• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

American politics

awesome dawson said:
I'm referring to when he said to his good people/'Patriots' “if you don’t fight like hell you’re not going to have a country anymore”, "march on Congress", "never stop fighting', on the morning of the siege. Even members of his own party, world leaders and a multitude of other commentators have clearly stated that he clearly contributed to the behaviour of the mob. Obviously you have issues with ever accepting you're wrong, despite making a career of it on here.

This article examines the legal ramifications of his words and the effect they had but I think if you take off you contrary hat, you'll admit he clearly stoked the flames and the outcome (innocent lives lost/democracy under attack) is his responsibility.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021...ncited-capitol-riot-is-in-eye-of-the-beholder
Click to expand...
Lol @ the sauce
 
thfcsteff said:
They can, and apparently do with great success given the fact that successful litigation against them seems non-existent.
Click to expand...
So far, but that's a measure of the quality of their legal team and not the legality of their actions. That net is certainly tightening in the UK and EU - us normal publishers would never get away with it.
 
thfcsteff said:
Sigh. You silly fellow. Here's the same conclusion from a grand ol' white western sauce.

https://www.latimes.com/politics/st...-rhetoric-incites-supporters-capitol-takeover

...and if that white western sauce isn't enough, 'ave another dollop maaaaate! Bosh!

https://www.cnn.com/2021/01/09/politics/donald-trump-dangerous-capitol-riot/index.html
Click to expand...
The first articles quotes Trump telling people to go home and not to be violent. How much clearer could he have been?
 
scaramanga said:
So far, but that's a measure of the quality of their legal team and not the legality of their actions. That net is certainly tightening in the UK and EU - us normal publishers would never get away with it.
Click to expand...

I just posted in the '84 tech thread that there is actually a genuine case to sue these platforms not for kicking him off, but for not having done so several years ago when Trump first violated the exceptions to free speech. They gave him a fat pass for years. It is messy yet remarkably clear at the same time. Further, a big complaint I have is that these platforms are now seen as "heroic" for their "stance"...like eulogizing GW Bush, it is too little too late from entities that could've saved us all both this mess and a global pandemic. Better late than never is meagre consolation...
 
scaramanga said:
The first articles quotes Trump telling people to go home and not to be violent. How much clearer could he have been?
Click to expand...

You're taking that out of context. Trust me (given that you casually refuse to look into evidence as to how wrong you are) there are at least a half dozen sources which explain why it was too little too late and why he was furious he was "made" to do it.
 
thfcsteff said:
You're taking that out of context. Trust me (given that you casually refuse to look into evidence as to how wrong you are) there are at least a half dozen sources which explain why it was too little too late and why he was furious he was "made" to do it.
Click to expand...
I don't know about his state of mind when making those statements but he's rarely appeared to me as a person that does anything he doesn't want to.

The only other quote I can see that could even remotely point to incitement is a comment about having to fight. If we locked up every politician that claimed there was a need to fight for what we wanted, there would be no politicians left.
 
scaramanga said:
I don't know about his state of mind when making those statements but he's rarely appeared to me as a person that does anything he doesn't want to.

The only other quote I can see that could even remotely point to incitement is a comment about having to fight. If we locked up every politician that claimed there was a need to fight for what we wanted, there would be no politicians left.
Click to expand...
I'm not quite sure he's crossed the line into incitement of violence, he might have just skirted it. Though that's up to any potential prosecutor and court.

For me Guliani crossed the line with his "trial by combat" line. But again, up to law talky people.

Outside the legal definition there's no doubt in my mind he's contributed to this. Constant claims of the election being stolen, voter fraud etc. And Opening Arguments seems to make the claim that he's broken the law in other ways in the process.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
braineclipse said:
I'm not quite sure he's crossed the line into incitement of violence, he might have just skirted it. Though that's up to any potential prosecutor and court.

For me Guliani crossed the line with his "trial by combat" line. But again, up to law talky people.

Outside the legal definition there's no doubt in my mind he's contributed to this. Constant claims of the election being stolen, voter fraud etc. And Opening Arguments seems to make the claim that he's broken the law in other ways in the process.
Click to expand...
I'm fairly sure Guliani will be disbarred for that at least - he did cross the line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back