[late]

Biden and some congresswoman intervened

and pressed the court.

It is a violation of rule of the law.

I think this can be classified as an impeachable offense.

While it would have been best if they had waited to express their opinions, that is not the same thing as intervening.

Pressing the court would have been intervening.

Trump did many things that undermined Rule of Law. Biden has been restoring it.

Nope, that's not even close to impeachable.

When the judge blew off some steam at Maxine, halfway through he realised he had gone too far, and then said it didn't matter, that he had faith in the jury. Which was the correct thing to say.

[Rancid]

...But it's a legitimate complaint this time around, even if it won't really change anything.

Sure, but fair is fair, so let's kick out some of the Marjorie Taylor Green types, at the same time with the Maxine Waters types. I'm good with that. Issue is, the people that are complaining about this, wouldn't be good with that.

[wat0n]

Can you provide quotes of people asking for riots?

Is the speech below inciting a riot?

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/96639684 ... ment-trial

Because to me at least it seems as inflammatory as saying things like "We're looking for a guilty verdict and we're looking to see if all of the talk that took place and has been taking place after they saw what happened to George Floyd. If nothing does not happen, then we know that we got to not only stay in the street, but we have got to fight for justice," or "We got to stay on the street. And we've got to get more active, we've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business,"

By the way, how did your predictions about this trial turn out?

@Rancid I would not really kick either out of Congress. They should be treated equally for the stuff they say, though.

[Pants-of-dog]

Is the speech below inciting a riot?

https://www.npr.org/2021/02/10/96639684 ... ment-trial

I have no idea. You would have to quote it.

Because to me at least it seems as inflammatory as saying things like "We're looking for a guilty verdict and we're looking to see if all of the talk that took place and has been taking place after they saw what happened to George Floyd. If nothing does not happen, then we know that we got to not only stay in the street, but we have got to fight for justice," or "We got to stay on the street. And we've got to get more active, we've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business,"

If that is what you guys are pretending is “calling for a riot”, then we can safely say that people are not calling for a riot.

[Godstud]

No @wat0n That is not incitement.

[Heisenberg]

I love how there are people in this thread who are very indignant about the prospect of every last procedure not being anally followed to the letter, and how this might have impacted Chauvin's right to a fair trial - all the while shrugging off the fact that a man was killed by Chauvin without any semblance of due process, for allegedly trying to pass a counterfeit $20 note.

Yes, conservatives, I'm sure that what's really got you worked up here is how the sacred institution of jury trial has been "tainted". It's definitely a sincere position, advanced in good faith. I'm sure if I go back through your historical posts on the matter, there will be a lot of disgust at the fact that George Floyd was never given his day in court.

[wat0n]

I have no idea. You would have to quote it.

Did Trump incite a riot on January 6? Many people claim he did, based on his speech and taking into account the overall political climate in place when it was delivered. But many others don't, also based on his speech and also taking into account the overall political climate in place when it was delivered.

If that is what you guys are pretending is “calling for a riot”, then we can safely say that people are not calling for a riot.

If this is the case, and taking into account the current overall political climate (which happens not be radically different from that in January 6, 2021), I'm guessing you also believe Trump didn't incite a riot on January 6 based on his speech. Is my guess correct?

Both speeches are not radically different for each other in terms of calling listeners to "fight" for whatever thing the speaker is advocating, and against some facet of the "system" the speaker does not like. Neither has any literal, explicit calls for violence.

@Godstud you can answer the questions above too, if you want.

[Rancid]

@Rancid I would not really kick either out of Congress. They should be treated equally for the stuff they say, though.

Of course. You cannot excuse the capital rioting and the defense of it by the likes of congress, and then "call out" this Maxine Waters though. That is the point. People aren't treating this equal.

So I say, kick them both out fuck that.

[Doug64]

If this is inciting to violence:

And we fight. We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.

Our exciting adventures and boldest endeavors have not yet begun. My fellow Americans, for our movement, for our children, and for our beloved country.

And I say this despite all that’s happened. The best is yet to come.

So we’re going to, we’re going to walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. I love Pennsylvania Avenue. And we’re going to the Capitol, and we’re going to try and give.

The Democrats are hopeless, they never vote for anything. Not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones because the strong ones don’t need any of our help. We’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country.

So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue.

Than so too is this: "We're looking for a guilty verdict and we're looking to see if all of the talk that took place and has been taking place after they saw what happened to George Floyd. If nothing does not happen, then we know that we got to not only stay in the street, but we have got to fight for justice," or "We got to stay on the street. And we've got to get more active, we've got to get more confrontational. We've got to make sure that they know that we mean business,"

If the former is an impeachable offense, then surely the latter is worthy of expulsion from Congress.

[wat0n]

Of course. You cannot excuse the capital rioting and the defense of it by the likes of congress, and then "call out" this Maxine Waters though. That is the point. People aren't treating this equal.

So I say, kick them both out fuck that.

Indeed, and the same thing applies to those who believe Waters wasn't inciting anything while Trump (or Taylor Green types) do, all the time.

Not too along ago most Americans would call this sort of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty out, and reject it outright.

[Rancid]

Not too along ago most Americans would call this sort of hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty out, and reject it outright.

I disagree, this sort of bullshit has happened often. Maybe not on this scale, but it's common.

Hence my call to just throw them both out.

[Pants-of-dog]

Did Trump incite a riot on January 6? Many people claim he did, based on his speech and taking into account the overall political climate in place when it was delivered. But many others don't, also based on his speech and also taking into account the overall political climate in place when it was delivered.

If you are arguing that Trump also did this, I think there is another thread about that.

If this is the case, and taking into account the current overall political climate (which happens not be radically different from that in January 6, 2021), I'm guessing you also believe Trump didn't incite a riot on January 6 based on his speech. Is my guess correct?

Both speeches are not radically different for each other in terms of calling listeners to "fight" for whatever thing the speaker is advocating, and against some facet of the "system" the speaker does not like. Neither has any literal, explicit calls for violence.

@Godstud you can answer the questions above too, if you want.

Again, if that is the the best evidence you have, then we can safely say no one was calling for a riot.

[Istanbuller]

Sure, but fair is fair, so let's kick out some of the Marjorie Taylor Green types, at the same time with the Maxine Waters types. I'm good with that. Issue is, the people that are complaining about this, wouldn't be good with that.

You are just too moderate to be Democrat. Vote libertarian.

[wat0n]

I disagree, this sort of bullshit has happened often. Maybe not on this scale, but it's common.

Hence my call to just throw them both out.

The scale makes all the difference here, I think. Back in the day, from time to time you could find ultra conservative elected officials who had their own mistress(es), and this sort of behavior would not be tolerated among other things because of the hypocrisy involved. This is a lot worse than that.

I'd actually kick neither of them out. Even for Trump's impeachment, he should have been impeached over his attempts to pressure Georgia's election officials to "find" votes and the multiple intelligence failures associated with the storming of the Capitol, not the inflammatory speech itself.

@Pants-of-dog I want to know what your opinion on this matter is.

[Pants-of-dog]

The scale makes all the difference here, I think. Back in the day, from time to time you could find ultra conservative elected officials who had their own mistress(es), and this sort of behavior would not be tolerated among other things because of the hypocrisy involved. This is a lot worse than that.

I'd actually kick neither of them out. Even for Trump's impeachment, he should have been impeached over his attempts to pressure Georgia's election officials to "find" votes and the multiple intelligence failures associated with the storming of the Capitol, not the inflammatory speech itself.

@Pants-of-dog I want to know what your opinion on this matter is.

@wat0n

For the third time, I do not think Ms, Waters was calling for a riot.

Anyone who does think so is assuming that from her words. Since there are other possible interpretations, it is an assumption to assume that she is specifically discussing riots.

Is that clear now?

[Doug64]

Of course. You cannot excuse the capital rioting and the defense of it by the likes of congress, and then "call out" this Maxine Waters though. That is the point. People aren't treating this equal.

You can call on Democrats to treat their own by the same standards they apply to others, though. That doesn’t mean you have to live by those same standards. So if I was McCarthy, I would have voted against my own move to censure Waters—much less expel her—having offered the move to censure in order to give the Democrats the opportunity to live up to their own standards. And now a bunch of swing district Democrats have given their inevitable competition more ammo to use against them: “They’re happy to impeach Trump, but won’t even censure their own for statements as bad or worse.”

[wat0n]

@wat0n

For the third time, I do not think Ms, Waters was calling for a riot.

Anyone who does think so is assuming that from her words. Since there are other possible interpretations, it is an assumption to assume that she is specifically discussing riots.

Is that clear now?

Do you think the same could be said about Trump's January 6 speech?

Speaking of...

@Doug64 you don't get to cherry-pick from Trump's speech, if one reads all of it one will find rhetoric similar to Waters'. Unless you think saying "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," is somehow radically different from what she said.

[Pants-of-dog]

Do you think the same could be said about Trump's January 6 speech?

Speaking of...

@Doug64 you don't get to cherry-pick from Trump's speech, if one reads all of it one will find rhetoric similar to Waters'. Unless you think saying "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," is somehow radically different from what she said.

Since Trump was not convicted, and this woman is not being convicted, I have no idea why people keep bringing up Trump.

It looks like you want to accuse me of hypocrisy, which os boring and irrelevant, but if you really want to, feel free and look through the Trump thread to see if I said anything about that speech.

But for the fourth time, this is not evidence of anyone calling for riots.

[Doug64]

@Doug64 you don't get to cherry-pick from Trump's speech, if one reads all of it one will find rhetoric similar to Waters'. Unless you think saying "We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore," is somehow radically different from what she said.

I quoted the section of the speech that the MSM(D) quoted over and over to support their claims that Trump incited violence, plus a bit more for context. Taking the statements at face value while ignoring all the history surrounding them, Trump’s statement and Waters’ don’t seem all that different. But when you do include that context, they look very different—because in Waters’ case there had already been multiple riots and so she looks like she’s calling for more and worse, while in Trump’s case the same cannot be said. (Which might well be a major part of the reason the Capitol Hill police were caught so off guard.)

[Saeko]

Anybody: There's a fire? Quickly, someone call the firefighters!

@wat0n : NOOOOOO!! You can't do that! You're inciting a riot! NOOOOOOOOO!!