SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Trump impeached for 'inciting' US Capitol riots:
The US House of Representatives has impeached President Donald Trump for "incitement of insurrection" at last week's Capitol riot.
Ten Republicans sided with Democrats to impeach the president by 232-197.
He is the first president in US history to be impeached twice, or charged with crimes by Congress.
Mr Trump, a Republican, will now face a trial in the Senate, where if convicted he could face being barred from ever holding office again.
But Mr Trump will not have to quit the White House before his term in office ends in one week because the Senate will not reconvene in time.
Mr Trump will leave office on 20 January, following his election defeat last November to Democrat Joe Biden.
The Democratic-controlled House voted after several hours of impassioned debate on Wednesday as armed National Guard troops stood guard inside and outside the Capitol.
[...] Impeachment charges are political, not criminal.
Also at Newsweek, c|net, Al Jazeera, Washington Post.
[Ed Note - The linked article has been revised since submission. The quoted text has been revised accordingly. - Fnord]
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday January 13 2021, @10:33PM (89 children)
10 Republicans voted in favor this time around. (Six said they would ahead of time).
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Tork on Wednesday January 13 2021, @10:42PM (68 children)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Insightful) by slinches on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:30AM (67 children)
Yeah, better stomp that resolve right out of them. We want a fearful and compliant populace that will just woefully accept their fates as lower class fodder undeserving of the right to free speech or autonomy. We the intelligent and enlightened elite know those rights are dangerous and viciously quashing any attempt at expressing them is really in their own best interest.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:40AM (45 children)
Thank you for illustrating my point. 🤡
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Troll) by slinches on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:54AM (44 children)
The point that you think our elected representatives should be using their office to go after people because of a personal vendetta?
I'm disappointed that none of the Democrats were willing to buck their party or rise above their hatred enough to support first amendment principles. You may not agree with what the president said, but he did not call for violence. By the same standard any president who speaks in support of a demonstration that subsequently turns to violence should be impeached.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:26AM (20 children)
Nope, the point about ignorant people being filled with resolve.
He spoke, they descended, and it's not like they had much more than just his word to go on.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:43AM
He said they were going to cheer on the Congresspeople who were violating the Constitution, and "not cheering so much" for others. That is a blatant incitement to violence. "Not cheer so much"= "Nice bidness youse got there. Be a shame if something were to happen to it." Trump playing mob boss, again, or still. Like telling cops to not protect the head of people they arrest, it is all rightwing dogwhistling. If you insist on a literal reading, you are complicit. Nice opinion you got there! Be a shame, ya know, if, . . .
(Score: 5, Insightful) by slinches on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:43AM (18 children)
It matters what he actually said. If there were no direct calls for violence, just emotionally charged rhetoric, then there's no crime there. He charged up a crowd for a protest, which then turned violent. Should we remove all of the politicians from office who spoke ahead of the BLM riots too?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @02:15AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXAv2cDkWAA
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/13/fact-check-democrats-have-condemned-violence-linked-protests/3317862001/
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11572-017-9427-8
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @02:46AM
Until today I had absolutely no idea that an incitement charge requires the accused to confess their crime as they commit it.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Gaaark on Thursday January 14 2021, @03:29AM (15 children)
What matters is intent: what he WANTED to have happen.
Adolf Hitler only said, "We need to find a final solution to the Jewish problem". What he WANTED to have happen happened.
Donald Trump said, "Stand down and STAND BY" and "We’re going to have to fight much harder" and "You’ll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength. You have to be strong.". What he WANTED to have happen happened.
People without knowledge of the past and without the ability to see Trump for his personal failures don't seem to see this, but it IS PLAIN TO SEE for those who know Trump for what he is: a Hitler wannabe. If he hadn't these personal failures, he might have been more successful, but his inability to accept failing led to his downfall. He was a poor leader because he WANTED to be a dictator.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by requerdanos on Thursday January 14 2021, @04:13AM (5 children)
Um, Godwin?
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday January 14 2021, @04:17AM
Ya gots to do what's ya gots to do! ;)
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @05:05AM (1 child)
If the shoe fits...
I'm not specifically referring to the riots themselves, but rather the big lie [wikipedia.org] started months before the election that it was going to be "rigged."
And when the preferred result was not achieved, the volume was amped up on false claims of "fraud."
I'd point out that not one (that is *zero*) of the lawsuits filed by Trump and his cronies even *alleged* fraud. In fact, when actually in court (where there are penalties for lying), Trump's lawyers explicitly said they did not allege fraud.
But that didn't stop the liars, those same lawyers among them, from screaming about "rigged" and "stolen" elections and all manner of flat out lies in the media.
Which whipped up those who believed the bullshit and is what mostly contributed to the mayhem at the Capitol on 6 January.
So yes, Trump & company most certainly incited these folks. But it wasn't just the speeches on 6 January, it was months of lies, misinformation and demonizing anyone who wouldn't toe the line as traitors.
Taken together, it's a textbook example of the big lie [wikipedia.org], which was pioneered by Hitler himself.
So Godwinning is permissible in this case, methinks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @07:42AM
methinks youthinks goodthinks
(Score: 2) by ze on Friday January 15 2021, @12:36AM
Godwin applies to the hyperbolic use in online discussions of arbitrary topics. It is explicitly not about an appropriate comparison.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @08:22AM
"By all means, compare these shitheads to Nazis. Again and again. I'm with you"
(Score: 2, Troll) by slinches on Thursday January 14 2021, @05:46AM (7 children)
Or maybe you're seeing what you want to. You created this caricature of an orange tinged devil and see his words and actions through that lens, twisting anything he says or does to reinforce the image that he is evil.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @07:46AM
Nope, sober assessment of his past actions and character. Easy example is Trump saying, "I could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose any supporters." Real stable non-evil statement there, and that is just his superficial locker-room evil. Do you need a new brain?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @09:28AM (4 children)
I'm a native New Yorker and Donald Trump has been in the news here since I was child in the 1970s.
I don't think he's *evil*. Rather, over the past 40 years or so he's shown us that he's greedy, selfish, unmoored from reality, ready to trash anyone or anything that bruises his fragile ego, ready to smash anything -- no matter how precious or important -- in a childish rage if he doesn't get what he wants. And most of all, he craves adulation and notoriety, deserved or not.
Add to that a severe lack of intellectual curiosity and and addict's penchant for always blaming someone else, and you have quite a piece of work.
No. Trump isn't evil in the sense of being a cackling, malevolent, bent on world domination/destruction bad guy. Trump is a spoiled, greedy, selfish, unpleasant egomaniac with no concept of empathy, fairness or the value of anything unless it benefits him personally.
And I could have told you that 15 years ago or 25 years ago, had you asked. It's nothing new. He's always been that way.
And since I'd learned decades ago that he was a worthless human being, I always ignored him. And I was shocked to see him do so well. I mean it's not like he hides who he is.
I didn't and don't need to see him for anything other than he is, the same guy he's always been. Nor do I need to "twist anything he says," because I knew what he was all along.
But soon he'll shuffle off to Florida and can be nasty and difficult with his family and the other objects around him that he finds useful.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'll just go back to ignoring him as I mostly have for the last 40+ years.
And good riddance to bad garbage.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @11:03AM (2 children)
Doesn't that say something about how bad people found Hillary then, if they voted for that guy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:01PM
Actually, it tells me more about how uninformed, un-engaged and susceptible to misinformation, propaganda and outright lies many people are than anything else.
As the ridiculous lies about the most recent election proved, once again, in spades.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday January 15 2021, @09:20AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday January 14 2021, @03:40PM
That's a description of Adolf Hitler... evil? You decide.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday January 16 2021, @02:36AM
Well, the entire world is laughing at him and his supporters, especially Putin. See what YOU want to see but yeah: the whole world can't believe what an ass he is.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16 2021, @12:09AM
"Adolf Hitler only said, "We need to find a final solution to the Jewish problem". What he WANTED to have happen happened."
Try learning a little about what really happened in ww2. You're just regurgitating Jew lies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @02:25AM
There is it free soda h with conspiracies. He brought this group together. Telling them the electro on was stolen. He posts a wild time. Need to fight for your country
The 150 republican that also backed the crazy talk after the roit, should be flushed too
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday January 14 2021, @04:33PM (14 children)
However, he encouraged a group that were intent on violence.
Same nett result.
Just because he's stupid and doesn't understand the consequences of his outbursts doesn't mean he's not responsible for them.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by slinches on Thursday January 14 2021, @10:26PM (13 children)
You are implying that this particular group was obviously and grossly more intent on violence than any other large protest when the president gave his speech. There's a lot of rhetoric and visual signaling that uses violent imagery, so if you go dissect the posts from tens of thousand of random people who are upset about something, there's likely to be language and images that would imply that any large protest may be intent on violence. How was this one so different than any other major demonstration? And how can you be sure that Trump was aware of that before he spoke?
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday January 15 2021, @09:23AM (12 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by slinches on Friday January 15 2021, @03:40PM (11 children)
No your argument doesn't stand without imminent and clearly exceptional likelihood of violence prior to the speech or direct and exceptionally forceful calls for violence in it. Those are the minimum standards for incitement and if you want to lower them, then you should start by working to repeal the first amendment.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday January 15 2021, @04:55PM (10 children)
Well it's a good job that there was imminent and clearly exceptional likelyhood of violence prior to the speech. They were a bone dry tinder that needed very little spark, and they clearly went there tooled up. Everyone with a functional brain could see this. Side with Trump if you wish, but you must realise you're siding with the braindead.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by slinches on Friday January 15 2021, @05:23PM (9 children)
You could say that about pretty much any of the protests over the last few years regardless of what the subject was. There were no incitement charges or removals of politicians who spoke in support of any of those that turned violent.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Sunday January 17 2021, @10:14AM (8 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by slinches on Monday January 18 2021, @12:07AM (7 children)
It isn't "whataboutism" to look at other examples to determine a basis to compare a specific event against when there isn't an objective standard to use. But I'd guess you would rather score debate points with those that can't tell the difference than have a meaningful discussion.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday January 18 2021, @01:35AM (6 children)
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by slinches on Monday January 18 2021, @04:08AM (5 children)
That post makes it perfectly clear what you are here for ...
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday January 18 2021, @05:02PM (4 children)
Having you repeat the illogic helps make my point.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by slinches on Monday January 18 2021, @05:18PM (3 children)
And your posts only reinforce my point about you. All you want to do is deflect, deny and discredit anyone who disagrees with you. That's not discussion or debate and it only leads to people retrenching their positions and further widening divisions. That kind of disingenuous bullshit is a serious problem and shouldn't be accepted because it prevents people from actually engaging with each other and having a productive conversation.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday January 18 2021, @07:17PM (2 children)
Blimey, I can see you're really enjoying the new shovel you got for christmas. Digging like your life depends on it.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by slinches on Monday January 18 2021, @07:34PM (1 child)
You know no one else is reading this thread at this point, right? So you can stop trying to score points. If you want to continue the discussion then actually explain how you go about making an incitement case without establishing context around similar events. But I think you won't because the answer to that question undermines your assertions (they aren't arguments unless you are willing to back them up and engage in actual debate)
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Tuesday January 19 2021, @08:18AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Insightful) by barbara hudson on Friday January 15 2021, @02:57AM (6 children)
He tried to interfere with the transfer of power to the duly elected government. That's what traitors do.
He's guilty of treason, and an attempt to overthrow the government. "Find me 11,780 votes" is sufficient for high crimes and misdemeanours, because the intended result is to overturn the election - a banana-republic coup.
As commander-in-chief, he should be tried by a military tribunal. And then shot.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Friday January 15 2021, @04:33AM (4 children)
If they had found more than that number of fraudulent or missing votes would you feel any differently? Of course not, you would think that he made them up. So, whether or not there was election fraud, the party with fewer votes trying to find election fraud is treasonous. Good to know you will adamantly refuse to support recounts and fraud accusations if Trump somehow comes back and wins in 2024.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday January 16 2021, @02:47AM (3 children)
What? There WERE recounts: recounts and court cases and it all yielded NOTHING!
Reality, meet slinches.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by slinches on Saturday January 16 2021, @06:44AM (2 children)
You see, there's this thing called a hypothetical question. It's a sort of thought experiment where you take something that isn't or may not be true, but you consider it anyway.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday January 16 2021, @11:52PM (1 child)
Okay, making progress: can you do a thought experiment for me? Can you imagine that Trump is a narcissist, an incorrigible liar, delusional with dreams of being God and will throw you under the bus whenever it suits him (like he's doing with Giuliani and all the staff he hired/put into position because they were the best and then fired as soon as they turned on him and started to think he WASN'T as smart as they thought and was completely incompetent?
Consider it anyway: the rest of the world has and realize he's a miniscule phallus.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by slinches on Sunday January 17 2021, @05:37AM
How does any of that make any difference to whether or not a crime was committed? I wasn't defending the President's character, I was defending the rule of law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16 2021, @12:20AM
Biden's reanimated corpse and his Diversity Camel were not duly elected. That's the problem, for Trump voters, anyways.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by slinches on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:42AM (19 children)
By the way, that sentiment goes for anyone who wanted to find ways to stop BLM demonstrations as well as the capitol protesters. We should prosecute those who commit acts of vandalism and violence when demonstrations get out of hand, but further action beyond that is usually vengeance and oppression rather than justice.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:47AM (16 children)
Capitol insurrectionists. Once you trespass, vandalize, and murder you are well past "demonstrate" and "protest." Hence why we make a distinction between the BLM protesters and rioters.
Right now you must condemn the domestic terrorists, and if someone suggests rounding up even the people that did not invade the capitol THEN you can get on your high horse.
(Score: 3, Informative) by slinches on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:04AM (15 children)
No roundups yet, but they are being deplatformed from social media, deplaned and otherwise generally harassed.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @02:07AM (1 child)
Yes, that is what we call consequences for their actions. Don't want to be treated like a terrorist? Don't invade the nation's capitol! I don't recall you getting upset when non-violent BLM protesters were maimed, gassed, and arrested for exercising their 1st amendment rights. Be glad the domestic terrorists weren't executed as they invaded the capitol with intent to kill, we all know a BLM protest would have been gunned down if they switched to invasion.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @06:09AM
How is this insightful?
The GPP points out that the people who weren't involved, maybe weren't anywhere near the capitol, are getting kicks and curses - and the parent somehow turns that into payback for invading the capitol?
Is the insight that the PP has reading comprehension problems?
(Score: 2) by helel on Thursday January 14 2021, @05:23AM (12 children)
They're not getting "deplaned." Right now insurrection isn't technically considered terrorism [forbes.com] and so they're still free to fly so long as they can keep their damn mask on.
As for the deplatforming... Maybe when you've just failed to pull off a coup how twitter feels bout you shouldn't be at the top of your list of concerns? Surly Trump has more pressing issues, like getting his ass to Russia before Biden is inaugurated.
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by slinches on Thursday January 14 2021, @05:48AM (11 children)
https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/delta-flight-trump-supporters-kicked-off-b1785312.html [independent.co.uk]
(Score: 2) by helel on Thursday January 14 2021, @07:15AM (10 children)
Given the strong overlap between Trump loyalists and those unwilling to keep their damn masks on... [youtube.com]
Or to put it another way, do you think sedition should somehow privilege them to ignore the rules everyone else is required to follow?
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by slinches on Thursday January 14 2021, @02:54PM (7 children)
I guess blaming the victim is okay here since they are people you don't like.
(Score: 2) by helel on Thursday January 14 2021, @03:04PM (6 children)
So you think committing treason should give them the privilege of flying without a mask on?
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by slinches on Thursday January 14 2021, @06:11PM (5 children)
They weren't kicked off for not wearing masks. They were kicked off for being "unruly" which some are claiming was just some minimal voicing of support for the President.
(Score: 3, Touché) by helel on Thursday January 14 2021, @07:09PM (1 child)
And others are claiming was refusal to keep their masks on. Given the video of them refusing to wear their masks and the common regard for honesty among Trump supporters, well I guess we each draw different conclusions from the presented evidence...
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by slinches on Thursday January 14 2021, @09:45PM
In other words, those people (in this case Trump supporters) aren't trustworthy, so they must have done something to deserve it.
Biasing your judgement of the evidence based on who that person is is always problematic. The people who got kicked off either violated the rules or they didn't. If they did, it was warranted. If they didn't, they were being treated unfairly based on political affiliation. So far I haven't seen anything beyond a claim of "unruly" behavior from a PR person at the airline and the complaints by the people who got kicked off. It's possible either are true, but what you've posted so far only tells me that you think victim blaming is okay as long as you personally dislike the victim.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @08:41PM (2 children)
"which some are claiming was just some minimal voicing of support for the President"
Suddenly conservatives want us to believe "claims" and be understanding of "context" yet they are happy to excuse the murder of a black person because they committed a low level crime, or excuse the murderer Shittenhouse because they people that tried to apprehend him for murder had criminal records. One guy was a pedophile(?) which is nasty, but he deserves murder? Not to mention the hypocrisy where Republicans elect known pedophiles REPEATEDLY!
Whinge some more, the schadenfreude is off the charts as you've burned through all of our empathy outside of real abuses.
(Score: 2, Touché) by helel on Thursday January 14 2021, @10:16PM (1 child)
No no, let's be fair. In cases like George Floyd we have a video proving that murder was willfully committed by the police officer in question and conservatives claim the evidence doesn't matter and that we should take the cops word over what we see with out own eyes.
This is actually quite consistent. We have video of the people in question refusing to wear their masks in the airport and slinches wants us to ignore the evidence we can see for our selves and take the insurrectionists claims at face value.
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @11:10PM
Yeah, I was just talking about the rationale they use. It is disturbing to see them suddeny so very concerned about context and they're not even being illegally murdered.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 16 2021, @12:24AM (1 child)
fuck you and your mask, you stupid bitch
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday January 16 2021, @03:18AM
Careful: your intelligence is showing.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Saturday January 16 2021, @03:13AM (1 child)
" We should prosecute those who commit acts of vandalism and violence when demonstrations get out of hand,"
Good! Now we agree that Trump should be prosecuted: he committed violence against peaceful protesters by pepper spraying them just for a photo op!
Prosecute Trump for his violence!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 2, Informative) by slinches on Saturday January 16 2021, @07:31AM
What are you talking about? The only incident that I recall, it was the secret service who used the pepper spray in the process of clearing an area ahead of a visit by the President. If that is the incident you're referring to. It may warrant further investigation and if the use of pepper spray is determined to be excessive force, then that agent should be face disciplinary measures or charges depending on the severity of the infraction just like any other member of law enforcement. I have no idea what legal basis you think there would be for charging the President himself for that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @06:33AM
You'd be better off stomping on ignorance instead.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 13 2021, @10:45PM (8 children)
It's also worth noting that apparently some that didn't did so because they believed they or their families would be killed if they joined in. And of course there's plans to attack all 50 state capitols again this weekend, and Congress again next week.
If you thought that the president's goons had stood down after they lost the battle last Wednesday, you're very wrong. And apparently a lot of them also have escaped arrest so far.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @11:04PM (7 children)
Yeah, why do you think Runawya is continuing his radicalization journals and comments? Gotta keep the incels outraged and thinking they have support to commit violence. Putin is partying right now and I bet they have some sort of drinking game bingo going with US headlines.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 13 2021, @11:34PM (6 children)
Runaway is probably not a Russian agent though. I know we want to think that anyone acting like him has got to be doing it for some rational if evil reason (Russian payola in this case) but everything I know points to this being just who and what he is. Report him to the alphabet-soup agencies if he keeps it up. I've been warning this forum for ages about him and no one's fucking listening till now.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @11:57PM (4 children)
Yes so you keep saying, but I stand by my assessment. His shit is so far out there and he vacillates back and forth between reasonable and insane too frequently. Since I have no definitive proof I reserve the possibility that he really is totally nuts, I'd probably go 80/20 russian/moron.
Either way the feds should investigate his origins, and if he is a US citizen his home should be searched for his admitted illegal weapons and computer searched for ties to domestic terrorists.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:24AM (1 child)
So let's report him then. I'm still trying to figure out the best place/which agency to start with.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:56AM
FBI is the place to start. We've seen what reporting does though, a whole lotta nothing. Mostly just triggering keywords to make their forensics easier when he does flip his lid. Seriously, that RV bomber was reported for literally building a bomb not just terrorist talk on a forum and they still did nothing.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:27AM
I blame lead poisoning. Seriously, that whole generation is riddled with the shit and those are the exact symptoms.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday January 15 2021, @03:05AM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday January 15 2021, @09:33AM
[X] Useful for the destruction of the nation from within
So: Useful idiot?
Bonus question:
Krushchev has fired _____ shots.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by istartedi on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:06AM (1 child)
Genesis 18:
26 And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes.
27 And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord, which am but dust and ashes:
28 Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it.
29 And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake.
30 And he said unto him, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there.
31 And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the Lord: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake.
32 And he said, Oh let not the Lord be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.
33 And the Lord went his way, as soon as he had left communing with Abraham: and Abraham returned unto his place.
Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:08AM
You are assuming these 10 Republican congress critters are "righteous". Honestly, I think you are being far too charitable. Just sayin'.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by srobert on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:57AM (8 children)
Well this time around it was simple. The Ukraine-gate based impeachment was total bullshit. This time he's actually guilty.
(Score: 2, Flamebait) by slinches on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:29AM (7 children)
Of what? ... using strong language in a political speech? If that's cause for impeachment, then every politician should be removed from office.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @02:50AM (6 children)
>> This time he's actually guilty
> Of what?
Of spending the last four months spreading unfounded lies in an effort to de-legitimize the election results in the minds of his followers in preparation for his coup attempt. Trump's own security chief stated that, "The November 3rd election was the most secure in American history." Of firing all the civilian oversight of the military in preparation for his coup attempt (but the military didn't play along). Of pressuring Republican Governors to invalidate legitimate ballots to change the election results in their states. Of directing his followers to show up at the capitol before the vote was to be certified, and saying this, in his speech to his supporters who heeded that call:
While exhorting his supporters to join him at the exact place and time that the vote was to be certified (he never joined them-- probably expecting violence). For what reason, to intimidate the congress critters (his supporters had bombs, guns, pepper spray, rope tied into nooses, handcuffs, and other weapons)? Or, as his apologists say it was so they could all sing kumbaya? He did add a single line in his speech that things should be peaceful-- it looks like this was just an attempt at plausible deniability. His actions and statements taken as a whole for the last several months indicate he wanted a coup.
Then, after his supporters, planted bombs and stormed the capitol building chanting, "Hang Pence" and "Kill Pelosi" and beat to death a cop (with flags, and finally crushing the cop's skull in with a fire extinguisher), Trump told these insurrectionist terrorist supporters, he "loved them", and still refused to concede-- had he conceded, this would all be over, but he didn't want the violence to end.
Trump was and is a dangerous and unstable man. And, if allowed, he will likely try to run again in 2024. Impeachment + conviction in the Senate will prevent him from being eligible.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Thursday January 14 2021, @06:03AM (5 children)
You are assigning intent based on your own assumption that Trump is evil and wants bad things to happen. He used emotional rhetoric to rile up the crowd, but there's no reason to think that the intent was for anything more to happen than a big, loud and peaceful protest to help sway as many congressmen to support the objections to electors as possible.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @08:43PM (2 children)
Using Trump's past words and actions against him is now assuming? Hmm, you keep using that word slinches but I do not think it means what you think it means.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Thursday January 14 2021, @10:04PM (1 child)
Yes, unless his words and actions definitively state that he intended that protest to turn violent. So, unless you have quotes from Trump saying that he wanted a violent overthrow of congress or have video of him giving the rioters weapons or something, you are assuming his intent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @11:17PM
I am not assuming his intent, from his words to his (in)actions during the insurrection there is no doubt. His second impeachment shows that even ten Republicans agree, so good luck in court you trumpy cunts. Wonder if we'll see your username around here in a few months as the stink of supporting the turdler settles in. Woops, I used a personal attack, that must invalidate everything I say! Or maybe I'm a Republican, then it is okee dokee artichokee.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday January 15 2021, @03:08AM (1 child)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @03:59AM
Yeah, and of course they excuse that one with "but the election was a fraud, he just wanted to find the votes that were thrown away."
I think we need new laws to punish this level of lying, at least holding politicians and law enforcement to higher standards. When in office individuals do not get to spout baseless conspiracy theories and will suffer legal repercussions if they do.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @10:43PM (103 children)
Instead of spending their time working across the isle to unite the country and heal wounds and to confirm Biden's cabinet so everyone can be ready to go by the time Biden takes office Congress is too busy focusing on petty grudges. What's best for the American people is not as important as petty grudges.
I'm not even sure why they are impeaching him. Expressing his opinion that the elections were rigged is not the same as inciting violence. It's dishonest to conflate the two. Trump was clear that he is opposed to the violence that happened at capital hill. Expressing your free speech should be protected. Inciting violence should not be. Guilt by association is not how the founding fathers wanted this country to be ran. People should individually and independently be held accountable for their own actions, you don't hold people that had nothing to do with a crime accountable for the crimes of others. This is how Japan used to work. This is how China and perhaps Russia work.
Why don't we just blame the people that distributed police abuse footage for inciting violence. It wouldn't have happened had no one been aware that such abuse happened.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @10:48PM (42 children)
"I'm not even sure why they are impeaching him. Expressing his opinion that the elections were rigged is not the same as inciting violence."
Maybe, before the Capitol breach. Trump literallly egged on the mob, real time, to bust in and mess up the vote counting.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @10:53PM (41 children)
[citation needed]
(Score: 4, Funny) by Tork on Wednesday January 13 2021, @10:55PM (40 children)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @11:10PM (5 children)
Nope, Google's just obviously biased.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @11:24PM
bugger off troll
(Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday January 13 2021, @11:40PM (2 children)
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 1, Touché) by fustakrakich on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:03AM (1 child)
Sometimes Google Translate produces humorous results
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:10AM
Tried to use it while traveling once, poor guy looked at me like I was crazy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:12AM
Yeah!!! Because they keep doing scurrilous things like accurately quoting what Trump said! How dare they!!!
(Score: 2) by slinches on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:12AM (33 children)
I searched and didn't find any direct incitement of violence. You are the one claiming it exists, so provide the examples or accept that they don't exist.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Tork on Thursday January 14 2021, @02:09AM (32 children)
You know the riot occurred. You know the riot was violent. You know Vice President was targeted. You know WHY the VP was targeted. You know the VP had to call in for help because the P didn't. You know the motivation of the riot. You know that the motivation for the riot was composed entirely of rhetoric and no actual evidence. You're certainly capable of hearing the accused exact words cos he broadcast them... of course I"ll admit that my faith may be badly placed as I am saying this to someone who confessed they cannot find an American President's controversial speech on a search engine. 🙄 I'm sure you'd just love to nitpick the meaning of 'incite' like we're two assholes playing debate games on the green site, but I'm not game this time.
Trump caused that riot. If you want to discuss how culpable he should be for that, I'm game. I doubt it would shock you that I want to see charges brought up against him, BUT the bit you probably aren't thinking about right now is that I also want the subsequent trial to be fair, even if that means he walks. What sort of leeway should an American President have when he's standing at a podium? Happy to talk about that. If it turns out the riot was coming anyway, should he be charged for that? Hey I'll entertain that one, too. You want me to run to Google because you're skeptical but won't look it up on your own? Go fuck yourself.
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @03:40AM
Well if that isn't the longest "I know you are but what am I" come back I've read all day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @04:01AM
It would have been quicker to give him a link rather than type all that.
https://www.youtube.com/embed/BRZEs9BRGK4 [youtube.com] See, just two lines.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Thursday January 14 2021, @05:01AM (29 children)
I found the speech and a lot of generic accusations of incitement. What I didn't find was anything specific in the speech that was a direct call for violence or any extraordinary incitement of specific illegal actions. Yes it was provocative and intended to rile up the crowd. So is every other speech at a protest or political rally. I don't see how the president's words would have been something that remarkable if it hadn't gotten out of hand. He was the focus of the whole thing and he helped stir the pot that eventually boiled over. Maybe in hindsight you can say he went too far, but if you apply that same standard to everyone, most politicians at the national stage would be guilty of the same offense.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @05:16AM (28 children)
You're right. And we should.
If any politician engages in the big lie [wikipedia.org] like Trump and his cronies did WRT the election, and some people end up injuring and killing and/or damaging property, then they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, regardless of party or position.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @05:49AM (23 children)
The only big lie here is the claim that expressing your opinion that the election was rigged somehow makes you responsible for inciting violence. That's a big dishonest lie. As stated before, claiming the election was rigged should be considered protected speech. Inciting violence shouldn't be. The type of person that would conflate the two is dishonest and the fact that some democrats are dishonest enough to conflate the two doesn't give me a lot of confidence that they wouldn't seek to rig the elections.
I'm not saying the election was or wasn't rigged. But I almost wish I can take the position that it was rigged just to make the point that this is not the same as inciting violence. Unfortunately I don't really hold a strong position on whether or not the election was rigged and to what extent this might have resulted in Trump's loss if it was. I do think the election had poor security WRT tamper resistance though. It certainly wasn't the 'the most secure election in history', lol, as the DHS (at least according to CNN) claims.
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2020/11/13/dhs-election-most-secure-history-trump-biden-burnett-opening-ebof-vpx.cnn [cnn.com]
I think people do have legitimate concerns over election integrity. This doesn't mean the election was rigged and that this resulted in Trump's loss but I do think those concerns need to be looked at.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @06:16AM (22 children)
Then you are either being deliberately ignorant or just flat lying.
Facts matter. And the facts are out there and matters of public record.
https://electioncases.osu.edu/2021/01/summary-of-post-election-cases/ [osu.edu]
Go and look at what the big lie [wikipedia.org] is. What Trump and his ilk did WRT the election is a textbook case.
And amping up those lies whipped those who were hoodwinked by them into a frenzy. It wasn't just foreseeable that this would happen (and many did foresee it), but almost inevitable -- because of the Big Lie.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @06:36AM (21 children)
When someone goes to vote each ballot should have an unbroken chain of custody from the voter up until the election is finalized. Mail in ballots break that chain of custody. I don't know if the vote originated from the voter or from the printer that printed a bunch of ballots. I don't know if the voter list is being stuffed.
Furthermore voters should present a photo ID and be crossed off a list before turning in their vote. They can fill out their vote at home but everyone should individually turn in their ballots in person.
The fact that tamper resistance was very poor during this election, and it was, does raise legitimate concerns.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @06:43AM (20 children)
The law seems to disagree with you.
Fortunately, we have mechanisms to change our laws.
If you don't like the law, then perhaps you should avail yourself of those mechanisms.
Or do you not believe in our system of government?
(Score: 2) by slinches on Thursday January 14 2021, @07:02AM (6 children)
That's another legitimate issue with this election. The election laws were changed outside of the normal process through emergency administrative powers that had never been used this way before and it's debatable whether that is legal. If they had gone through the state legislatures to expand mail in balloting, move deadlines and change observation procedures, then it would be a different story. It's true that some of these changes probably did need to happen due to the pandemic, but they weren't done the right way and that opens up the possibility that someone decided to take advantage of the situation to try to influence the outcome.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @07:21AM (5 children)
I almost feel like I'm arguing with a bot or a minimum waged shill. The AC that you and I are responding to doesn't seem to be addressing our posts, doesn't seem to be addressing the issues of voter integrity, doesn't seem to be able to understand the basic principle that expressing your views that the election is rigged is not the same as inciting violence. They just seem to be repeating CNN talking points and not engaging in an actual discussion. Its comments are so irrelevant to the discussion that it's almost like it's a bot that's picking up random words and pasting a generic response back. It's like arguing with the government or a large organization's automated system/response to a complaint. No real engagement.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @08:11AM (4 children)
AC you're pissing and moaning about here. Sorry, not a bot or a shill.
I'll take these one at a time.
Widespread fraud in US elections is damn near impossible. Each county runs their own elections, all 3,143 of them.
And each of those 3,143 counties have their own election boards, election commissioners (of both major parties), poll workers, polling/canvassing observers (for each candidate from every party on each of 3,143 different ballots).
There are tens of thousands of people involved with interested observers from all sides watching the voting and the counting.
As such, some sort of widespread conspiracy makes no sense. As Ben Franklin is purported to have said, "three can keep a secret, if two of them are dead." Thousands? I think not.
What's more, more than 60 lawsuits (heard by judges of all political stripes, many of whom were appointed by Trump himself) in seven states showed no evidence of voting irregularities that could have affected the outcome.
Note that I said "irregularities" and not "fraud" or "cheating." Because except for those whack jobs Powell and Lin, who were laughed out of court for, not lack of evidence, but no evidence at all, none of the other lawsuits even alleged, let alone provided any evidence of fraud.
It was a prime example of The Big Lie. And it worked.
As far as election "integrity" is concerned, the "argument" presented had no real evidence or facts behind them.
As to whether or not courts and executive branch agencies interpreted the law, that's what they're *supposed* to do.
The legislature passes a law.
With election laws, just like many other laws, implementation details are left to the agencies tasked with implementing them. They did so.
As for the courts, where there is a legal controversy regarding the law, they are the forum for litigating those laws. This is Znot a new concept [wikipedia.org].
The legislature can (and often does) go back and change the law if they disagree with either of the above.
That's how our system works.
I never said anything even *approaching* that. Rather, I said that Trump and his cronies whipped up those who were suckered by his lies about rampant fraud and the result wasn't just predictable, it was widely predicted:
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/11/will-election-get-violent/616875/ [theatlantic.com]
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/10/27/why-the-risk-of-election-violence-is-high/ [brookings.edu]
https://www.npr.org/2020/10/29/928791633/guns-protests-and-elections-do-not-mix-conflict-experts-see-rising-warning-signs [npr.org]
I haven't actually watched CNN in years, so I don't know what their "talking points" are, nor would I care if I did. I'm smart enough to do my own research and decide for myself. You might try it sometime.
It's only "irrelevant" because you don't like what I have to say.
Frankly, I don't care. Don't like it? Make a *reasonable*, *factual* argument. And I'll respond in kind.
Otherwise, fuck off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @11:40AM (3 children)
"Widespread fraud in US elections is damn near impossible."
First of all this is not what the democrats were saying when they were claiming that the Russians interfered with the elections. Or when Al Gore kept wanting a recount. Now much more legitimate concerns of poor election integrity are raised and you suddenly hold the position that fraud is near impossible. The hypocrisy is hilarious.
"Each county runs their own elections, all 3,143 of them."
What does this have to do with the fact that the election in at least some of those locations had very poor tamper resistance measures in place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:17PM (2 children)
Who, *exactly*, said "Russian interference caused widespread voter *fraud*" "Or that Russians changed votes" or that any of that was significant enough to alter the outcome of the election?
Did Clinton or her cronies straight-up *lie* about the results of the election? Did any of them claim victory *before* the votes were counted?
Go ahead, look it up. I'll wait.
But I can tell you I didn't say or do *any* of those things.
Trump, Guiliani, countless R state and federal elected officials repeated flat-out *lies* that the election was stolen. For *months*.
And many of them are *still* spouting outright lies, with full knowledge of their dishonesty.
There is no real comparison there. You're just making yourself look foolish.
As for Al Gore, we're talking about *one county* with a difference of ~500 votes. Even then, IIRC, the issue wasn't resolved by counting the votes, as it was this year, was it?
Regardless, once the courts ruled on the cases (just the one in the Florida state court and the one in the Supreme Court), Gore accepted the result and conceded.
This year? 60 lawsuits. No evidence of widespread fraud or irregularities that would have changed the results of the election.
States certified their elections. The electors voted. The House and Senate *counted* (because all they had the power to do was count) those votes.
And Trump, et al are *still* spouting out and out lies.
Those are false comparisons and you know it.
I addressed that in a different comment. And again, you provided no evidence there, just specious claims.
Yeah, there's hypocrisy, but it ain't coming from me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @02:05PM (1 child)
"Who, *exactly*, said "Russian interference caused widespread voter *fraud*" "Or that Russians changed votes" or that any of that was significant enough to alter the outcome of the election?"
Don't play stupid, Hillary tried to blame the Russians for the outcome of the elections. It's not even clear what her argument was but why did she bring it up if she didn't think it affected the outcome. At least in this case there is a clear argument that elections lacked tamper resistance measures.
It may be your opinion that the elections were not stolen. I don't necessarily disagree with you. It may be their opinion that the elections were stolen. They should have every right to express their opinion and blaming them for the violence at Capitol hill just because they expressed their opinions is dishonest
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @08:07PM
Actually, they say that is their opinion. Quite possibly they know it is a lie, and are only saying so to provoke violence. Saying some has a right to an incorrect opinion, ignorantly held, is not the same as a right to lie. So they are responsible for the violence at the Capitol because they intentionally incited it, and to claim they did not know what they were doing is disingenious at best, and mendacious at worst. Trump is a born liar. The best liar ever. Some people are saying he lies so well that he could incite a riot without even leading it!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @07:05AM (12 children)
"The law seems to disagree with you."
Which misses the point. The point is that there are legitimate concerns of voter integrity.
"Fortunately, we have mechanisms to change our laws."
By discussing the problems with our laws so that more people can encourage our politicians to change them.
"Or do you not believe in our system of government?"
I believe in free speech. I think free speech is important in discussing how we should be governed. If enough people disagree with our laws we can discuss it and encourage our politicians to change them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @08:24AM (11 children)
Are there?
What are those concerns? Where is the evidence to back up those concerns?
If there are problems with our elections, that's of vital importance to *everyone* and we need to address them.
No rush. I'll wait.
But provide real arguments and real evidence or you're the one just repeating someone's "talking points."
Absolutely. But let's stick to the facts.
Good. Free speech is a very good thing.
But as the old saw goes, "we have two ears and one mouth for a reason."
We can't discuss unless we can listen and understand those with who we're discussing. Otherwise, you're just talking at each other.
As such, when someone presents an argument with facts and evidence to support that argument, it's important to make the effort to understand that argument and those facts rather than hurling insults and dismissing it out of hand.
You might try that sometime.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @11:47AM (10 children)
"What are those concerns? Where is the evidence to back up those concerns?"
The concerns were already raised and you simply ignored them. There were poor tamper resistance measures in place. Everyone knows that because we all participated in the election and we can see that there was poor tamper resistance measures in place.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:37PM (9 children)
I have no idea what you're talking about.
Firstly, I voted in person and not by mail this year. In fact, I've never voted by mail. For the last 25 years, mostly because the entrance to my polling place is about 25-30 feet from my home.
Secondly, I've heard nothing about "poor tamper resistance" in the press.
Please. Tell me what your *specific* concerns are. And how and where those concerns may have manifested themselves in reality.
In advance of that, I have a few thoughts:
While there are 3,143 separate elections with different procedures and policies, my understanding of mail-in ballots was that there's generally a ballot that the voter fills out, which is then placed inside a privacy envelope, then sealed and the privacy envelope signed by the voter. Then the voter places that envelope into a mailing envelope which is then sealed and sent back either via the US Mail, placed in a ballot drop box or returned to the local board of elections intake site.
If my understanding is correct, if the mailing and/or privacy envelope was opened, that would be a pretty obvious sign of tampering.
Yes, I guess you could rip open envelopes, but that would be pretty obvious. While two envelopes aren't as tamper-resistant as say, a steel lockbox or an armored car, they are *tamper-evident*.
Which seems a reasonable level of security to me.
What's your solution? A steel lockbox? Perhaps some armed guards and an armored truck to deliver completed ballots to the board of elections?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:58PM (8 children)
"Firstly, I voted in person and not by mail this year."
Which doesn't address the possible issue of vote stuffing.
https://soylentnews.org/breakingnews/comments.pl?noupdate=1&sid=41633&commentsort=0&mode=threadtos&threshold=0&highlightthresh=0&page=2&cid=1099947#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
Heck, if anything, record voter turnouts might be indicative of vote stuffing? It's what we might expect?
The issue is that you don't know where the ballot originated from. Did it originate from a voter or did it originate from the company that prints ballots.
When voters individually go to drop off their ballots one by one, present a photo ID, have their name crossed off a list, maybe have their picture taken, and drop off their ballot and there are election guards present and perhaps recording cameras guarding the ballots that get individually dropped off all the way until the election results are finalized you have much more assurance that the chain of custody for each ballot originated from a voter because the voters individually showed up.
Again, I'm not saying there was or wasn't widespread fraud. It's hard for me to really say one way or another. What I am saying is that we should have better tamper resistance measures.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:32PM (7 children)
I think tamper resistance is a poor term for what you're describing, which I guess shouldn't really surprise me.
That said, I don't agree with the premise that:
Actually, you do. Ballots are filled out by hand. What's more, as I already said they are sealed in a privacy envelope with the voter's signature (and often other information as well), and those envelopes are checked and opened by poll workers and observed by poll/canvass monitors from all parties that are on each ballot.
Which makes the idea that they were just printed off and taken from the printer to the election board patently ridiculous.
If you don't want mail-in voting of any kind, you should take that up with your state assemblyperson/senator. Assuming you can get them to listen to your batshit crazy ideas.
Good luck with that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:57PM
Wanting strong tamper resistance measures such as photo IDs being checked is not crazy. It's how other countries do it. The U.S. is the laughingstock of the world. What's crazy is how voting is currently done. If you really have nothing to hide then you should have no problems proving it by requiring stronger tamper resistance measures.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @02:07PM (5 children)
"I think tamper resistance is a poor term for what you're describing, which I guess shouldn't really surprise me."
So you can't really address the underlying issues so you resort to arguing semantics?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @06:01PM (4 children)
No. I don't see that as an issue. Because it's been documented over and over again [brennancenter.org] that Voter ID laws don't reduce (the already vanishingly small [heritage.org] amount) fraud, and mostly just disenfranchises poor people.
It's not only a non-issue, but one that reduces legal participation in free and fair elections.
That's all the feeding you get. Go waste someone else's time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @08:15PM (1 child)
Never before have I seen a troll so quickly turned to Republican stoned as with this application of the sunshine of reason and facts. Who was that Anonymous Coward?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @12:06PM
What does voter integrity have to do with being a republican or a democrat. Other countries have far better voter integrity laws than the U.S. and they tend to be more liberal and less capitalistic. Good voter integrity laws make good sense because there are many interests with deep pockets and lots of resources that would go to great lengths to undermine election outcomes. This especially includes corporate interests.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @02:27AM (1 child)
Even your own documents don't really support your claims. Let's examine your first link. It even says
"It’s important to protect the integrity of our elections. But we must be careful not to undermine free and fair access to the ballot."
So your own link agrees, we must protect voter integrity. We should aim to do both. Removing voter ID laws hurts voter integrity.
Just reading the first study in your first link it says
"Virtually all registered voters in Harris County and CD-23 who did not participate in the November 2016 election possessed one of the state approved forms of photo ID needed to cast a vote in person. All together, 97.4% and 97.8% of non-voters in Harris County and CD-23 possessed an unexpired state-approved photo ID, with these proportions rising to 98.5% and 97.9% when photo IDs that had expired within the previous four years were considered (in 2016 IDs that had expired within four years of the voting date could be used to vote in person). "
https://uh.edu/hobby/voterid2016/voterid2016.pdf [uh.edu]
(and, yes, I did skim a bit more. Though I suspect you did not even read your own links, you're just randomly googling random stuff).
WRT your second link, which again, I doubt you even read, it says
"This database is not an exhaustive or comprehensive list."
But your second link doesn't really support your claims either. Neither of your links do.
All of this really misses the point. The point is that if measures to detect voter fraud are not present then how can any study detect the voter fraud it aims to study.
The ONLY reason to be against good voter integrity laws is if you plan to cheat. I don't see any other good reason you would be against it. If you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear.
Tamper resistance measures should apply to everyone of all races. They shouldn't discriminate. If they do somehow discriminate the solution isn't to completely destroy the integrity of the election process by removing them for the sake of combating alleged discrimination. The solution is to fix the underlying problems. Get polling and ID stations out to these smaller communities. I don't mind the government paying for it. I don't even mind the federal government helping to pay for it. But for an establishment that doesn't care about minorities to use their definition of the term 'minorities' as an excuse to remove voter integrity to serve its own interests is dishonest. Those minorities should themselves be offended that they themselves are being used as an excuse to destroy election integrity. It's insulting to them.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @02:31AM
Otherwise one can just argue that 'minorities' are to blame for the total lack of voter integrity since the establishment thinks that voter integrity laws somehow discriminates against them. No, the minorities aren't to blame. The establishment that's using the minorities as an excuse to remove voter integrity laws are the ones to blame.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @05:54AM (3 children)
"and some people end up injuring and killing and/or damaging property, then they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law"
Those responsible for the property damage or the injuries/deaths are the ones that should be held accountable for their actions. Those simply expressing their views that the elections were rigged should NOT be held accountable for the actions of others. That should be protected speech and conflating expressing your viewpoints with inciting violence is dishonest.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @09:51AM (2 children)
From a legal standpoint [wikipedia.org], that's highly dependent upon context.
Not all speech is protected and the circumstances and context around that speech are relevant.
IANAL. However, you can bet your ass there are lots of folks who are lawyers looking at just that.
From a less legalistic standpoint, it's pretty clear that if Trump didn't know that this would play out in violence, he should have.
The months of lies and baseless accusations of "rigging" leading up to the election, plus the amped up lies claiming "fraud" after the election, all done by Trump and his cronies, created the situation that led to the violence at the Capitol.
In fact, many predicted the violence would happen for these reasons:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/29/election-violence-in-the-united-states-is-a-clear-and-present-danger/ [foreignpolicy.com]
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/10/27/why-the-risk-of-election-violence-is-high/ [brookings.edu]
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2020/11/will-election-get-violent/616875/ [theatlantic.com]
As such, it's clear that whatever Trump's intent, his words over the past eight months or so made the violence we've seen (so far, it ain't over yet I'd say) almost inevitable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @11:35AM (1 child)
"From a legal standpoint [wikipedia.org], that's highly dependent upon context."
Then you can just as easily argue that those that released the footage of police abuse should be held accountable for the violence that followed.
No, those that are responsible for the violence are the ones that should be held accountable. To claim otherwise is dishonest. If what you are saying is really the law then the law is broken. This is certainly not what the founding fathers had in mind.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:24PM
IANAL. If that's what the law [cornell.edu] requires (hint: it does not) then that's what the law requires.
When it comes to our legal system, we are a nation of *laws*, not a nation of random assholes on the Internet spouting whatever bullshit pops into their uninformed heads. That'd be you in case you were confused about that -- seeing as you seem confused about other things too.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday January 13 2021, @10:53PM (1 child)
Totally agreed, a childish and disgusting spectacle, waste of time (and a waste of tax dollars during a time when Americans are hurting for money). In another couple years our parliament will be like those of Eastern Europe or Africa, with the females having boob jobs and letting their tits hang braless out of their V-necked coats while the men break out into brawls and start throwing chairs and shit.
It's kinda funny, because Trump made appearances in the WWF, and yet the legislature is behaving more WWF than Trump could ever dream of. Looks like 4 years of Trump brought out everybody else's inner Trump!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @12:05AM
How many investigations totalling how many millions agains HRC? Or against Bill for lying about a blowjob? If a president lying was the real reason behind impeaching Bill then how has Trump not been impeached?
Turns out people have memories, and you dipshit traitors have finally wallowed in your own filth beyond what your hypocrisy could even slightly cover.
"Looks like 4 years of Trump brought out everybody else's inner Trump!"
Your attempt at blaming others for your own poor choices shows everyone that you have been fully aware of your actions.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 13 2021, @10:58PM (31 children)
Ah yes, the old "Why u mad, bro?" argument.
As more evidence has come out over the last week, it's pretty clear that there was more than a single speech and more than a rowdy crowd going on last Wednesday:
1. The FBI, under the control of an Acting Attorney General put in place by the president 3 weeks ago, had lots of intel on exactly the plans under way by white supremacist groups to attack the Capitol. Not only did they not tell Congress, they didn't arrest anybody involved.
2. Policies put in place by DHS and the president's office prevented the DC police and National Park Police from responding.
3. The president refused multiple requests to send in the DC National Guard. Apparently, he was too busy watching what was happening with glee, according to people who were there with him.
4. The Secretary of Defense prevented Maryland and Virginia National Guard units from responding for several hours.
5. Members of Congress reportedly gave tours the day before to the people who were going to attack the Capitol. Some of the people who attacked had detailed maps including things that aren't open to the public.
6. Members of Congress reported that the security "panic button" systems in their office were disabled prior to the attack.
7. Several members of the Capitol Police aided in the attack.
8. At least some of the people who attacked the Capitol had brought guns, bombs, Molotov cocktails, and other weapons with them.
The story you seem to be telling yourself, namely that the president gave a speech and then the crowd he was speaking to just got a bit rowdy and whoopsie-daisy decided to attack the Capitol, beat up a bunch of cops and kill one cop, and set up a gallows for the vice-president, simply isn't true.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Grishnakh on Wednesday January 13 2021, @11:28PM (6 children)
Given all this, I'm actually a little surprised the insurrectionists weren't more successful. Maybe when one Capitol Police shot terrorist Babbitt dead, that scared the rest of the cowards too much to continue pressing forward.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Thursday January 14 2021, @03:47AM
Idiots plan coup! Idiots fail at coup! One idiot wears horns to coup! News at eleventy!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 4, Informative) by helel on Thursday January 14 2021, @03:55AM (4 children)
They were seconds away from success. Pure good luck on the part of the nation that the cop on the stairs was loyal to the US and distracted [theguardian.com] the mob long enough for the Vice President and last few senators to get away.
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday January 14 2021, @04:00AM (3 children)
Was it really that close? I mean, if the cop hadn't succeeded in luring them up the stairs, would they have been able to grab Pence and some Senators? Or would the first few people through the door been shot by guards inside?
Also, how did they not know the Senate chamber was behind that door? They seemed to know many other disturbing things, like where various peoples' offices were even though they were unmarked and difficult to find, even for the people who worked in that building. Or were the well-prepared people just not part of that violent crowd the cop lured away?
(Score: 2) by helel on Thursday January 14 2021, @04:57AM
Yes, it was that close. If you think I'm wrong make a counter argument.
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @05:03AM (1 child)
It was a close call no matter how you look at it, and we'll probably get a more detailed report over the coming weeks. Why are you even arguing about this? Their intent was to kill Pence, as they chanted, and many of them posted on social media about their intentions to murder Pelosi at the least. These idiots thought it was a true revolution, as they shouted when they were storming the capitol. What purpose does debating whether they would have succeeded or not? They made their intentions very clear.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday January 14 2021, @07:33AM
I'm not arguing. If this were a voice conversation, it would have been pretty obvious from my tone of voice that I'm wasn't disagreeing., but rather than it being this close was news to me Sorry it doesn't come out that way here.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @11:31PM (19 children)
How does any of that make Trump impeachable?
You want to make the President impeachable for the actions of a tiny minority of his supporters?
You will end the concept of a stable presidency as we know it now. But who cares anymore. Anything for Trump right?
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @11:49PM (18 children)
Inciting an insurrection to stop Biden from being elected is not impeachable to you? Especially after railing and all the lies since the election? He pursued all his legal options, and they all panned out (most of them flamed out with very biting comments from judges on the complete lack of merit to the lawsuits). You don't get more un-American than resorting to extralegal efforts to stay in power.
How is this not impeachable? Congress had no choice. Turning loose a violent mob to overthrow the Congress warrants a bit more than a slap on the wrist, don't you think?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Freeman on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:01AM
Something panning out is what you wanted to have happened, it's an old gold miner's saying. If something didn't pan out, then you didn't get what you wanted. When something panned out, you got what you wanted. I.E. the gold miner went panning for gold and it panned out. Meaning, the gold miner got gold. If it didn't pan out, then he didn't get any gold.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:17AM (16 children)
What insurrection? Why would that stop Biden from being elected? One of the really annoying things about this topic is the puffery. One side whines that the election was illegally stolen from Trump. The other is blathering about insurrections. How about we deescalate this by dropping the exaggerations?
What did Trump do and not do? If he blocked law enforcement from responding to a mass breaking of law by his allies, that's something that qualifies. Though why care about impeachment when any reasonable effort at conviction by the Senate is going to take longer than the week that Trump has left? Put it in court.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:49AM (6 children)
They were there to stop the Electoral College vote from being certified. And they succeeded for several hours.
(Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:36PM (5 children)
Why would a protest stop the Electoral College vote from being certified? Sorry, I don't buy that was the intent.
In other words, if that were the intent, then they failed. Again, why should we expect that to be the intent? Temporary disruption of someone's or government's activities is a standard protest tactic.
Now having said that, let's suppose they really did plan to stop the Electoral College vote certification. How is that material to the election process? It's purely ceremonial.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @06:30PM (4 children)
Do you include beating people to death a "standard protest tactic" too?
Because that's what these vicious thugs did. I don't understand why you're defending these scum.
Those that protested outside the capitol and made lots of noise are not who I'm talking about. Those people were exercising their right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of their grievances, as misguided as they are.
Those who broke into the capitol, trashed the place, beat people, some of them severely and at least one to death and brought bats, pipes, clubs, guns, explosives and flex-cuffs to threaten/harm/kill our elected representatives are insurrectionists [cornell.edu] who took up arms against our government.
They are traitors, just like the Confederacy (not a coincidence that some were flying Confederate battle flags) and should be treated accordingly.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 14 2021, @06:35PM (3 children)
Last I heard that was one person. Whether or not you consider it a "standard protest tactic", it wasn't in this protest!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @06:49PM (2 children)
Is your copy of The Turner Diaries getting all ratty and dog-eared?
You know you can get a new one here [adl.org]. I'm sure that will make you feel much better, won't it?
Are you getting a little (literally and figuratively) hard on thinking about it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @08:19PM
khallow only asspires to be a libertarian right-wing nut-job. He is not insane enough, so the best he can do is dissemble.
And, we have to thank the cop who shot the QAnon woman. "Where we go 1, one gets shot, and we Runaway." New QAnon motto.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 15 2021, @02:46AM
It's time for some people to get some perspective outside of their anal cavity.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:01AM (8 children)
Oh I dunno, the invasion of the capitol, murder of police, calls to hang Pence, the gallows they brought along, they social media posts by people who were there that talked about murdering congress members, the stalking through the building and trying to break through windows and doors to get at said congress members. Gee I dunno, what insurrection? Do you have an honest bone in your body or just Fox propaganda through and through?
(Score: 1, Troll) by khallow on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:40PM (4 children)
TL;DR: someone committed crimes so Trump must have committed crimes. So no evidence that Trump aided and abetted that.
Similarly, just because crimes happened during a protest doesn't make it an insurrection. Words have meaning.
I find it interesting how poor the reasoning processes are here. Sounds like we might have to search to find honest bones in your body, but at least it probably isn't by intent!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @11:54PM (1 child)
I find your dishonesty despicable. At least I no longer have to entertain you as being just a brainwashed fool, you are beyond reason and have joined ranks with traitors by trying to excuse Trump's guilt here. We are finding out it was a coordinated plot, and given your propaganda level posts around here I would say you were fully away of what was planned. Only a drooling idiot could post your comments, and we know you are not that stupid.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday January 15 2021, @02:51AM
I doubt you could find dishonesty, if you tried.
Sounds like you have time to do something productive then. Why don't you fuck off and do that instead of this pretentious morality play?
A lunch break at your job is a coordinated plot too. Words have meaning, but weaselly words mean little.
Sorry, you're the one posting stupid shit.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @02:09AM (1 child)
I think calling it an insurrection gives the rioters too much credit. Not sure what to call it though, it's more than a riot but less than an insurrection.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 15 2021, @03:10AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @06:34PM
Which is a clear reference to The Turner Diaries [wikipedia.org] a tale of white supremacist terrorism widely read and respected by neo-nazis, white supremacists and other extreme right traitors to the United States.
I imagine khallow sleeps with a copy under his pillow. Dontcha khallow?
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday January 15 2021, @03:32AM (1 child)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @01:59PM
But facts are how the oppressive class creates its hegemonical structure such as patriarchy to keep exploiting the feminine. Why are you such as essentialist you fucking nazi?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:24AM (3 children)
Even if any of what you're saying is true, and I'm not saying it is, what evidence do you have that Trump was behind any of it?
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:36AM (2 children)
Item #3 on my list is something the president personally did. Items #1, #2, and #4 were done by both himself and people he put into those positions of authority after the election, e.g. Acting SecDef Christopher Miller was put in that role the Monday after Election Day.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @02:17AM (1 child)
If you want to argue that, as president, he had a duty to protect the capitol and he failed to meet that duty then make that argument. That's different than arguing that he incited violence though.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @02:52AM
I suppose there is a reason they call them Trumped up charges.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @10:59PM (5 children)
Insurrection is a petty grudge?
You assholes have gotten worse every year, but thankfully you've gone so far off the edge even the more sane Republicans are realizing what you are. Confederacy 2.0, your own party is splitting and you'll be put down like the rabid dogs you are if you continue betraying your own country and the core values of democracy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @04:23AM (4 children)
Yes. Obviously the Democrats need to find a final solution to the Republican problem. You could start by concentrating them in camps.
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @05:24AM
https://current.org/2021/01/pbs-dismisses-michael-beller-staff-attorney-ensnared-in-project-veritas-sting/ [current.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @05:28AM
Except it's not a Republican "problem."
99%+ of all Americans, regardless of their party affiliation (including Trump supporters) believe in the rule of law and our constitutional form of government.
There are, however, a *tiny* minority of people who don't believe in such things and are ready, willing and able to use violence, fear, lies and intimidation to get what they want.
Those people are most certainly *not* Republicans. They are hateful, violent terrorists who try to hide behind the decent folks who are Republicans.
You're trying to shield a few disgusting, violent scumbags behind the Republican Party. Why are you doing that?
Do you believe in the rule of law? Do you believe in our constitutional form of government? If so, don't give cover to that tiny group of vicious, amoral thugs.
If you *are* one of those vicious, amoral thugs, then every American has a duty to crush you like a bug.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @08:21PM
I prefer re-education camps. But that as well is something of a misnomer, seeing how they seem to not have been educated in the first place.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday January 15 2021, @03:50AM
Nah, the Republicans already implemented their own final solution when Trump got elected. Pretty much destroyed the Republican Party, who now have to either impeach Trump and bar him from ever running again or have him split the right-wing vote in 2024. They're delaying the impeachment in the senate so that enough Republican senators realize that if they don't impeach trump they're going to lose their jobs in 2024. Even Trump realizes this - that the Republican in the senate will vote to impeach him out of self-interest. He knows he's finished. He's isolated, sitting there figuring out a way out. Screwing over Pence means he can't pull a Nixon by resigning and having Pence pardon him.
Douche Bank won't refinance Trump business loans, his money losing golf courses took another hit with the loss of the PGA, people are leery about being seen in trump clubs, his brand is now a negative on the balance sheet (goodwill is negative). He failed to sell a prime property to raise cash, he's got state criminal probes and private lawsuits, and he's not going to be able to pull a Trump any more because people smell the blood in the water.
Melania squeezed him hard renegotiating their prenup, Ivankas political aspirations are dead, it's all coming to a head. Because Trump is a LOSER - the one thing he can never accept.
The more clued in are the former supporters. The clueless will get enlightened over the next few years, and will come to hate him for making fools of them.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 13 2021, @11:52PM (5 children)
Impeachment is an anti-popularity contest. It just shows how much of Congress hates the President. Given the House vote, it doesn't look like the Senate will convict.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @12:43AM
I do not hate Trump. That is a Republican talking point, idiots who think power is a popularity context. I abhor Donald J. Trump. I want to see him Impeached, convicted, removed, drawn and quarted, burned a the stake, and have his name removed from all buildings and historical records.
I despise Trump, and all wannabe despots and dictators, and the scum that support such. They need to be rounded up and incapacitated.
I revile Donald J. Trump, for being the narcissistic egomaniac of insecurity that he is. Again, we need to put him one the cover of Time as the world's greatest loser, we need to give him a Yellow Star of David medal, and a IBM serial number tattooed onto his arm.
I pity the fool. but worry about the danger he poses, his support for the Lost Cause, both Confederate and Nazi, the racism and the corruption, and the capture of US foreign policy by both Israel and the House of Saud. He needs to be marked as a pariah, branded as a traitor, shamed with great solemnity by the American people.
It is not about hating Trump, anymore than I "disagree" with racist, sexist, transphobic, hopliphilac, QAnon-believing people. They are not wrong because I don't like them, this is a relativistic matter of different taste. I disagree with them because they are wrong, and quite possibly insane.
(I support BLM. Not being killed by racist cops is a human right, and an American right.)
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday January 14 2021, @04:05AM (3 children)
In a better-run democracy, you don't need "impeachment" to get rid of the chief executive when the legislative body doesn't like him: they just have a vote of no-confidence and he's gone. Then they elect someone they do like.
There should never be a time when the legislature of a country and its chief executive are completely at odds with each other. That results in government shutdowns. This is the fatal flaw in the American Constitution: both the President, and the Congress, are directly elected by the people, but on different cycles, and this frequently leads to situations where they don't get along. This isn't reflecting the will of the people at all: no sane person votes with the hope that their elected officials won't be able to work together, and the government will just stay shut down indefinitely. So obviously this system is broken by design. The way to fix it is to adopt a parliamentary system, where the chief executive is chosen by the legislature. It also makes it much more painless to remove the executive if he turns out to be problematic (esp. including inciting a riot or rebellion).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @04:29AM
The problem is that Congress has delegated far too much power to the office of the President. The President is meant to represent the voice of the people and to manage the day to day stuff. Chief executive, right.
Congress was meant to run the country. Being at odds with the POTUS didn't matter when the overlap of duties was far smaller.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @05:38AM (1 child)
There. FTFY.
The proportional representation and some other differences between US style government and others is good.
However, one of the things I like *much* better about the US government is that the party (or coalition) in the legislature does *not* control the executive branch. There should be tension between those co-equal branches, with further checks coming from the judiciary.
What's more, in the US, no active member of the legislature may serve in the executive branch.
Both of those limit the ability of those currently in power from controlling everything.
As Americans, we are distrustful of the concentration of political power. Sometimes we don't address that as well as we could, and we certainly could take some lessons from other democracies. However, our system is the oldest *surviving* constitutional system in the world.
We're not perfect, but we've done some things right.
I'd say that the biggest problems are not our system of government, but our *political* system and it's reliance on money and powerful parties. And those certainly aren't a purely American issue.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday January 15 2021, @04:24AM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 3, Touché) by deimtee on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:22AM (9 children)
It's pretty clear from their comments that they are impeaching him to make sure he can't run again in four years. Says a lot about how bad they expect Biden to be that they think Trump could win in 2024.
No problem is insoluble, but at Ksp = 2.943×10−25 Mercury Sulphide comes close.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:29AM (3 children)
I'm not sure if a removal would prevent him from running for a senate or house position? There might be a chance he could win a senate or house seat and become a congressman or senator?
Regardless of how poorly Biden does there is no way the republican party is going to support Trump. If they don't support him, and they won't, there is no way Trump can win the election.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @01:45AM (1 child)
(I'm talking about supporting him for a presidential re-election of course. The republican party won't do that. The question is might he run for a senator or congressman in a state that he's popular in and could a removal from his presidential office prevent that? Otherwise there might be a small chance he could become a senator or congressman in the future if he ran. Not sure if there are any rules preventing a former president from running for a senate or congressional seat, I don't think there are any, but how many examples are there of former presidents running for a senate or house seat? Also, I think I heard somewhere that if he gets removed from office he loses his secret service protection afterwards? Plus, as others have pointed out, doesn't he lose his presidential memorial or whatever it's called? To think about it, though, if Trump ran for office as a third party, since the republican party won't support him, he could take votes away from whatever political candidate the republicans do endorse under the first past the post system. So maybe the democrats should want him to run again, lol).
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday January 15 2021, @04:30AM
The democrats? They're not worried about a rematch. Harris will wipe the floor with Trump.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @05:45AM
Should trump be convicted in the Senate, a *second* vote (a simple majority) would be required to bar him from seeking Federal office in the future.
Although there is another way [washingtonpost.com] to bar Trump from running for office, Section III of the Fourteenth Amendment [cornell.edu]:
That may or may not be feasible, but is certainly a possibility as it only requires simple majorities in the House and Senate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @03:01AM (2 children)
To be fair, no one is excited about a Biden presidency other than, that he isn't Trump.
With Republican voter disenfranchisement efforts at full throttle for decades, and continuing, they may be able to engineer a "win".
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday January 14 2021, @04:09AM (1 child)
Exactly; I don't know anyone who's jumping up and down for Biden specifically, or even Harris (whose record in California isn't exactly super-progressive). They're just glad to get rid of Trump. All evidence shows Biden will at least run the government competently, and restore some decency to the office, but I'm not expecting a whole lot of progressive changes from his term, just repairing some of the damage Trump did, and maybe getting the rest of the world to stop laughing at us or being horrified at what's become of us.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @06:36AM
"All evidence shows Biden will at least run the government competently..."
I can hardly believe that you, even you, wrote anything approximating that.
Are you quite serious? Biden, the man who had serious trouble holding it together for a short public debate? The inarticulate idiot whose recommendations on firearms and self-defence didn't pass legal review, let alone common sense - despite him being a lawyer? The fool whose handler couldn't drag him away fast enough to prevent him making a spectacle of himself in front of a union crowd?
Sure. Competent.
On an unrelated note, who's your dealer, because that stuff seems pretty wild?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Grishnakh on Thursday January 14 2021, @04:15AM (1 child)
It's not that they think Biden will be horrible, it's that there's still so many people willing to vote for him, as we just saw in November. After 4 years, they'll have forgotten the attempted coup, and still be screaming about "socialism" (even though Biden is probably about as far right as you can get and still be a Democrat), and we'll have a repeat of 2016. The forces that led to Trump winning in 2016 haven't gone away, and if anything have gotten worse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 15 2021, @11:41AM
Despite your opinion of their choice, it is still their right to vote for 'Orange Man' if they want to.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by helel on Thursday January 14 2021, @03:49AM (3 children)
The man attempted to overthrow the US government. That is worthy of a hell of allot more than impeachment. You are right tho, now is a time when we should be coming together. Republicans should be reaching across the isle and joining Democrats to send a clear message to Trump and his supporters that treason will not be tolerated. The fact that ten Republicans have done so is a good start.
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday January 14 2021, @04:11AM (2 children)
Republicans should be reaching across the isle [sic] and joining Democrats to send a clear message to Trump and his supporters that treason will not be tolerated. The fact that ten Republicans have done so is a good start.
The problem with this is that almost 200 other Republicans did not.
It's too bad we can't abandon those Republicans on a small isle in the ocean.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Thursday January 14 2021, @07:44PM
It would be interesting to know just how many of those 200 GOPers voted against impeachment purely because of fear of Trump's mob. I've seen a few blurbs stating just that.
Answer now is don't give in; aim for a new tomorrow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 14 2021, @08:27PM
Two hundred Republicans, on an isle in the middle of the Pacific (burn!) Ocean, that they can reach across? Irony!! And they'll be fine, since Anthropogenic Global Warming, and sea-level rise is a hoax!