1531
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2024
1531 points (100.0% liked)
People Twitter
5220 readers
1786 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a tweet or similar
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
That's a mere interpretation of what happened that would never stand up in a court of law, hence why no formal charges have been brought. It's completely speculative.
Which is exactly why we can't remove him from ballots or refer to it as an insurrection.
Remember the Iraq War? We referred to the opposition after Hussein fell as terrorists (not very accurate, very lame Zioconservative take), or as insurgents, which is accurate.
Insurgency implies some long term armed resistance. It can't refer to some impromptu riot on the police lines.
You didn't answer my question - where do you get your definition of insurrection?
Trump has already been found to have incited insurrection in court, and was disqualified from the ballot in Colorado for just that reason.
The stacking of the senate, failure of democracy and abandonment of the rule of law makes bringing federal charges pointless (see his multiple impeachments). This is a strange standard to try (and fail) to apply under the circumstances.
I suppose my definition is the one from the Oxford dictionary:
J6 cannot meet such a burden since it was not an organized attempt and it certainly wasn't violent in the way that a real move to overthrow the government would be, only violent in the sense that any disorganized protest can be.
... And while some people can toss around the word insurrection, you notice that there is no serious charge against Trump on this, because there can be no charge, since he said nothing nor does any other evidence exists which show he incited anyone to any illegal act, let alone an attempt to overthrow the government. This is only possible through assumption & interpretation of what happened that it was even an 'insurrection.'
Nah, an insurrection is what was happening in Iraq after the 2003 invasion (and happening rightfully so).
If what occurred on J6 was an insurrection, it would have been explicitly violent or had a real organized plan for the literal overthrow of the government.
Even the ridiculous plan organized by the Proud Boys was not really an insurrection even though it involved demanding a re-vote (or a re-vote after a recount) because it ultimately wanted to preserve democratic norms, and the fools who came up with it sincerely believed that democracy was completely undermined by the last election... Which, arguably, it was.
Employing non-lethal means to occupy a place as a protest seems reasonable, doesn't it? This is what people did after the killing of George Floyd.
I would suggest that we have always wanted uprisings against the government which is ruled by corrupt, "middle of the road" people, right, so there should be a loose alliance between the grassroots right wing and the grassroots left wing that fight for policies that are ideological and based on principle.
It's the centrists, who govern through practicality and concerns of the immediate future, that are the greatest stumbling blocks to change. They have obligations to the elites - the ideological left/right do not have any such obligations.
I disagree vehemently with Trump on his views of Muslims and his ideas about Israel, of course, but the guy certainly is an enemy of the establishment and floats out ideas that are radical and haven't been talked about in decades, like his 10% tariff tax plan.
These are real starting points for change.
BTW, I am not really a conventional leftist - I am a Libertarian, and you probably got that from some of our arguments, but I want to come out and say it... I do nto want to be seen here like PRETENDING to be a conventional leftist and thus undermining discussion.