Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 110,309
- 99,398
- 3,645
Then let me clear it up. You search for irrelevant commonality while ignoring the important differences.
"Trump ‘sent’ supporters on path to Jan. 6 violence" Jack Smith new filing
- Thread starter Dante
- Start date
- Dec 16, 2017
- 18,260
- 9,185
- 1,140
It’s all relevant. Surely you can see the similarities. You all are calling for the imprisonment of someone who used rhetoric…the same thing that every other politician does, even on the left. However, THOSE politicians, well, it’s ok, because “they didn’t mean it”.
- Apr 11, 2023
- 46,483
- 22,306
- 2,488
Rhetorc used in the planning and execution of a criminal conspiracy is illegal.
- Dec 16, 2017
- 18,260
- 9,185
- 1,140
No it’s not lol, I don’t think anyone has ever been charged and convicted of “rhetoric”.
Crimes are crimes, but because someone said something that was using rhetoric doesn’t add to the charges…
Tumblin Tumbleweed
Platinum Member
- Mar 16, 2015
- 28,591
- 10,757
- 465
Nope. Definitely not a CULT.wow wow wow
Definitely not a cult.
- Apr 11, 2023
- 46,483
- 22,306
- 2,488
If you use speech in planning a crime, it is criminal. You make no sense at all.
Marchimedes
Platinum Member
Remember two(2) decades ago at DP.org when you used to do the joke "My Johnson is 4", around." Over and over? Probably not as you didn't remember what a DACT is? How old are you, Billo? I'm sixty(60.) Seems I remember you being a tad older than I. After missing the DACT question the Johnson question at first a joke but now that I think about it it's also now a test. Of course you could just say "yes." I ask cause I care. You were a bud (nemesis) of mine and you don't try to give me the come back what for like you used to do. Ah, wait, it's Mrs. Billo isn't it? She's looking over your shoulder right now, isn't she? Pretend you can't read for a few seconds. Do that thousand yard stare you do. Perfect. Now no one can prove you were faking or fantasizing about frolicking in the meadow. Again.
-
Do I have to post sumpin on topic now?
Fine.
Then.
I gots one about "Trump's intent" which directly counters "sent." But then I know I've posted the following rant at this site twice. Once in The Flame Zone, that place you stiffs fear so that doesn't count, once upstairs, but I'm not sure if in this thread so is double posting in a single thread frowned upon? Really? Half the posts at this site are "You su(k." by the same usual suspects so I'll chance it... if gigged I shall say the required ten(10) Hail Nugents and keep my hands offa myself for (it's too early to haggle, correct?)
A guy upstairs said this means Trump ordered an attack...
My turn...
Transcript of Trump's Jan 6 speech...
Read Trump's Jan. 6 Speech, A Key Part Of Impeachment Trial
The former president's remarks are being used by Democrats hoping to convict him for incitement of insurrection — and are being defended by his lawyers in the Senate proceedings.
www.npr.org
A part where it seems what Trump thinks is fighting...
"And you have to get your people to fight. And if they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight. You primary them. We're going to."
Later...
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
Terrifying.
Later...
"But we've done it quickly and we were going to sit home and watch a big victory and everybody had us down for a victory. It was going to be great and now we're out here fighting."
Seems to me right there Trump's definition of fighting is standing around in a group being angry at Mother government. The world's stupidist laywer would have zero problem connecting those dots. Gosh, (name deleted) you're stupider than the world's stupidest lawyer.
Finally...
"And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."
Some bull-$h!t politically motivated prosecutor is gonna have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that in this case, that day, that speech that when Trump said "fight" he meant "overthrow The Mighty US of A." Chris Christie doesn't stretch that much trying to put on a sock.
Said prosecutor is also gonna have to prove that when Trump said to protest peacefully and patriotically he actually meant the exact opposite.
I get it, (name deleted), (Marchimedes insult deleted)
Or are you just mad that Trump didn't wink when he went...
Marchimedes
Platinum Member
- Dec 16, 2017
- 18,260
- 9,185
- 1,140
Uh…using speech is not a crime..the CRIME and PLANNING a crime is a crime…but nobody is going to send anyone to jail because they spoke words during the planning of said crime.
The speech itself isn’t criminalized, the result is.
Trumps speech that day was not a crime, he wasn’t instructing anyone to commit a crime. He never told anyone to do anything illegal. He only told them to peacefully cheer on the senators.
So, his rhetoric, used by MANY, isn’t a crime.
- Apr 11, 2023
- 46,483
- 22,306
- 2,488
Using speech to plan a crime is a crime, too, There is no 'free speech' protection against criminalizing speech.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 110,309
- 99,398
- 3,645
Lie. Obviously the differences are more important, when pointing out the differences. This is childish, and your attempt has failed. Get over it.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 110,309
- 99,398
- 3,645
Sometimes speech is action. People aren't indicted for their speech. The are indicted for their actions.
If you speak a deadly threat to someone, you aren't indicted for "talking".
- Apr 11, 2023
- 46,483
- 22,306
- 2,488
Can be people be indicted based on their speech in planning criminal activity?
Bing AI: "
In general, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech. However, the Supreme Court has recognized a few categories of speech that are disqualified from First Amendment protection, including speech that promotes violence or illegal conduct 1.
Therefore, if a person’s speech is found to be inciting violence or illegal conduct, they could be subject to criminal punishment 1.
For example, in August 2023, the Department of Justice filed a grand jury indictment against former President Trump concerning his attempts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election, which included soliciting a crime, planning a crime, and committing fraud 2.
It is important to note that the rules on how speech that promotes violence or illegal conduct can be punished have changed over the years 1.
Bing AI: "
In general, the First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects freedom of speech. However, the Supreme Court has recognized a few categories of speech that are disqualified from First Amendment protection, including speech that promotes violence or illegal conduct 1.
Therefore, if a person’s speech is found to be inciting violence or illegal conduct, they could be subject to criminal punishment 1.
For example, in August 2023, the Department of Justice filed a grand jury indictment against former President Trump concerning his attempts to remain in power despite losing the 2020 election, which included soliciting a crime, planning a crime, and committing fraud 2.
It is important to note that the rules on how speech that promotes violence or illegal conduct can be punished have changed over the years 1.
Billo_Really
Litre of the Band
Remember two(2) decades ago at DP.org when you used to do the joke "My Johnson is 4", around." Over and over? Probably not as you didn't remember what a DACT is? How old are you, Billo? I'm sixty(60.) Seems I remember you being a tad older than I. After missing the DACT question the Johnson question at first a joke but now that I think about it it's also now a test. Of course you could just say "yes." I ask cause I care. You were a bud (nemesis) of mine and you don't try to give me the come back what for like you used to do. Ah, wait, it's Mrs. Billo isn't it? She's looking over your shoulder right now, isn't she? Pretend you can't read for a few seconds. Do that thousand yard stare you do. Perfect. Now no one can prove you were faking or fantasizing about frolicking in the meadow. Again.
-
Do I have to post sumpin on topic now?
Fine.
Then.
I gots one about "Trump's intent" which directly counters "sent." But then I know I've posted the following rant at this site twice. Once in The Flame Zone, that place you stiffs fear so that doesn't count, once upstairs, but I'm not sure if in this thread so is double posting in a single thread frowned upon? Really? Half the posts at this site are "You su(k." by the same usual suspects so I'll chance it... if gigged I shall say the required ten(10) Hail Nugents and keep my hands offa myself for (it's too early to haggle, correct?)
A guy upstairs said this means Trump ordered an attack...
My turn...
Transcript of Trump's Jan 6 speech...
Read Trump's Jan. 6 Speech, A Key Part Of Impeachment Trial
The former president's remarks are being used by Democrats hoping to convict him for incitement of insurrection — and are being defended by his lawyers in the Senate proceedings.
A part where it seems what Trump thinks is fighting...
"And you have to get your people to fight. And if they don't fight, we have to primary the hell out of the ones that don't fight. You primary them. We're going to."
Later...
"I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."
Terrifying.
Later...
"But we've done it quickly and we were going to sit home and watch a big victory and everybody had us down for a victory. It was going to be great and now we're out here fighting."
Seems to me right there Trump's definition of fighting is standing around in a group being angry at Mother government. The world's stupidist laywer would have zero problem connecting those dots. Gosh, (name deleted) you're stupider than the world's stupidest lawyer.
Finally...
"And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore."
Some bull-$h!t politically motivated prosecutor is gonna have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that in this case, that day, that speech that when Trump said "fight" he meant "overthrow The Mighty US of A." Chris Christie doesn't stretch that much trying to put on a sock.
Said prosecutor is also gonna have to prove that when Trump said to protest peacefully and patriotically he actually meant the exact opposite.
I get it, (name deleted), (Marchimedes insult deleted)
Or are you just mad that Trump didn't wink when he went...
What's up with the data dump? You can't be more succinct?
I'm 66 and yes I remember that joke. I also remember the pain in your heart you suffer every day of your life over your lost son! I would not wish that on anyone.
I do respect your opinion and your ability to trash others.
- Dec 16, 2017
- 18,260
- 9,185
- 1,140
Sure, to someone who would like to ignore that they themselves engage in the same activities. All politicians use it, that’s a fact. Trump using rhetoric is no different. Now, if you can come up with proof that his intention that day was to start a riot, I’d be inclined to agree with you, but that proof doesn’t exist yet.
Only in the leftist mind. When pointing out the truth, there is no “fail”
- Apr 11, 2023
- 46,483
- 22,306
- 2,488
Smith has every intention of doing just that, ThisIsMe.
Fort Fun Indiana
Diamond Member
- Mar 10, 2017
- 110,309
- 99,398
- 3,645
- Dec 16, 2017
- 18,260
- 9,185
- 1,140
Again, only a false equivalence to someone who tries to ignore their own issues.
I can’t help it that you folks dismiss your own shortcomings and deflect away from them, while trying to condemn someone else for the very same things you do
You claim trump used rhetoric that started a riot, I’m claiming many on the left used rhetoric that encouraged violence and rioting, however, you seem to think only one side is wrong.
- Apr 11, 2023
- 46,483
- 22,306
- 2,488
- Dec 16, 2017
- 18,260
- 9,185
- 1,140
I don’t feel I am, but you do, and that’s fine. So…
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
‘Disgusting Abomination’: Musk Goes Nuclear On Trump’s ‘Big Beautiful Bill’
- Started by 0311
- Replies: 1
-
-
-
If Israel is telling the truth on why are they banning journalists ?- Started by Tommy Tainant
- Replies: 9
