U.S. Politics - Thread

U.S. Politics


  • Total voters
    103
Status
Not open for further replies.

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,180
Reaction score
29,722
Exactly.

Don't make yourself look foolish. The reason he can't be found guilty is because of the very protections of the first amendment to every American citizen's freedom of speech.

The American government is not allowed to stop people from saying things (including inflammatory and emotional political speech) as per the following cases:

Brandenburg v. Ohio

The supreme court explained that: "the constitutional guarantees of free speech and free press do not permit a State to forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”

Hess v. Indiana

"For speech to constitute unprotected incitement it must advocate for illegal action immediately to take place."

Nwanguma v. Trump


You should also consider that at a rally in 2016, Trump said " Get ’em out of here.” Following which some of the crowd assaulted the protestors and physically removed them.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled that Trump’s speech did not cause incitement under the Brandenburg standard and, therefore, qualified as protected speech under the First Amendment.
That's not what I said. You should try reading things before you respond.

I said that he wasn't being charged for saying the election is rigged. He also hasn't been indicted for saying the election is rigged. He has been indicted specifically for "Incitement of Insurrection" for his actions surrounding the Capitol building invasion. The charge is that he knowingly and willingly incited a mob that then attempted an Insurrection.

So the charge is that he provoked others to commit illegal behaviour (incitement). That illegal behaviour being a violent uprising against the government (insurrection)

We know that insurrection took place. The question is whether Trump deliberately provoked the crowd into it.

Personally I think it could go either way.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,180
Reaction score
29,722
Also, if you want to draw a connection between Trump's rally speech and the capitol riots, you may want to consider the protests (including the march to the capitol) had been planned for weeks and was not a direct result of Trumps speech on the day.

So it would be next to impossible to draw a connection between Trump's speech and what happened at the capitol.

Yep. That's where he may get off. But if they find guilt, personally I think it'll come down to one of two factors:

1) whether he had fore knowledge about the intentions of the rioters, which would mean that he encouraged them to continue with their actions of insurrection

2) if any of his speeches or posts leading up to the insurrection could be considered as a deliberate key factor in why the insurrection took place

But I'm not expert.

There's every chance neither of those will be met and the Senate will vote against. But as you pointed out, there's a decent chance they won't vote based on the legality but more on emotion and bias. So there's a decent chance they will vote either way depending on how much they like or hate the guy.

It's a pretty broken system but it's how most legal systems work in the western world.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,180
Reaction score
29,722
Forgot to mention. If they do constitute his earlier posts and speeches as incitement, it's extremely easy to link that to immediate illegal action. Any planning for incitement is also illegal so they would just have to link rough timelines of planning with Trump's speeches/posts.
 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
That's not what I said. You should try reading things before you respond.

I said that he wasn't being charged for saying the election is rigged. He also hasn't been indicted for saying the election is rigged. He has been indicted specifically for "Incitement of Insurrection" for his actions surrounding the Capitol building invasion. The charge is that he knowingly and willingly incited a mob that then attempted an Insurrection.

So the charge is that he provoked others to commit illegal behaviour (incitement). That illegal behaviour being a violent uprising against the government (insurrection)

We know that insurrection took place. The question is whether Trump deliberately provoked the crowd into it.

Personally I think it could go either way.
It matters not whether you call the Capitol incident as a protest, a riot or an insurrection.

An American citizen's speech is fully protected by law and similar cases have already been tested before the supreme court who have set the test which is used to determine whether someone 'incited violence'.

Nothing Trump said at the rally on the morning could even come close to meeting the threshold set by the Supreme court.

Further to this, it's been well established that the Capitol protests were planned for weeks prior to the actual day. So you couldn't say Trump's speech incited the events anyway.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,180
Reaction score
29,722
It matters not whether you call the Capitol incident as a protest, a riot or an insurrection.

An American citizen's speech is fully protected by law and similar cases have already been tested before the supreme court who have set the test which is used to determine whether someone 'incited violence'.

Nothing Trump said at the rally on the morning could even come close to meeting the threshold set by the Supreme court.

Further to this, it's been well established that the Capitol protests were planned for weeks prior to the actual day. So you couldn't say Trump's speech incited the events anyway.
As I said before. Not your call or my call to make. When it comes to the Constitution on incitement of insurrection, it states:

"Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;  and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States"

So it comes down to people more educated in law than you and me to decide if Trump's actions met that weight.

Neither you nor I can say for sure.
 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
Forgot to mention. If they do constitute his earlier posts and speeches as incitement, it's extremely easy to link that to immediate illegal action. Any planning for incitement is also illegal so they would just have to link rough timelines of planning with Trump's speeches/posts.
No. From a legal viewpoint, none of this has any basis.

The Brandenburg test says that The Court wrote that “advocacy of illegal action at some indefinite future time … is not sufficient to permit the State to punish Hess' speech.” In addition, there must be an expectation that the speech will in fact lead to lawless action.

None of what Trump said constituted a call to illegal action:


"Republicans are, Republicans are constantly fighting like a boxer with his hands tied behind his back. It’s like a boxer. And we want to be so nice. We want to be so respectful of everybody, including bad people. And we’re going to have to fight much harder. "

fight much harder' is not a call to illegal action

"Because you’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong. We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. "

Suggesting people show strength and be strong and demand congress to the right thing is not illegal action.

However, Trump did make very clear during his speech that it would be peaceful, and also insinuated they wouldn't be as positive about other politicians:

"Anyone you want, but I think right here, we’re going to walk down to the Capitol, and we’re going to cheer on our brave senators and congressmen and women, and we’re probably not going to be cheering so much for some of them. "

Also, as with every event that gets the media involved, the first week or two of reporting is usually entirely false, overly emotive and lacking any facts whatsoever. As an example of reporting suddenly changing:


Justice Department prosecutors have formally walked back their assertion in a court filing that said Capitol rioters sought to "capture and assassinate elected officials."
 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
As I said before. Not your call or my call to make. When it comes to the Constitution on incitement of insurrection, it states:

"Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;  and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States"

So it comes down to people more educated in law than you and me to decide if Trump's actions met that weight.

Neither you nor I can say for sure.
I can say for sure.

The issue is that Trump's fate rests in the hands of politicians who gain nothing by being impartial and interpreting in the context of the law.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,180
Reaction score
29,722
I can say for sure.

The issue is that Trump's fate rests in the hands of politicians who gain nothing by being impartial and interpreting in the context of the law.
Nah, you can't say for sure. As per usual you just believe that you're the expert on everything and won't accept any other possible scenario.

This is why you could never be a scientist.
 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
Nah, you can't say for sure. As per usual you just believe that you're the expert on everything and won't accept any other possible scenario.

This is why you could never be a scientist.
It's not like I'm the only expert, that would be an absurd notion. It's just that you generally place far too much weight on 'mainstream' sources which used to be a decent reference point in decades past, but many (most) mainstream institutions have been so thoroughly corrupted that the chance of getting anything truthful or insightful from them is unlikely in the extreme
 

CroydonDog

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Aug 1, 2012
Messages
19,615
Reaction score
16,696
interesting logistical issue - the nuclear codes...


How will Trump pass 'nuclear football' to Biden if he's not at swearing-in?
Physical transfer of brief case containing nuclear attack plans has become part of inauguration ritual


Peter Beaumont
Wed 20 Jan 2021 00.31 AEDT


209

It is a responsibility that has passed to every president since John F Kennedy – the custody of the so called “nuclear football” – the hardened brief case that is handed over on the day of the inauguration of new presidents by their predecessor.
The question being asked, given Trump’s almost unprecedented decision not to meet Joe Biden or attend his swearing in, is what will happen to the nuclear football?

The reality is that while the briefcase, carried by a military aide, and containing nuclear attack plans, access to command and control systems and the mechanism for authorising the nuclear codes has become a shorthand for the president’s singular responsibility to order a nuclear attack, the mechanisms are a little more complex.




The “football” itself – also known as the “emergency satchel” or simply “the button” is a metal Zero Halliburton briefcase covered in leather to look rather like an old fashioned doctor’s bag, weighing around 20kg.
Advertisement

The bag is said to contain a copy – in some form – of the Black Book, the options for nuclear retaliation, the “biscuit”, an active electronic card identifying the president as the person able to authorise the “watch signal” triggering the use of nuclear weapons and the ability to communicate with command and control hubs.
Finally, perhaps most important, the briefcase contains an emergency broadcast system to allow the president to communicate any orders.
The football itself, however, is very much a backup, designed for use when the president is away from the fixed and protected command and control centres such as the White House situation room, where he would expect to be briefed by key officials in most circumstances ahead of authorising a nuclear retaliation as the US, while not having an all-encompassing no first strike nuclear policy, does have a “negative security assurance” on nuclear weapons use with 180 countries, although excluding the likes of Russia, China and North Korea.
A military aide carries the ‘football’ across the South Lawn for Barack Obama.

A military aide carries the ‘football’ across the South Lawn for Barack Obama. Photograph: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
In 2013 Dick Cheney, Gerald Ford’s former chief of staff, described what usually happens on inauguration day when the responsibility for that attack moves to a new president.
“The passing of the football occurs at high noon. No one says a word but I knew what to look for.
“So you got the ceremony going down front, [but] behind one of the big pillars there, these two guys are standing in their uniforms. And at the right moment, [the outgoing military aide] reaches over and hands it to the newly designated military aide and he takes it from that moment on.”
While the physical transfer has become part of the ritual of the transfer of power, albeit an unseen one among the pomp and circumstance, described by one of Bill Clinton’s aides as a “sacred duty”, the real transfer of responsibilities is actually somewhat more prosaic.
During the briefing about the nuclear codes and the briefcase on the morning of the inauguration, the key thing that happens is that “the biscuit” or rather “a biscuit” is reprogrammed and given to the new president or his designated military aide activating at noon on the day of the swearing, meaning that the new president can identify himself.
According to reports, the Pentagon has long had a plan for the transfer of responsibility in the event of Trump skipping the transfer of power.
Given the importance of the football, with its antenna protruding from it, it seems unlikely that there would be no redundancy in so important a system, a fact underlined by reports that there are actually three physical briefcases, not a solitary presidential satchel, one that can be assigned to the vice president and one to the “designated survivor” – usually a member of the cabinet designated by the president to ensure continuity if both the president and vice president are incapacitated.
“We war-game this stuff, and we practise it ad nauseam for years and years,” Buzz Patterson, who carried the football for Clinton, told Business Insider, adding that the transfer needed to be instantaneous.
“There are systems in place to make sure that happens instantaneously. There won’t be any kind of question about who has it, who is in charge at that point in time.
“We don’t take this stuff lightly. There won’t be any kind of hiccup. It’ll just go down without anybody even noticing, which is what is supposed to happen.”
At midday, as Joe Biden is sworn in, Trump’s “nuclear biscuit” will become inactive. The most frightening of his powers will be gone.
 

Psycho Doggie

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Mar 25, 2014
Messages
18,376
Reaction score
26,347
1611112367686.png


He joins the long list of people who trusted Trump and were disappointed, including people involved with Trump Uni, Trump Steaks, Trump casinos, Trump Mortgages, Trump vodka... the list goes on.
 

wendog33

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Ladder Champion
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
25,537
Reaction score
29,143
He knew the election wasn’t rigged. He always says he is the smartest man in the room so he knows this. He just played the strategy that if he discredited the election before it was run he could fall back on that if he lost. He knew Covid fucked him and was probably going to lose.
The polls (and his own internal polls) confirmed it according to staff who are now looking for jobs :grinning:
 

DinkumDog

Kennel Immortal
2 x Gilded
Joined
May 15, 2017
Messages
23,012
Reaction score
42,492
interesting logistical issue - the nuclear codes...


How will Trump pass 'nuclear football' to Biden if he's not at swearing-in?
Physical transfer of brief case containing nuclear attack plans has become part of inauguration ritual


Peter Beaumont
Wed 20 Jan 2021 00.31 AEDT


209

It is a responsibility that has passed to every president since John F Kennedy – the custody of the so called “nuclear football” – the hardened brief case that is handed over on the day of the inauguration of new presidents by their predecessor.
The question being asked, given Trump’s almost unprecedented decision not to meet Joe Biden or attend his swearing in, is what will happen to the nuclear football?

The reality is that while the briefcase, carried by a military aide, and containing nuclear attack plans, access to command and control systems and the mechanism for authorising the nuclear codes has become a shorthand for the president’s singular responsibility to order a nuclear attack, the mechanisms are a little more complex.

The “football” itself – also known as the “emergency satchel” or simply “the button” is a metal Zero Halliburton briefcase covered in leather to look rather like an old fashioned doctor’s bag, weighing around 20kg.
Advertisement

The bag is said to contain a copy – in some form – of the Black Book, the options for nuclear retaliation, the “biscuit”, an active electronic card identifying the president as the person able to authorise the “watch signal” triggering the use of nuclear weapons and the ability to communicate with command and control hubs.
Finally, perhaps most important, the briefcase contains an emergency broadcast system to allow the president to communicate any orders.
The football itself, however, is very much a backup, designed for use when the president is away from the fixed and protected command and control centres such as the White House situation room, where he would expect to be briefed by key officials in most circumstances ahead of authorising a nuclear retaliation as the US, while not having an all-encompassing no first strike nuclear policy, does have a “negative security assurance” on nuclear weapons use with 180 countries, although excluding the likes of Russia, China and North Korea.
A military aide carries the ‘football’ across the South Lawn for Barack Obama.

A military aide carries the ‘football’ across the South Lawn for Barack Obama. Photograph: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
In 2013 Dick Cheney, Gerald Ford’s former chief of staff, described what usually happens on inauguration day when the responsibility for that attack moves to a new president.
“The passing of the football occurs at high noon. No one says a word but I knew what to look for.
“So you got the ceremony going down front, [but] behind one of the big pillars there, these two guys are standing in their uniforms. And at the right moment, [the outgoing military aide] reaches over and hands it to the newly designated military aide and he takes it from that moment on.”
While the physical transfer has become part of the ritual of the transfer of power, albeit an unseen one among the pomp and circumstance, described by one of Bill Clinton’s aides as a “sacred duty”, the real transfer of responsibilities is actually somewhat more prosaic.
During the briefing about the nuclear codes and the briefcase on the morning of the inauguration, the key thing that happens is that “the biscuit” or rather “a biscuit” is reprogrammed and given to the new president or his designated military aide activating at noon on the day of the swearing, meaning that the new president can identify himself.
According to reports, the Pentagon has long had a plan for the transfer of responsibility in the event of Trump skipping the transfer of power.
Given the importance of the football, with its antenna protruding from it, it seems unlikely that there would be no redundancy in so important a system, a fact underlined by reports that there are actually three physical briefcases, not a solitary presidential satchel, one that can be assigned to the vice president and one to the “designated survivor” – usually a member of the cabinet designated by the president to ensure continuity if both the president and vice president are incapacitated.
“We war-game this stuff, and we practise it ad nauseam for years and years,” Buzz Patterson, who carried the football for Clinton, told Business Insider, adding that the transfer needed to be instantaneous.
“There are systems in place to make sure that happens instantaneously. There won’t be any kind of question about who has it, who is in charge at that point in time.
“We don’t take this stuff lightly. There won’t be any kind of hiccup. It’ll just go down without anybody even noticing, which is what is supposed to happen.”
At midday, as Joe Biden is sworn in, Trump’s “nuclear biscuit” will become inactive. The most frightening of his powers will be gone.
Sounds like they’ve been banking on him not being there and have an alternative plan.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,180
Reaction score
29,722
It's not like I'm the only expert, that would be an absurd notion. It's just that you generally place far too much weight on 'mainstream' sources which used to be a decent reference point in decades past, but many (most) mainstream institutions have been so thoroughly corrupted that the chance of getting anything truthful or insightful from them is unlikely in the extreme
Nah. I place no weight on main stream sources. I know the amount of bias that goes into them. It's not as bad as conspiracy theorists make out. It's not like the media just lies to us. But they tell the facts in a way that supports their bias and they only report on the fact that support their bias.

That's why I rely on expert majority and results. In the case of legality this comes down to the result of a trial. When it comes to science it comes down to the result of research.

But there is no way you can spend a few days reading stuff and claim yourself more expert than the people who studied the subject for decades.

But as I said. Don't trust the media, trust the experts. Not entirely. The experts can get it wrong too. And often they do. But trust that they have the highest probability to be right.

And when it comes to corruption, that's where majority comes in. It's more likely that the majority opinion will be less corrupt than the minority opinion.
 

Psycho Doggie

Kennel Immortal
Joined
Mar 25, 2014
Messages
18,376
Reaction score
26,347
Ironically, for a guy whose political fanclub members are very much fiscally conservative, the main reason Trump is likely to end up with no business empire is because of his bad habit of not paying debts.
 

wendog33

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Ladder Champion
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
25,537
Reaction score
29,143
Nah, you can't say for sure. As per usual you just believe that you're the expert on everything and won't accept any other possible scenario.

This is why you could never be a scientist.
I distrust Moscow Mitch. He is playing the long game and will say this and vote differently.

But in the end Dems can't lose.

They vote him out, great for both parties.

They don't vote him out, great for Dems. Mitch stuck with him for 4 long years of Trump running opposition from Florida.
 

wendog33

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Ladder Champion
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
25,537
Reaction score
29,143
Ironically, for a guy whose political fanclub members are very much fiscally conservative, the main reason Trump is likely to end up with no business empire is because of his bad habit of not paying debts.
He said the only reason he picked Republican Party is bc they have the dumbest voters.

Nothing to do with fiscal values ;)
 

CaptainJackson

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
16,553
Reaction score
20,611
Ironically, for a guy whose political fanclub members are very much fiscally conservative, the main reason Trump is likely to end up with no business empire is because of his bad habit of not paying debts.
But hes a great BUSINESSMAN!!!!!

Hes going to run america like a business!!!! $3 trillion debt!!!! Just like his bankrupt businesses!!!!

He said the only reason he picked Republican Party is bc they have the dumbest voters.

Nothing to do with fiscal values ;)
Thats a fake quote wendog. Snopes fact checked it
 

wendog33

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Ladder Champion
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
25,537
Reaction score
29,143
Just a heads up Kennelers.

Get your supplies in for tonight...popcorn, all the usual Thanksgiving food, pop the champagne.

ABC Planet America Inauguration Special.

I imagine they will be crossing for the Trump Farewell Military Parade at 6am? USA time. Marching bands, flyover, 21 gun salute, lots of saluting.

I'm just staying up for The Don's Farewell.
It's gonna be tremendous. Largest numbers ever for a departing President.
 
Last edited:

N4TE

DogsRhavnaParty
Joined
Mar 26, 2012
Messages
5,531
Reaction score
6,867
Just a heads up Kennelers.

Get your supplies in for tonight...popcorn, all the usual Thanksgiving food, pop the champagne.

ABC Planet America Inauguration Special.

I imagine they will be crossing for the Trump Farewell Military Parade at 6am USA time. Marching bands, flyover, 21 gun salute, lots of saluting.

I'm just staying up for The Don's Farewell.
It's gonna be tremendous. Largest numbers ever for a departing President.
Thanks for the heads up can’t wait
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top