like we spent enough time on this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Percy, posted 01-23-2021 12:54 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 01-23-2021 3:48 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 91 of 438 (884143)
01-23-2021 2:43 PM


Let us spend time on the 2 Trump quotes, from Percy's post 45 and 73.
Who are the strong?
Who are the weak?
Generally( overwhelmingly actually), Trump is referring to Republican members of Congress.

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Percy, posted 01-23-2021 4:26 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 93 of 438 (884148)
01-23-2021 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Percy
01-23-2021 3:48 PM


Re: Post 73 disambiguation.
I am on the road right now. I am trying to get to the run, in my short posts. They will become much longer later.
You posted 2 quotes,demonstrating a call to violence, from Trumps infamous Jan 6 speech.
They were in posts:
45
73
Both quotes were an attempt to show illegal incitement.
I feel that your quotes are not only badly out of context, but they shos an unawareness of who Trump is talking about.
The post 73 quote gave me an idea, so here it is.
Let's read the whole speech, and label paragraphs by numerals.
Example:
Trump talking about Giuliani having guts, unlike some Republican Senators, was in paragraph 7.
We need to look at every single word that mentions strength and weakness then quote it. Label it by paragraphs.
We can probably figure out who he is referring to in your post 73 quote.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 01-23-2021 3:48 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 01-23-2021 4:30 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 116 of 438 (884345)
02-12-2021 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 115 by Percy
02-12-2021 12:14 PM


Re: The First Three Days
I just saw the concluding defense, but it is all I have seen.
It was pointed out (correctly?) that the prosecution was using videos of the riot as evidence , and very little from the Jan 6 speech was examined.
It sounded like there was a disagrement over what was relevant evidence. I remember we had a disagreement about whether the riot was actually evidence itself that Trump genuinely incited it.
(I am getting my vaccine tomorrow btw. I was considered a necessary worker)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Percy, posted 02-12-2021 12:14 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Taq, posted 02-12-2021 4:05 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 118 of 438 (884347)
02-12-2021 6:33 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by Taq
02-12-2021 4:05 PM


Re: The First Three Days
Will the Senate's ultimate verdict sway your answer one way or another?
Will a rejection of conviction/removal determine if you say YES or NO to your question?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Taq, posted 02-12-2021 4:05 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Taq, posted 02-22-2021 7:10 PM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 120 of 438 (884354)
02-13-2021 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by PaulK
02-13-2021 2:45 AM


Re: Trump refused to call off his supporters
Sorry but there is not enough information in the article.
The time of the call is not mentioned.
(Ttump sent a "stay peaceful" tweet at 2:38)
The context and full transcript is nowhere to be found.
(What were these selective Trump quotes specifically responding to?)
(Taking the word of politicians, like McCarthy, is hazardous, for absolute stsrters)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by PaulK, posted 02-13-2021 2:45 AM PaulK has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 121 of 438 (884355)
02-13-2021 11:48 AM


Critical thinking warning: Don't let politicians conflate protesting with violence.
The anti Trump politicians (whether they care about Trump's policies, is not the point. Policies are not the issue, in many cases, but politican positioning and gamesmanship ALONE will be plenty enough to make them anti-Trump) like to conflate separate items. And by "separate", I mean totally separate.
Any reasonably good judge would throw the whole case out due to the jury having its mind poisoned by the slick out-of-context images . (The riot is one thing)
One impeachment manager actually said Trump told his supporters to fight "to the death", but when asked to produce the quote, he could only present a quote of Trump accusing Democrats of doing such a thing.
I am a critic of biased journalism, and frankly I now hold many journalists, from the last century, in higher regard, and this includes ones I had a low opinion of at the time! Why my change? I now see what true dishonesty, in journalism, really is all about. The list of infractions is far to long, but, for now, I will just say that the use of images to paint a (distorted or not) picture has brought out an understanding, in me, that journalists should perhaps not be (ethically) able to draw pictures and doctor videos to make a controversial case.
And that is just from the journalist's end.
Now we have legal proceedings that are a circus with smoke, mirrors, big screen productions, and worse. (MUCH MUCH WORSE)
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by PaulK, posted 02-13-2021 12:32 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 123 of 438 (884357)
02-13-2021 2:29 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by PaulK
02-13-2021 12:32 PM


Re: Critical thinking warning: Don't let politicians conflate protesting with violence.
Where to begin?
Trump's lawyers say that hs wanted non violent protests.
Next issue:
Do you have any evidence that Trump told McCarthy that he supported the violence?
Trump is easily accused when there are no transcripts. He is accused of supporting violence even with transcripts and video showing otherwise.
You can't even tell us what time the conversation took place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by PaulK, posted 02-13-2021 12:32 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by PaulK, posted 02-13-2021 3:08 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 125 of 438 (884360)
02-13-2021 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by PaulK
02-13-2021 3:08 PM


Re: Critical thinking warning: Don't let politicians conflate protesting with violence.
Trump was in favor of protests, based on his words.
McCarthy was telling Trump to call off protests.
Trump saw the issue as protests.
It is obvious.
His first tweet post riot was 2:23.
His second was 2:38
What was the cherry picking accusation all about.?
The prosecution not only did violent cherry picking, but lied .Trump did not tell people to fight to death
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by PaulK, posted 02-13-2021 3:08 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by PaulK, posted 02-13-2021 3:45 PM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 128 by Phat, posted 02-13-2021 7:40 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 127 of 438 (884362)
02-13-2021 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by PaulK
02-13-2021 3:45 PM


Re: Critical thinking warning: Don't let politicians conflate protesting with violence.
Trump already told protesters to be peaceful in his Jan 6 speech .
He said "stay peaceful" in his second tweet.
He already called off violence before and after. Trump equated violence to stupidity in his pre protest-turned-riot speech .
Trump has evidence to back up his defense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by PaulK, posted 02-13-2021 3:45 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Phat, posted 02-13-2021 8:05 PM LamarkNewAge has replied
 Message 133 by PaulK, posted 02-14-2021 2:15 AM LamarkNewAge has not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 130 of 438 (884367)
02-13-2021 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by Phat
02-13-2021 8:05 PM


Re: Interviewing the EvC Peanut Gallery
I feel like every issue should stand on it's own.
The issue is whether Trump attempted to incite an insurrection.
(That was the lone charge)
The answer is decisively "no", if evidence means anything.
If the question was about possible negligence or failure to act in an effective manner to stop the riots, once they started, then there is no easy answer. That was not a charge,however.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Phat, posted 02-13-2021 8:05 PM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Phat, posted 02-14-2021 1:53 PM LamarkNewAge has replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 131 of 438 (884368)
02-13-2021 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Phat
02-13-2021 7:40 PM


Re: Critical thinking warning: Don't let politicians conflate protesting with violence.
The 43 Republicans who voted down the prosecution's case, actually included a fair number of folks who would not be inclined to support Trump.
Trump was unique in that he had ferociously fought the entire Republican party to win the nomination.
And the hateful battle was aginst all wings of the party.
Trump verses the neocons like Rubio.
Trump verses the libertarian leader Rand Paul.
Trump against the far right straddler Ted Cruz .
The 43 Senate Republicans had a million reasons to put politics( plus old bitter feelings) above evidence, but they choose to go with the evidence. It was the seven Republicans who voted to convict that were corrupted by raw political opportunism, and putting ideology over truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Phat, posted 02-13-2021 7:40 PM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 132 of 438 (884369)
02-13-2021 10:23 PM


Looking at the 7 GOP jokers in the Senate.
The first thing that amazes me was those who did not vote for removal ( no jokes about the absurdity, moving on...). It might be the first time I ever agreed with Lindsay Graham on anything. One would assume that he would have voted to convict, considering he has had the most combative history with Trump of any Republican, and considering he has 6 more years to answer to voters.
But the clowns:
Ben Sasse took the easy road (as he always does) and won't face voters till 2024.
Susan Collins just got reelected, and her skills at making self-serving raw political calculations are well noted.
Richard Burr is stepping down, in 2022, and it would have been nice to see him actually have to justify his glosses over the facts surrounding the actual events, but it will never happen.
Mitt Romney has been a political opportunist his whole career, and he has not a minuscule margin set aside for principled political stands. This is the flip flopper of the century. And last century. The only period of slight consistency in his career was the slight integrity, in his issue positions, from the 8 years between his 1994 run against Ted Kennedy, and his 2002 win over Shannon O'Brien. He wasted no time in flipping on numerous issues once he was sworn in as Massachusetts governor in 2003.
( The same Mitt Romney that got all of 6% of the black vote in 2012, including 3% of black females)
Bill Cassidy is up In 2022 I think. Mark Kennedy probably beat Landrieu in 2014, though he might have won the Vitter seat in 3016. I cant remember. I think Cassidy won the Breaux/ Vitter seat. Which means he is up in 2016. That would mean he had courage. I suppose.
1 that is no clown.
Pat Toomey is up in 2022, and he flips on every issue he feels will help him win. I will enjoy seeing the jerk balance this one.
So far, 5 clowns, 1 possibly principled one.
Now Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
She was appointed to the seat. In 2003, when her super corrupt father was Governor. The very obvious corrupt decision of her father ( claiming that he picked her because she was the most qualified person for the Senate) made her vulnerable, and especially since her 2004 opponent was a rare ex Democratic Governor ( Tony Knowles , Governor of Alaska from 1995 to 2003). She only managed a 49% to 45% win. Knowles then ran gof Governor again, but lost to Sarah Palin, who won the general election only after beating Governor Frank Murkowski in the GOP primary.
Murkowski actually lost the GOP primary in 2010 ( to a Sarah Palin endorsed challenger)but was able to run ad an independent candidate to keep her seat. She won easily in 2016, her first easy victory.
Murkowski is one I respect. Her 2022 primary will be tough.
2014 was interesting in Alaska.
Sarah Palin's Lieutenant Governor became Governor in 2008, but she endorsed his Democratic opponent in 2014( The Pro Medicaid expansion "Fushion Candidate"), and Democrats took the mansion again.
Also in 2014. The other long serving corrupt Republicans Senator, Ted Stevens, lost in 2008, to Anchorage Democraticmayor Mark Begich. Begich only lost reelection 49% to 47%, helped my the pot legalization ballot measure. His 2008 win was a fluke (Steven's pockets were lined with hundreds of thousands in favors) but the close loss in 2014 was more impressive for an Alaska Democrat.
So a pro-gun Democrat can possibly win in Alaska, it seems.
Murkowski is giving Democrats a shot at the seat. Better hope she loses the primary. Her vote for conviction makes it possible. But she can loose the primary and run in the general election .
( Alaska does have much better Senators than the bad old days of Ted Stevens and Frank Murkowski)
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

  
LamarkNewAge
Member (Idle past 737 days)
Posts: 2236
Joined: 12-22-2015


Message 135 of 438 (884373)
02-14-2021 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by Percy
02-14-2021 12:40 PM


Re: Trump Acquitted
The last part of your post is the problem I keep seeing with impeachment supporters. Before, I get to my MAJOR problem (which nobody here seems to get), I should point out that I appreciated the fact that you mentioned the awareness of the threat to free speech this whole 2021 impeachment episode has brought. I have been terrified by that implication in this impeachment trial.
But, putting aside the fundamental human right issue( the end of free speech is the end of humanity's hopes and dreams and very future)of free speech, my problem is that impeachment suppirters keep interlacing the impeachment charge debate with political issue positions.
(Phat seemed to think that Trump being an "ineffective" President justifies a guilty charge on criminal incitement, and he seems to be one of the relatively open-minded people in this discussion.)
Your last paragraph caught my attention, but I really shouldn't have been too shocked.
(This entire thread, posters have expected some sort of debate on tax & spend, immigration, public highway funding, etc.)
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.
Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Percy, posted 02-14-2021 12:40 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024