Enter the Clowns

  
By:  Vic Eldred  •  3 weeks ago  •  68 comments


Enter the Clowns
"O, what men dare do! What men may do! What men daily do, not knowing what they do!"....William Shakespeare (Much ado about nothing)

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People


It is day 4 and most likely the final day of the impeachment trial. Today Donald Trump's inept lawyers will present the defense's case. They have 2 days and 16 hours to do it, but the word is that they may only take a few hours to wrap up their "defense." 

Based on the glaring lack of evidence offered by the impeachment managers, maybe the Trump team will simply respond like some fine old British Barristers and declare "No case to answer my Lord."

At some point we may even have a vote and an acquittal.

The question is why did democrats make it all so easy?

They could have charged the former President with negligence in the performance of his duties, but instead they chose the damning charge of inciting an insurrection. There never was direct evidence to support that claim. Was it all politics?  Apparently it was since they submitted the article to the US Senate with no record of a hearing, investigation or formal opportunity for a President to respond. No impeachment was ever conducted that way.

The House demanded witnesses in the Senate but never called any witnesses. Testimony under oath may have helped their case. Why didn't they?

Instead they showed us professionally enhanced films of the Capitol riot. They laid out an emotionally charged but flawed case for the Senate. To convict, the House needed to show Trump was more than reckless - they wrote the article as inciting an actual rebellion or insurrection, not simply negligence.  It was a very high bar.


Trump will be acquitted and if Chuck Schumer tries to invoke the Reconstruction provisions of the 14th Amendment, Trump will be acquitted yet again.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
1  author  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

We await what may be the trial's final day.

 
 
 
devangelical
Masters Expert
1.1  devangelical  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    3 weeks ago

Signe-Wilkinson.jpg?fit=620%2C9999px&ssl=1

 
 
 
Snuffy
Sophomore Participates
2  Snuffy    3 weeks ago
Trump will be acquitted and if Chuck Schumer tries to invoke the Reconstruction provisions of the 14th Amendment, Trump will be acquitted yet again.

It will be interesting to watch. 

If they try to censure Trump and invoke the 14th Amendment to keep him out of office in the future,  that would require 60 votes to pass in the Senate. So do the Democrats get their 9 Republican votes or do they then push to remove the filibuster so they can do it with a simple party line vote?  

IMO, if they remove the filibuster and pass censure by party line vote I believe that will cause the Democrats to lose both the House and Senate in 22. It will look like this entire process is nothing more than the Democrats crusading against Trump rather than trying to work for the country.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
2.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Snuffy @2    3 weeks ago
So do the Democrats get their 9 Republican votes or do they then push to remove the filibuster so they can do it with a simple party line vote?  

At least 2 moderate democrats are committed to keeping the filibuster in place. It won't happen.


IMO, if they remove the filibuster and pass censure by party line vote I believe that will cause the Democrats to lose both the House and Senate in 22. It will look like this entire process is nothing more than the Democrats crusading against Trump rather than trying to work for the country.

For sure, considering censure was offered to them in the beginning and they rejected it for impeachment.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Sophomore Participates
2.1.1  Snuffy  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    3 weeks ago
For sure, considering censure was offered to them in the beginning and they rejected it for impeachment.

Yep.  I was against impeachment from the start. When this all started I suggested a different approach that I felt would be better for the country, to have the "power-leaders" in Washington get together and come up with a deal for Trump where he would resign and end all of this.  But too many people rejected that by saying that Trump had to be held accountable.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
2.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.1    3 weeks ago

Yes sir, they wanted a bit more than assigning some responsibility to the President for his refusal to accept the election results, they wanted to cancel him and all of his supporters. Beyond that they feared him enough to consider the idea of preventing him from ever running again.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.2    3 weeks ago

I would convict him for his bizarre "remember this day forever" tweet alone. After four hours of his mob terrorizing the Congress and the law enforcement people there, Trump tweeted about how noble his supporters are and how "viciously" he and his followers had been treated by, presumably the media, in the aftermath of the election. And he said this (the riot) is what happens as the result of that mistreatment. Someone with that sort of Hitlerish delusions of grandeur should not be within a million miles of public office. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
2.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.3    3 weeks ago
I would convict him for his bizarre "remember this day forever" tweet alone.

No doubt.


 After four hours of his mob terrorizing the Congress and the law enforcement people there, Trump tweeted about how noble his supporters are and how "viciously" he and his followers had been treated by, presumably the media, in the aftermath of the election. And he said this (the riot) is what happens as the result of that mistreatment.

You are referring to a tweet. Can you show it to us?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.4    3 weeks ago

i have shown it here many times and it is talked about in the media fairly often

you can look it up for yourself

i characterized it today but i promise you the exact text isn't any better for trump

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
2.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.5    3 weeks ago
i characterized it today

Even with that, do you really think that tweet is evidence of incitement of an insurrection?

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
2.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.6    3 weeks ago

Why do you ask for what has been provided to you over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
2.1.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @2.1.7    3 weeks ago

Because I'm a stickler for facts.

 
 
 
JBB
PhD Principal
3  JBB    3 weeks ago

Every school kid knows that prior to Trump only Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached. Forever forward they will know that only Donald Trump was ever impeached twice. That is not a good thing!

Trumpism will remain fresh in 2022 because Trump will refuse to go away. Unlike in 2020 though Trump will not be on the ballot. The choices will be between Trumpist candidates and everyone else including establishment Republicans, independents and all Democrats. So, 2022 does not auger well for the gop. I think you greatly underestimate how sick and tired the voters already are with Trump, his lies and his unstable obnoxious unhinged maniacal supporters...

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
3.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @3    3 weeks ago
I think you greatly underestimate how sick and tired the voters already are with Trump, his lies and his unstable obnoxious unhinged maniacal supporters...

Is that supposed to be for me?

As I've said, by 2022 it will be all about the radical transformation taking place  already. Imagine the how it will hit home by 2022?

The GOP will take both the House & Senate. You heard it here first

 
 
 
MrFrost
Masters Principal
3.1.1  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    3 weeks ago
The GOP will take both the House & Senate.

Yea, I heard that the GOPQ would be taking the house in 2020 along with trump's win.

How did that work out? The GOPQ lost the Senate and the WH all on trumps watch. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
3.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.1    3 weeks ago
Yea, I heard that the GOPQ would be taking the house in 2020 along with trump's win.

And I heard that Trump wouldn't make it through his first term.

 
 
 
JBB
PhD Principal
3.1.3  JBB  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1    3 weeks ago

You have been wrong in every political prediction you have made for years. Andrew McCabe has not been indicted. Hillary Clinton has not been indicted. Barack Obama has not been indicted. Joe Biden is President. Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House. Chuck Schumer is the Majority Leader of the US Senate. All just exactly as I had predicted.

Sorry, I can't take your predictions seriously... 

Maybe if you'd been right about something.

Yet, you have not been right about anything! 

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.2    3 weeks ago

Heck, some were saying he wouldn't last 6 months, then changed it to a year when he made 6 months, then changed it to 2 years, and then wouldn't finish his term.

All wrong--every last one of them!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
3.1.5  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JBB @3.1.3    3 weeks ago
You have been wrong in every political prediction you have made for years. Andrew McCabe has not been indicted. Hillary Clinton has not been indicted. Barack Obama has not been indicted. Joe Biden is President. Nancy Pelosi is Speaker of the House. Chuck Schumer is the Majority Leader of the US Senate. All as I had predicted.

Except I didn't predict any of those things. Actually, the few things I predicted turned out to be true:

1) democrats would find somebody to make some kind of outrageous claim against Kavanaugh

and

2) Donald Trump was not involved in any Russian conspiracy.

Two members paid dearly for those predictions. One lost a wager with me, the other was a blogger who never wrote another word here.


Sorry, but I can't take your predictions seriously... 

I really don't care.

Try to remember, I'm not the topic.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
3.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @3.1.4    3 weeks ago

The same people who defend snap-impeachments without a hearing, an investigation or formal opportunity for a President to respond (due process).

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
3.1.7  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.6    3 weeks ago

Snap-impeachments!  LOL!  It's hilarious that we're talking about someone who has been impeached TWICE.

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
3.1.8  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @3.1.1    3 weeks ago
"The GOP will take both the House & Senate."

"Yea, I heard that the GOPQ would be taking the house in 2020 along with trump's win.

How did that work out? The GOPQ lost the Senate and the WH all on trumps watch."

ALL THAT WINNING!  LOL!

Well Heck, I guess they're going to say now 'We'll be taking the house in 2024 when tRump runs for 'president' again!'

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
3.1.9  Tessylo  replied to  JBB @3.1.3    3 weeks ago
"Yet, you have not been right about anything!"

EVER!

LOL!

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
3.1.10  Texan1211  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.7    3 weeks ago
Snap-impeachments! 

Do you know what they are?

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
3.1.11  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.8    3 weeks ago
'We'll be taking the house in 2024 when tRump runs for 'president' again!'

No, we are going to take it in 2022!

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
3.1.12  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @3.1.11    3 weeks ago

Sure ya are!  jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

Andrew McCarthy , a pillar of conservative rectitude at National Review , and someone cited many times on NT to defend conservative arguments, said last night that he would vote for conviction assuming Trump did not act to end the insurrection.  McCarthy says Trump's behavior on Jan 6th was "shockingly irresponsible and reprehensible".

If even a huge right winger like McCarthy says impeachment is justified, why do you continue to post articles claiming it is a nothingburger?  Your op/eds are not credible. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
4.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4    3 weeks ago
If even a huge right winger like McCarthy says impeachment is justified, why do you continue to post articles claiming it is a nothingburger? 

Is that a rhetorical question?  Who is it addressed to?

First, I don't consider Andrew McCarthy to be a huge right winger. Maybe through the lenses of a huge left winger he may seem to be right wing. 

McCarthy says Trump's behavior on Jan 6th was "shockingly irresponsible and reprehensible".

I think that is a fair assessment. Yet that is far different than inciting an insurrection. As I said in my article, maybe the democrats should have charged him with reckless behavior?


 Your op/eds are not credible. 

You saying that only makes them more so.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
4.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    3 weeks ago

If they charged him with dereliction of duty you would have said they should have charged him with something else. We all know that. Vic, the article of impeachment is not restricted to his speech at his rally on Jan 6th. Perhaps you didnt read the whole thing. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
4.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @4.1.1    3 weeks ago
If they charged him with dereliction of duty you would have said they should have charged him with something else.

I know you think that. I would have been fine with that. 


 Vic, the article of impeachment is not restricted to his speech at his rally on Jan 6th. 

However, it is specific as to the charge - "Inciting insurrection."  How do you prove that ?????

 
 
 
MrFrost
Masters Principal
4.1.3  MrFrost  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1.2    3 weeks ago
How do you prove that ?????

Did you watch the impeachment hearings up to this point? If you had, you wouldn't need to ask that question. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
4.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.3    3 weeks ago
Did you watch the impeachment hearings up to this point?

Yes, I have. It's good to have C-Span. I found yesterday to be repetitive and tiring aside from Mike Lee nailing them for lying:

“Statements attributed to me moments ago by the impeachment managers, statements relating to the contents of the conversations between phone calls involving Trump and Senator Tuberville, were not made by me, were not accurate”....Sen Mike Lee

Head impeachment manager Rep. Raskin was then forced to admit that he and other Democrats had been pushing a falsehood as they agreed to take back the false quote.

That may have been the highlight. I almost dozed off.

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
4.1.5  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @4.1    3 weeks ago

Reckless behavior?  You've got to be kidding.  

Someone saying something isn't credible, doesn't make it more credible.

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
4.1.6  Tessylo  replied to  MrFrost @4.1.3    3 weeks ago
"How do you prove that ?????"

He keeps asking that question over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again when the evidence has been provided. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
5  author  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

Michael Van Der Veen:

"The Law Offices of Michael T. van der Veen is the premier Philadelphia personal injury and criminal defense attorney serving individuals and families across Pennsylvania and New Jersey. "...Linkedin

39095776-9243289-image-a-29_1612920691513.jpg

Oh God!

I suppose we are seeing the difference between impassioned progressive speakers and hired hands. 

Best they just play the videos!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

Trump's defense is ludicrous two minutes after it started. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
6.1  JohnRussell  replied to  JohnRussell @6    3 weeks ago

This reminds me of "did you order the code red ?" 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
6.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @6    3 weeks ago
Trump's defense is ludicrous two minutes after it started. 

Thank God he doesn't need them. Thank Nancy for over charging & overreach!

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Guide
6.2.1  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Vic Eldred @6.2    3 weeks ago

Called that one didn't we? LOL

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
6.2.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @6.2.1    3 weeks ago

You bet!

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
6.3  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @6    3 weeks ago

Actually it was right at the beginning when, I can't think of his name now, the first guy, said he was the 'lead prosecutor'!  Classic!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
7  author  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

He should be telling bed time stories for children.

I can barely keep my eyes open.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
8  author  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

David Schoen

Civil Rights attorney

He is best remembered for representing Roger Stone. Stone was sentenced to 40 months in prison.


GettyImages-1231067321.jpg?ve=1&tl=1

 
 
 
Tessylo
PhD Principal
8.1  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @8    3 weeks ago

Obviously inept shysters are the only ones willing to represent the former occupant of the White House.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
9  author  Vic Eldred    3 weeks ago

If nothing else we finally put to bed the truth about what Trump said about good people on both sides. Note: he wasn't taking about the extremists on both sides.

Thank you Dave!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
9.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @9    3 weeks ago

Nonsense, see below. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10  JohnRussell    3 weeks ago

"Fine people on both sides"

Trumps lawyer is saying he was correct about Charlottesville. Trump said the people protesting on behalf of the Robert E Lee statue "had a permit".   Yes they had a permit that was applied for and given to a racist group. Everyone in Charlottesville that day knew that the Unite The Right rally was sponsored by and run by white supremacists. It had been in the news in Charlottesville all that summer.  Everyone who went to that rally in support of the Robert E Lee statue knew that the rally was run by white racists, apparently except Donald Trump. Fine people on both sides? lol. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
10.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @10    3 weeks ago

You just heard the entire clip. Trump explained exactly whom he was talking about The msm truncated and deliberately misrepresented what he said. They did it endlessly. As Goebbels would have done.

Shame on them and anyone who lied with them.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1    3 weeks ago

Vic, I'm not going to repeat this a hundred times.   The people who held the rally to defend the Robert E Lee statue were white supremacists. This had been going back and forth all summer in Charlottesville and finally a permit was given to the racists. It was all over the local news. Every single person who went to that rally in support of the statue knew that it was being held by white racists. 

If Trump wasnt a moron he would have known that. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
10.1.2  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.1    3 weeks ago
Vic, I'm not going to repeat this a hundred times. 

Nether am I.

 The people who held the rally to defend the Robert E Lee statue were white supremacists.

Not all of them. Believe it or not John, there are plenty of southerners who did not want to take that statue down.


This had been going back and forth all summer in Charlottesville and finally a permit was given to the racists.

I don't give a shit about who got the permit.


 Every single person who went to that rally in support of the statue knew that it was being held by white racists. 

PROVE IT.


If Trump wasnt a moron he would have known that. 

Maybe our national media shouldn't have lied about what the man said. Maybe it's time for all progressives to give up on that whopper?

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
10.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.2    3 weeks ago

There may have been "some" of the Robert E Lee protesters who were not racist, I dont totally doubt that. But the fact is that rally was organized by, and the permit held by, white racists. And it was not remotely a secret. The issue had been ongoing in Charlottesville for many weeks and there was a debate as to whether a permit should be given to a racist group (which it eventually was) . The rally was a major major news story in that area and the makeup of the rally organizers was public knowledge.   Trump should have known that. He's a moron. 

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
10.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.3    3 weeks ago
There may have been "some" of the Robert E Lee protesters who were not racist, I dont totally doubt that.

That's a first step John. Well done.

 But the fact is that rally was organized by, and the permit held by, white racists. 

I'm taking your word for that because I do know that the statue issue does excite extremists of all stripes for some reason.


And it was not remotely a secret.

It was to me. I had no idea!


The rally was a major major news story in that area and the makeup of the rally organizers was public knowledge.   Trump should have known that. He's a moron. 

I wouldn't say anyone was a moron for not knowing about permits. Obama reacted to every racial incident that made the front page during his presidency and he didn't know any of the details.
What I am concerned about is the way the President's statement was lied about. Whether he knew about permits is irrelevant. The news media lied about it and they did it repeatedly!

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Guide
10.1.5  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  JohnRussell @10.1.3    3 weeks ago
He's a moron. 

No the real morons are the counter protestors who showed up. Had they stayed home, let the morons have their say and not blew it out of proportion, it would have barely been a blip in the MSM. As it stands, all it did was get them recognition on the national stage. Not a good look.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
10.1.6  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @10.1.5    3 weeks ago
No the real morons are the counter protestors who showed up.

The funny part is antifa didn't have a permit. Why were they there?

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
10.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.6    3 weeks ago

Just one reason.

To cause trouble.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
10.1.8  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.7    3 weeks ago

yup and they did a pretty good job, as they always do. How come they're not domestic terrorists?

 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
10.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.8    3 weeks ago

Because the left loves them!

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
10.1.10  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @10.1.9    3 weeks ago

Are you saying that the radical left now controls the US government, the media, academia, entertainment, social media and big business?

Let me check, Paul, see what you can find out?

0aeda2ebc48b3435d00355d0516393a9.jpg

"It's true Perry, I got it from Jen Psaki"


Della just brought me Joe Biden's brain


220px-Raymond_Burr_Barbara_Hale_Perry_Mason_1958.jpg



 
 
 
Texan1211
PhD Principal
10.1.11  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @10.1.10    3 weeks ago

😆

 
 
 
Kathleen
PhD Principal
11  Kathleen    3 weeks ago

The video clips show the hypocrisy. Some of the words that these politicians and other people are saying are violent. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
PhD Guide
11.1  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Kathleen @11    3 weeks ago
The video clips show the hypocrisy

Context is king. In none of the video clips do the Democrats in question have a crowd they spent weeks gathering to then direct them to march to the Supreme court or anywhere else and stop some preceding or confirmation of a Justice. It is clear in context that their words were indicating a political fight and political action with no directive to send those in attendance to a specific place with an intended purpose as Trumps words clearly were. In context it is clear Trump wanted to stop the certification, he spent weeks telling his followers to show up on the sixth and then told them to march down to the Capital and "fight like hell". Trying to equate that with just standard political rhetoric calling for political action like getting out the vote or defeating another candidate at the polls is dishonest and rather sick when trying to defend an act of sedition against our nation where multiple people died.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
11.1.1  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @11.1    3 weeks ago
Context is king. In none of the video clips do the Democrats in question have a crowd they spent weeks gathering to then direct them to march to the Supreme court or anywhere else and stop some preceding or confirmation of a Justice.

We've had non-stop violence in big blue cities, going back to early summer 2020.

From September:

Now, a  new assessment first reported by Axios  shows the financial cost of the rioting is on its way to at least $2 billion, making it the most expensive in history. 




Not to mention the deaths, including those of police officers. None of which do progressives concern themselves with.

 
 
 
Kathleen
PhD Principal
11.1.2  Kathleen  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @11.1    3 weeks ago

Everyone can see them, and some did have a crowd, and some  were on national TV. 

No matter how you slice it, they were saying things that could incite violence. 

Shame on them. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Junior Guide
11.1.3  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @11.1    3 weeks ago
It is clear in context that their words were indicating a political fight and political action with no directive to send those in attendance to a specific place with an intended purpose as Trumps words clearly were.

“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere. We’ve got to get the children connected to their parents,” Waters said at the Wilshire Federal Building,"

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
PhD Principal
11.1.4  author  Vic Eldred  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @11.1.3    3 weeks ago

And they listened to her. They went after McConnell, Paul, Sarah Huckabee and others.

 
 
 
Kathleen
PhD Principal
11.1.5  Kathleen  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @11.1.3    3 weeks ago

That’s scary.... and a violent speech. 

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
PhD Guide
11.1.7  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Vic Eldred @11.1.4    3 weeks ago
And they listened to her. They went after McConnell, Paul, Sarah Huckabee and others.

Were any of those people assaulted? Rand Paul was assaulted by a neighbor over some petty property dispute, not because of any political rhetoric. The others were subject to words. I don't particularly like Maxine Waters and think she's done some idiotic things, but she only asked protesters to use their words "tell them they're not welcome anymore". The one thing that could be taken out of context by some as a call to physical action is "push back on them" which can of course be seen as a call to push back on their policies and the only way someone can "push back" is if they are being pushed first. I don't see her call to action as violent but I think it was poorly worded as we should never use words that have subjective meanings like "push" which can be taken as a physical act or a mental or political one.

Also, if you see Waters words as "violent speech" then you would have to define Trumps words as extremely violent speech with intent and purpose with a clear violent outcome.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Guide
11.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @11.1.7    3 weeks ago
and Paul was assaulted by a neighbor over some petty property dispute, not because of any political rhetoric

And he was shot at. Remember that? Or was the mass shooting of Republican Congressmen about disputing an umpire's call? 

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Gordy327


43 visitors