The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Capitol Hill: call that a coup? > Comments

Capitol Hill: call that a coup? : Comments

By Graham Young, published 10/2/2021

What the Democrats are asking us to believe is that a man who can make billions in his lifetime doing intricate deals can't properly organise a coup.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. 14
  12. All
Altrave,

Was fraud possible ? Of course. Was it found ? No.

End of.

I love the idiocy of that "the absence of evidence is not the same as the evidence of absence" argument. To me, it's a bit like saying "Well, no, you can't see a bridge over the river there, but there actually is one, so keep driving."

I think I'd rather wait until I saw something that looked like a bridge.

The courts are the proper vehicles for processing claims of voter fraud. So far, not one Court has ruled that there was fraud.

So, just possibly, there was no fraud.

End of. Your dumb-arse mob lost. Common-sense and Biden on. Move on. Cop it.

Joe
Posted by loudmouth2, Thursday, 18 February 2021 10:52:34 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear shadowminister,

.

You wrote :

« Trying to compare the actions of a murderous cult leader to a speech by Trump is simply farcical. To quote:

Inciting to Riot, Violence, or Insurrection

Criminal incitement refers to conduct, words, or other means that urge or naturally lead others to riot, violence, or insurrection »
.

I did not “compare the actions of a murderous cult leader to a speech by Trump”.

Firstly, it is interesting to see that you presume that Manson was, indeed, “a murderous cult leader”, although, like Donald the dictator, he constantly maintained his innocence (all his life) and was only condemned on the basis of the prosecution’s contention that “while Manson never directly ordered the murders, his ideology constituted an overt act of conspiracy”. The Los Angeles County district attorney believed that Manson intended to start a race war.

It is also interesting to see that the definition of “criminal incitement” you now indicate does not stipulate that “the legal threshold for incitement requires that Trump directly ask for the capitol to be stormed” as you asserted in your post of Monday, 15 February 2021 9:44:02 AM (flaw N° 4).

Secondly, I compare “the actions” not of a “murderous” cult leader, but of a cult leader “condemned for incitement to murder” – not to a “speech” by Trump but to “the actions” of Trump.

As I noted in a previous post, Donald the dictator is as smart as a monkey, as cunning as a fox and as deceptive as a praying mantis. Ruse and guile are his principal arms . By employing carefully coded pseudo-military signs and language he assembled his gullible troops and sent them to accomplish his wanton criminal misdeeds. He had been courting them, encouraging them, and preparing them (instructing them to “stand back and stand by”) months before unleashing them on the legislative branch of the American government that was about to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election.

This was not just a speech, shadowminister, it was a carefully planned, prepared and executed ...

.

(Continued ...)

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 19 February 2021 3:40:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

(Continued ...)

.

... strategy to “steal the election” from Sleepy old Joe if he won it – which he did.

I am surprised that a political observer such as yourself does not appear to be aware of all that.

You cite the First Amendment of the US Constitution – presumably in relation to Donald the dictator’s speech to the huge crowd of supporters he assembled in front of the White House on 6 January 2021, the day the Congress was due to certify the results of the 2020 presidential election.

Here is the text :

« Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances »

To the best of my knowledge, but correct me if I am missing something, the Congress has no intention of making any law to “abridge the freedom of speech” of Donald the dictator (or anyone else, for that matter).

As for Brandenburg v. Ohio and the so-called “Brandenburg Test”, this was largely debated during the impeachment trial. According to Wikipedia :

« The Brandenburg test remains the standard used for evaluating attempts by the government to punish inflammatory speech, and it has not been seriously challenged since it was laid down in 1969. Very few cases have actually reached the Court during the past decades that would test the outer limits of Brandenburg. The most significant application of Brandenburg came four years after in Hess v. Indiana »

Hess v. Indiana :

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/414/105/#tab-opinion-1950471

Judgment :

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/414/105/#tab-opinion-1950470

Lesson to be drawn from Hess v. Indiana :

For Donald the dictator to be punished for “inflammatory speech”, prosecution must prove the words he used were directed to a specific person or group and there is evidence that they were intended and likely to produce imminent disorder.

I think we agree on the legal criteria for conviction.

But that is something neither you or I can decide.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 19 February 2021 3:46:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
.

Dear mhaze,

.

You wrote :

« … Manson specifically told his cultists to go to Polanski house and kill those inside … the next night he specifically drove the killers to the murder site and participated in subduing the victims … »
.

There are several versions of what happened and who did what, mhaze. That is one of them.

“Time” published an article in 2019 indicating :

« A half-century after Tate’s death, there remain plenty of myths and theories about why Manson’s followers carried out the murders. One of the biggest questions is the extent to which Charles Manson himself was involved, and why »

According to James Buddy Day, a true-crime TV producer and author of the book Hippie Cult Leader: The Last Words of Charles Manson, “everyone involved in the crimes had a slightly different take on what happened”.

Day conducted several interviews with Manson while he was in prison serving a life sentence, and noted :

« There are so many people involved in the Manson story, not one of them can say what really happened. No one was making decisions for the whole group »

One of the people who offered Day a version of the story was, of course, Manson, who maintained his innocence until his death. “I didn’t have nothing to do with killing those people,” he told Day in a phone call. “They knew I didn’t have anything to do with it.”

Manson’s own version was that his followers orchestrated the whole thing, and he was only involved in a passive way.

After all the time spent talking to Manson, Day believes his version is close to the truth, but concludes :

« I think there’s no question Manson is culpable for those murders … [they] would not have happened without him ».

I, personally, find it significant, mhaze, that the prosecution contended that, while Manson never directly ordered the murders, his ideology constituted an overt act of conspiracy.

They obviously could neither prove that Manson had ordered the murders nor that he had participated in them.

.
Posted by Banjo Paterson, Friday, 19 February 2021 4:47:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Banjo,

It would help if you were more literate. The following excerpts from the above are not subtle:

1 - First, incitement to violence requires proof that the defendant intended to incite violence or riot. Careless conduct or “emotionally charged rhetoric” does not meet this standard.
2 - Second, the defendant must create a sort of roadmap for immediate harm—using general or vague references to some future act doesn’t qualify as imminent lawless action.
3 - Finally, the defendant’s words must be likely to persuade, provoke, or urge a crowd to violence. Profanity or offensive messaging alone isn’t enough; the messaging must appeal to actions that lead to imminent violence.

1 - There is no "proof" that Trump intended to incite violence in fact he specifically called for non-violence. Your claim that "By employing carefully coded pseudo-military signs and language" is pure conjecture and/or fantasy.
2 - Trump's speech created no road map for the attack and did not mention the capitol building
3 - At no stage did Trump appeal for violence.

Finally, your comparison to Manson is at best childish and at worst moronic. His cult members lived with him and took his word as law. That you pretend to take Manson's claims as gospel shows a high level of mendacity.
Posted by shadowminister, Friday, 19 February 2021 10:33:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Loudmouth, please, I've always given you much credit for being one of the voices of reason, here on OLO.
Even more than myself.
BUT!
You cannot deny that fraud dose happen, and in this case we are now learning each day, of more and more evidence coming to light.
I know the anti-Trump pundits did a stellar job on the sheeple, in convincing them that Trump was to be admonished and vilified, and so it came to pass that that's what the sheeple did, and no end of logic and proof to the contrary was going to be entertained, irrespective of his obligations and achievements for the people and his office.
He did things, that on the face of it, seemed at odds with public sentiment, (not all) but upon reflection and in hindsight, we now see that his reasoning was justified, at least where it counted.
You ask "was fraud possible"?
You incorrectly assumed, and wrote, NO!
Well as it always turns out, hindsight is a wonderful thing, and in saying that, the answer is a very irrefutable YES!
I have previously posted just one of the videos confirming this fact, and here it is again below;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5QesBp2gfA

As a follow up to this, the Georgia Govt has ordered a forensic investigation into the Dominion machines and their suspected role in the Georgia vote "flips".
So you see Joe, things are never quite what they seem nor expected to be.
That's why I am the guy who asks the awkward, sometimes, ridiculous questions, in search of the truth, and not just accept what I'm told.
In fact I would say I have a healthy (and justified) dislike for people, (the sheeple) because they are too easily led and controlled.
It seems that virtue shaming and PC are the new norms.
Well, not as far as I am concerned, and I will continue to seek out the truth, even though the sheeple don't want to hear it.
I get push back from those who know absolutely NOTHING about the topics.
The only question remains is, HOW BIG WAS THE FRAUD?
Posted by ALTRAV, Friday, 19 February 2021 11:11:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. Page 12
  10. 13
  11. 14
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy