Discussion:
Trump acquitted by Senate after wild whiplash final day of impeachment trial
Add Reply
Johnny
2021-02-13 21:27:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago

Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented second
impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an insurrection for the
Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the first and only president to be
impeached and acquitted twice in history.

A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday in a 57-43 vote,
but the number fell short of the supermajority needed to convict the
president. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate would have moved to bar
the 45th president from holding federal office ever again.

The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in finding Trump
guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of
Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt
Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial announced the
vote fell short of the two-thirds majority need and therefore Trump is
"hereby acquitted of the charge."

The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the door open to
another White House bid in 2024, though senators have hinted they may
still try to bar him from office in a separate 14th Amendment measure.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot

The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then decided not to.

Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't want
the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the riot was planned
weeks before Trump's speech.
Peter
2021-02-14 12:22:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented second
impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an insurrection for the
Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the first and only president to be
impeached and acquitted twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday in a 57-43 vote,
but the number fell short of the supermajority needed to convict the
president. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate would have moved to bar
the 45th president from holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in finding Trump
guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of
Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt
Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial announced the
vote fell short of the two-thirds majority need and therefore Trump is
"hereby acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the door open to
another White House bid in 2024, though senators have hinted they may
still try to bar him from office in a separate 14th Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't want
the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the riot was planned
weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
El Castor
2021-02-16 00:47:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented second
impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an insurrection for the
Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the first and only president to be
impeached and acquitted twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday in a 57-43 vote,
but the number fell short of the supermajority needed to convict the
president. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate would have moved to bar
the 45th president from holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in finding Trump
guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of
Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt
Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial announced the
vote fell short of the two-thirds majority need and therefore Trump is
"hereby acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the door open to
another White House bid in 2024, though senators have hinted they may
still try to bar him from office in a separate 14th Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't want
the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the riot was planned
weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is no evidence
he planned an invasion of the capitol building. However, when it
happened he could have spoken out and demanded that they back off.
That he failed to do this is unforgivable.
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-02-16 01:03:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented second
impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an insurrection for the
Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the first and only president to be
impeached and acquitted twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday in a 57-43 vote,
but the number fell short of the supermajority needed to convict the
president. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate would have moved to bar
the 45th president from holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in finding Trump
guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of
Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt
Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial announced the
vote fell short of the two-thirds majority need and therefore Trump is
"hereby acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the door open to
another White House bid in 2024, though senators have hinted they may
still try to bar him from office in a separate 14th Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't want
the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the riot was planned
weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is no evidence
he planned an invasion of the capitol building. However, when it
happened he could have spoken out and demanded that they back off.
That he failed to do this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to nothing after it
started. But there is more to it than that as Mitch McConnell explained:

They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild falsehoods by
the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he'd lost an
election. Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a
disgraceful dereliction of duty. There is no question that President
Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of
that day. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting
on the wishes and instructions of their President. And their having that
belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the
defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet
Earth. The issue is not only the President's intemperate language on
January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an
associate urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire manufactured
atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths about a
reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret coup by
our now-President.
El Castor
2021-02-16 06:31:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented second
impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an insurrection for the
Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the first and only president to be
impeached and acquitted twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday in a 57-43 vote,
but the number fell short of the supermajority needed to convict the
president. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate would have moved to bar
the 45th president from holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in finding Trump
guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of
Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt
Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial announced the
vote fell short of the two-thirds majority need and therefore Trump is
"hereby acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the door open to
another White House bid in 2024, though senators have hinted they may
still try to bar him from office in a separate 14th Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't want
the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the riot was planned
weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is no evidence
he planned an invasion of the capitol building. However, when it
happened he could have spoken out and demanded that they back off.
That he failed to do this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to nothing after it
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild falsehoods by
the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he'd lost an
election. Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a
disgraceful dereliction of duty. There is no question that President
Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of
that day. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting
on the wishes and instructions of their President. And their having that
belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the
defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet
Earth. The issue is not only the President's intemperate language on
January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an
associate urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire manufactured
atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths about a
reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret coup by
our now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the violence of
the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle, NY, LA, etc. More than
2,000 police officers injured, buildings burned, countless stores
looted. That year did not justify the Capitol riots, but it helped to
set the stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have lent an air of
permissibility. Still, Trump could have stopped that fiasco, and by
not even trying gave it his tacit approval. Shameful.
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-02-16 16:44:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented second
impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an insurrection for the
Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the first and only president to be
impeached and acquitted twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday in a 57-43 vote,
but the number fell short of the supermajority needed to convict the
president. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate would have moved to bar
the 45th president from holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in finding Trump
guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of
Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt
Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial announced the
vote fell short of the two-thirds majority need and therefore Trump is
"hereby acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the door open to
another White House bid in 2024, though senators have hinted they may
still try to bar him from office in a separate 14th Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't want
the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the riot was planned
weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is no evidence
he planned an invasion of the capitol building. However, when it
happened he could have spoken out and demanded that they back off.
That he failed to do this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to nothing after it
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild falsehoods by
the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he'd lost an
election. Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a
disgraceful dereliction of duty. There is no question that President
Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of
that day. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting
on the wishes and instructions of their President. And their having that
belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the
defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet
Earth. The issue is not only the President's intemperate language on
January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an
associate urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire manufactured
atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths about a
reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret coup by
our now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the violence of
the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle, NY, LA, etc. More than
2,000 police officers injured, buildings burned, countless stores
looted. That year did not justify the Capitol riots, but it helped to
set the stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have lent an air of
permissibility.
More from McConnell on why you are wrong:

Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use
metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally. This was
different. This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories,
orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either
overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.
El Castor
2021-02-16 18:50:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented second
impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an insurrection for the
Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the first and only president to be
impeached and acquitted twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday in a 57-43 vote,
but the number fell short of the supermajority needed to convict the
president. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate would have moved to bar
the 45th president from holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in finding Trump
guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of
Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt
Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial announced the
vote fell short of the two-thirds majority need and therefore Trump is
"hereby acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the door open to
another White House bid in 2024, though senators have hinted they may
still try to bar him from office in a separate 14th Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't want
the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the riot was planned
weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is no evidence
he planned an invasion of the capitol building. However, when it
happened he could have spoken out and demanded that they back off.
That he failed to do this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to nothing after it
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild falsehoods by
the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he'd lost an
election. Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a
disgraceful dereliction of duty. There is no question that President
Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of
that day. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting
on the wishes and instructions of their President. And their having that
belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the
defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet
Earth. The issue is not only the President's intemperate language on
January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an
associate urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire manufactured
atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths about a
reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret coup by
our now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the violence of
the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle, NY, LA, etc. More than
2,000 police officers injured, buildings burned, countless stores
looted. That year did not justify the Capitol riots, but it helped to
set the stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have lent an air of
permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use
metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally. This was
different. This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories,
orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either
overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.

While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel any guilt
or responsibility for months of rioting, burning, looting, attacks on
police, and statue destruction by the Left -- actions that were
largely ignored by Democrat politicians?
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-02-16 19:07:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented second
impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an insurrection for the
Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the first and only president to be
impeached and acquitted twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday in a 57-43 vote,
but the number fell short of the supermajority needed to convict the
president. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate would have moved to bar
the 45th president from holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in finding Trump
guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of
Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt
Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial announced the
vote fell short of the two-thirds majority need and therefore Trump is
"hereby acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the door open to
another White House bid in 2024, though senators have hinted they may
still try to bar him from office in a separate 14th Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't want
the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the riot was planned
weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is no evidence
he planned an invasion of the capitol building. However, when it
happened he could have spoken out and demanded that they back off.
That he failed to do this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to nothing after it
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild falsehoods by
the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he'd lost an
election. Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a
disgraceful dereliction of duty. There is no question that President
Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of
that day. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting
on the wishes and instructions of their President. And their having that
belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the
defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet
Earth. The issue is not only the President's intemperate language on
January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an
associate urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire manufactured
atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths about a
reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret coup by
our now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the violence of
the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle, NY, LA, etc. More than
2,000 police officers injured, buildings burned, countless stores
looted. That year did not justify the Capitol riots, but it helped to
set the stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have lent an air of
permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use
metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally. This was
different. This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories,
orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either
overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel any guilt
or responsibility for months of rioting, burning, looting, attacks on
police, and statue destruction by the Left -- actions that were
largely ignored by Democrat politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the rioting while
pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
El Castor
2021-02-16 20:25:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented second
impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an insurrection for the
Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the first and only president to be
impeached and acquitted twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday in a 57-43 vote,
but the number fell short of the supermajority needed to convict the
president. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate would have moved to bar
the 45th president from holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in finding Trump
guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of
Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt
Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial announced the
vote fell short of the two-thirds majority need and therefore Trump is
"hereby acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the door open to
another White House bid in 2024, though senators have hinted they may
still try to bar him from office in a separate 14th Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't want
the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the riot was planned
weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is no evidence
he planned an invasion of the capitol building. However, when it
happened he could have spoken out and demanded that they back off.
That he failed to do this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to nothing after it
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild falsehoods by
the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he'd lost an
election. Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a
disgraceful dereliction of duty. There is no question that President
Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of
that day. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting
on the wishes and instructions of their President. And their having that
belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the
defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet
Earth. The issue is not only the President's intemperate language on
January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an
associate urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire manufactured
atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths about a
reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret coup by
our now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the violence of
the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle, NY, LA, etc. More than
2,000 police officers injured, buildings burned, countless stores
looted. That year did not justify the Capitol riots, but it helped to
set the stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have lent an air of
permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use
metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally. This was
different. This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories,
orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either
overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel any guilt
or responsibility for months of rioting, burning, looting, attacks on
police, and statue destruction by the Left -- actions that were
largely ignored by Democrat politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the rioting while
pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified. What is
this valid grievance that justified burning, looting, and killing or
injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-02-17 00:45:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented second
impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an insurrection for the
Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the first and only president to be
impeached and acquitted twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday in a 57-43 vote,
but the number fell short of the supermajority needed to convict the
president. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate would have moved to bar
the 45th president from holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in finding Trump
guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of
Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt
Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial announced the
vote fell short of the two-thirds majority need and therefore Trump is
"hereby acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the door open to
another White House bid in 2024, though senators have hinted they may
still try to bar him from office in a separate 14th Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't want
the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the riot was planned
weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is no evidence
he planned an invasion of the capitol building. However, when it
happened he could have spoken out and demanded that they back off.
That he failed to do this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to nothing after it
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild falsehoods by
the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he'd lost an
election. Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a
disgraceful dereliction of duty. There is no question that President
Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of
that day. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting
on the wishes and instructions of their President. And their having that
belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the
defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet
Earth. The issue is not only the President's intemperate language on
January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an
associate urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire manufactured
atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths about a
reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret coup by
our now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the violence of
the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle, NY, LA, etc. More than
2,000 police officers injured, buildings burned, countless stores
looted. That year did not justify the Capitol riots, but it helped to
set the stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have lent an air of
permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use
metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally. This was
different. This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories,
orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either
overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel any guilt
or responsibility for months of rioting, burning, looting, attacks on
police, and statue destruction by the Left -- actions that were
largely ignored by Democrat politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the rioting while
pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified. What is
this valid grievance that justified burning, looting, and killing or
injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance, racial justice,
is valid.
El Castor
2021-02-17 06:53:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:45:34 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented second
impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an insurrection for the
Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the first and only president to be
impeached and acquitted twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday in a 57-43 vote,
but the number fell short of the supermajority needed to convict the
president. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate would have moved to bar
the 45th president from holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in finding Trump
guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of
Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt
Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial announced the
vote fell short of the two-thirds majority need and therefore Trump is
"hereby acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the door open to
another White House bid in 2024, though senators have hinted they may
still try to bar him from office in a separate 14th Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't want
the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the riot was planned
weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is no evidence
he planned an invasion of the capitol building. However, when it
happened he could have spoken out and demanded that they back off.
That he failed to do this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to nothing after it
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild falsehoods by
the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he'd lost an
election. Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a
disgraceful dereliction of duty. There is no question that President
Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of
that day. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting
on the wishes and instructions of their President. And their having that
belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the
defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet
Earth. The issue is not only the President's intemperate language on
January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an
associate urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire manufactured
atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths about a
reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret coup by
our now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the violence of
the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle, NY, LA, etc. More than
2,000 police officers injured, buildings burned, countless stores
looted. That year did not justify the Capitol riots, but it helped to
set the stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have lent an air of
permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use
metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally. This was
different. This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories,
orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either
overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel any guilt
or responsibility for months of rioting, burning, looting, attacks on
police, and statue destruction by the Left -- actions that were
largely ignored by Democrat politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the rioting while
pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified. What is
this valid grievance that justified burning, looting, and killing or
injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance, racial justice,
is valid.
But that violence, justified or not, seems to be concentrated in
predominantly Democrat strongholds -- Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis,
New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, etc. Gosh, I would think those ruling
Democrats must be doling out racial justice by the cart load.

Curiously where police forces have been re-ordered or reduced in the
name of racial justice, what do we see -- more crime, more murders.
Blacks who make up 13% of the population commit half of all US
murders, while Asians who are about 40% as numerous, commit almost
none. It all comes down to one thing, and it is not racial justice,
it's median IQ. IQ manufactures its own justice and commits crime at a
rate inversely proportional to that important number.
Johnny
2021-02-17 13:48:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 22:53:16 -0800
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:45:34 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 13:22:02 +0100, Peter
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented
second impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an
insurrection for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the
first and only president to be impeached and acquitted
twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday in a
57-43 vote, but the number fell short of the supermajority
needed to convict the president. Had Trump been convicted,
the Senate would have moved to bar the 45th president from
holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in
finding Trump guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North
Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of
Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben
Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial
announced the vote fell short of the two-thirds majority
need and therefore Trump is "hereby acquitted of the
charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the
door open to another White House bid in 2024, though
senators have hinted they may still try to bar him from
office in a separate 14th Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't
want the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the
riot was planned weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is no
evidence he planned an invasion of the capitol building.
However, when it happened he could have spoken out and
demanded that they back off. That he failed to do this is
unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to
nothing after it started. But there is more to it than that
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild
falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth — because he was
angry he'd lost an election. Former President Trump's actions
preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty.
There is no question that President Trump is practically and
morally responsible for provoking the events of that day. The
people who stormed this building believed they were acting on
the wishes and instructions of their President. And their
having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the
growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories,
and reckless hyperbole which the defeated President kept
shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth. The
issue is not only the President's intemperate language on
January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in
which an associate urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the
entire manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the
increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election
that was being stolen in some secret coup by our
now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the
violence of the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle, NY,
LA, etc. More than 2,000 police officers injured, buildings
burned, countless stores looted. That year did not justify the
Capitol riots, but it helped to set the stage, and in the
minds of the rioters may have lent an air of permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or
use metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally.
This was different. This was an intensifying crescendo of
conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president who
seemed determined to either overturn the voters' decision or
else torch our institutions on the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel any
guilt or responsibility for months of rioting, burning, looting,
attacks on police, and statue destruction by the Left -- actions
that were largely ignored by Democrat politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the rioting
while pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified. What is
this valid grievance that justified burning, looting, and killing
or injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance, racial
justice, is valid.
But that violence, justified or not, seems to be concentrated in
predominantly Democrat strongholds -- Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis,
New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, etc. Gosh, I would think those ruling
Democrats must be doling out racial justice by the cart load.
Curiously where police forces have been re-ordered or reduced in the
name of racial justice, what do we see -- more crime, more murders.
Blacks who make up 13% of the population commit half of all US
murders, while Asians who are about 40% as numerous, commit almost
none. It all comes down to one thing, and it is not racial justice,
it's median IQ. IQ manufactures its own justice and commits crime at a
rate inversely proportional to that important number.
There is no wide spread racial discrimination in the US. It's another
lie by the liberals.

The only discrimination is a difference in intelligence among the
races. There is nothing that can be done about that.
Johnny
2021-02-17 13:51:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:45:34 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented
second impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an
insurrection for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the
first and only president to be impeached and acquitted
twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday in a
57-43 vote, but the number fell short of the supermajority
needed to convict the president. Had Trump been convicted,
the Senate would have moved to bar the 45th president from
holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in
finding Trump guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North
Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of
Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben
Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial
announced the vote fell short of the two-thirds majority
need and therefore Trump is "hereby acquitted of the
charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the door
open to another White House bid in 2024, though senators
have hinted they may still try to bar him from office in a
separate 14th Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't
want the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the
riot was planned weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is no
evidence he planned an invasion of the capitol building.
However, when it happened he could have spoken out and
demanded that they back off. That he failed to do this is
unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to nothing
after it started. But there is more to it than that as Mitch
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild
falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth — because he was
angry he'd lost an election. Former President Trump's actions
preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty.
There is no question that President Trump is practically and
morally responsible for provoking the events of that day. The
people who stormed this building believed they were acting on
the wishes and instructions of their President. And their
having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the
growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories,
and reckless hyperbole which the defeated President kept
shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth. The issue
is not only the President's intemperate language on January
6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an
associate urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire
manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the
increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election
that was being stolen in some secret coup by our
now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the
violence of the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle, NY,
LA, etc. More than 2,000 police officers injured, buildings
burned, countless stores looted. That year did not justify the
Capitol riots, but it helped to set the stage, and in the minds
of the rioters may have lent an air of permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use
metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally. This was
different. This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy
theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed
determined to either overturn the voters' decision or else torch
our institutions on the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel any
guilt or responsibility for months of rioting, burning, looting,
attacks on police, and statue destruction by the Left -- actions
that were largely ignored by Democrat politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the rioting
while pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified. What is
this valid grievance that justified burning, looting, and killing or
injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance, racial
justice, is valid.
What racial justice do these violent protesters want?
Johnny
2021-02-17 16:32:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:18:16 -0800
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:45:34 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 13:22:02 +0100, Peter
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented
second impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an
insurrection for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the
first and only president to be impeached and acquitted
twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday in a
57-43 vote, but the number fell short of the supermajority
needed to convict the president. Had Trump been convicted,
the Senate would have moved to bar the 45th president from
holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in
finding Trump guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North
Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of
Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben
Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial
announced the vote fell short of the two-thirds majority
need and therefore Trump is "hereby acquitted of the
charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the
door open to another White House bid in 2024, though
senators have hinted they may still try to bar him from
office in a separate 14th Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't
want the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the
riot was planned weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is no
evidence he planned an invasion of the capitol building.
However, when it happened he could have spoken out and
demanded that they back off. That he failed to do this is
unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to
nothing after it started. But there is more to it than that
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild
falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth — because he was
angry he'd lost an election. Former President Trump's actions
preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction of duty.
There is no question that President Trump is practically and
morally responsible for provoking the events of that day. The
people who stormed this building believed they were acting on
the wishes and instructions of their President. And their
having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the
growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy theories,
and reckless hyperbole which the defeated President kept
shouting into the largest megaphone on planet Earth. The
issue is not only the President's intemperate language on
January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in
which an associate urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the
entire manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the
increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election
that was being stolen in some secret coup by our
now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the
violence of the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle, NY,
LA, etc. More than 2,000 police officers injured, buildings
burned, countless stores looted. That year did not justify the
Capitol riots, but it helped to set the stage, and in the
minds of the rioters may have lent an air of permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or
use metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally.
This was different. This was an intensifying crescendo of
conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president who
seemed determined to either overturn the voters' decision or
else torch our institutions on the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel any
guilt or responsibility for months of rioting, burning, looting,
attacks on police, and statue destruction by the Left -- actions
that were largely ignored by Democrat politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the rioting
while pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified. What
is this valid grievance that justified burning, looting, and
killing or injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance, racial
justice, is valid.
What racial justice do these violent protesters want?
The peaceful protestors wanted police to stop treating blacks worse
than whites.
I don't think there is any proof that the police treat black people any
different than white people.

Police are given mental evaluations during training, and I'm sure if a
psychologist detected any racist tendencies, that person would be
eliminated immediately.

Even when half a police department is black, and a white officer kills
a black person the peaceful protesters think it's a racial issue. When
a black officer kills a white person, there is no racial issue.

Don't forget Michael Brown. The witnesses in the crowd made that a
racial issue by lying about what happened.
Johnny
2021-02-18 14:30:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 10:32:12 -0600
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:18:16 -0800
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:45:34 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 13:22:02 +0100, Peter
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented
second impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an
insurrection for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the
first and only president to be impeached and acquitted
twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday
in a 57-43 vote, but the number fell short of the
supermajority needed to convict the president. Had
Trump been convicted, the Senate would have moved to
bar the 45th president from holding federal office ever
again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in
finding Trump guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North
Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of
Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah,
Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial
announced the vote fell short of the two-thirds majority
need and therefore Trump is "hereby acquitted of the
charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the
door open to another White House bid in 2024, though
senators have hinted they may still try to bar him from
office in a separate 14th Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then
decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't
want the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the
riot was planned weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is
no evidence he planned an invasion of the capitol
building. However, when it happened he could have spoken
out and demanded that they back off. That he failed to do
this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to
nothing after it started. But there is more to it than that
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild
falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth — because he
was angry he'd lost an election. Former President Trump's
actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction
of duty. There is no question that President Trump is
practically and morally responsible for provoking the
events of that day. The people who stormed this building
believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions
of their President. And their having that belief was a
foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole
which the defeated President kept shouting into the
largest megaphone on planet Earth. The issue is not only
the President's intemperate language on January 6th. It is
not just his endorsement of remarks in which an associate
urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire
manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the
increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election
that was being stolen in some secret coup by our
now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the
violence of the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle,
NY, LA, etc. More than 2,000 police officers injured,
buildings burned, countless stores looted. That year did
not justify the Capitol riots, but it helped to set the
stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have lent an air
of permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or
use metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally.
This was different. This was an intensifying crescendo of
conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president
who seemed determined to either overturn the voters'
decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel any
guilt or responsibility for months of rioting, burning,
looting, attacks on police, and statue destruction by the
Left -- actions that were largely ignored by Democrat
politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the
rioting while pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified. What
is this valid grievance that justified burning, looting, and
killing or injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance, racial
justice, is valid.
What racial justice do these violent protesters want?
The peaceful protestors wanted police to stop treating blacks worse
than whites.
I don't think there is any proof that the police treat black people
any different than white people.
Police are given mental evaluations during training, and I'm sure if a
psychologist detected any racist tendencies, that person would be
eliminated immediately.
Even when half a police department is black, and a white officer kills
a black person the peaceful protesters think it's a racial issue.
When a black officer kills a white person, there is no racial issue.
Don't forget Michael Brown. The witnesses in the crowd made that a
racial issue by lying about what happened.
I didn't think Josh would respond.

There is no proof that any police officer ever killed someone just
because they were black.

When a police officer uses unnecessary force, or kills someone when it
could have been avoided, then it should be settled in court. If the
officer is found guilty he should be punished, or go to prison. Just
don't say what he did was racist without any proof.
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-02-18 17:25:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 10:32:12 -0600
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:18:16 -0800
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:45:34 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 13:22:02 +0100, Peter
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented
second impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an
insurrection for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the
first and only president to be impeached and acquitted
twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday
in a 57-43 vote, but the number fell short of the
supermajority needed to convict the president. Had
Trump been convicted, the Senate would have moved to
bar the 45th president from holding federal office ever
again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in
finding Trump guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North
Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of
Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah,
Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial
announced the vote fell short of the two-thirds majority
need and therefore Trump is "hereby acquitted of the
charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the
door open to another White House bid in 2024, though
senators have hinted they may still try to bar him from
office in a separate 14th Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then
decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't
want the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the
riot was planned weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is
no evidence he planned an invasion of the capitol
building. However, when it happened he could have spoken
out and demanded that they back off. That he failed to do
this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to
nothing after it started. But there is more to it than that
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild
falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth — because he
was angry he'd lost an election. Former President Trump's
actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction
of duty. There is no question that President Trump is
practically and morally responsible for provoking the
events of that day. The people who stormed this building
believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions
of their President. And their having that belief was a
foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole
which the defeated President kept shouting into the
largest megaphone on planet Earth. The issue is not only
the President's intemperate language on January 6th. It is
not just his endorsement of remarks in which an associate
urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire
manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the
increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election
that was being stolen in some secret coup by our
now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the
violence of the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle,
NY, LA, etc. More than 2,000 police officers injured,
buildings burned, countless stores looted. That year did
not justify the Capitol riots, but it helped to set the
stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have lent an air
of permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or
use metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally.
This was different. This was an intensifying crescendo of
conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president
who seemed determined to either overturn the voters'
decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel any
guilt or responsibility for months of rioting, burning,
looting, attacks on police, and statue destruction by the
Left -- actions that were largely ignored by Democrat
politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the
rioting while pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified. What
is this valid grievance that justified burning, looting, and
killing or injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance, racial
justice, is valid.
What racial justice do these violent protesters want?
The peaceful protestors wanted police to stop treating blacks worse
than whites.
I don't think there is any proof that the police treat black people
any different than white people.
Police are given mental evaluations during training, and I'm sure if a
psychologist detected any racist tendencies, that person would be
eliminated immediately.
Even when half a police department is black, and a white officer kills
a black person the peaceful protesters think it's a racial issue.
When a black officer kills a white person, there is no racial issue.
Don't forget Michael Brown. The witnesses in the crowd made that a
racial issue by lying about what happened.
I didn't think Josh would respond.
There is no proof that any police officer ever killed someone just
because they were black.
When a police officer uses unnecessary force, or kills someone when it
could have been avoided, then it should be settled in court. If the
officer is found guilty he should be punished, or go to prison. Just
don't say what he did was racist without any proof.
This is a good overview of the data and provides the source studies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_deadly_force_in_the_United_States

Some conclusions are controversial, but everyone agrees that 1)
law-abiding blacks are more likely to encounter police force than
law-abiding whites and 2) police are acting racist if the people they
choose to stop is based on race. In both cases, those who argue police
aren't racist say the results are only because blacks commit more
crimes. But even assuming that is true for the sake of argument, the
indignity of #1 is real and the higher crime rates could be as a result
of 450 years of being shit upon.
Johnny
2021-02-18 17:57:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:25:37 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 10:32:12 -0600
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:18:16 -0800
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:45:34 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 13:22:02 +0100, Peter
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an
unprecedented second impeachment trial on the charge
of inciting an insurrection for the Jan. 6 Capitol
riot, making him the first and only president to be
impeached and acquitted twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday
in a 57-43 vote, but the number fell short of the
supermajority needed to convict the president. Had
Trump been convicted, the Senate would have moved to
bar the 45th president from holding federal office ever
again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in
finding Trump guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North
Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of
Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah,
Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial
announced the vote fell short of the two-thirds
majority need and therefore Trump is "hereby acquitted
of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the
door open to another White House bid in 2024, though
senators have hinted they may still try to bar him from
office in a separate 14th Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then
decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and
didn't want the Republicans to bring in the FBI and
testify the riot was planned weeks before Trump's
speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is
no evidence he planned an invasion of the capitol
building. However, when it happened he could have spoken
out and demanded that they back off. That he failed to do
this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to
nothing after it started. But there is more to it than
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild
falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth — because he
was angry he'd lost an election. Former President Trump's
actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction
of duty. There is no question that President Trump is
practically and morally responsible for provoking the
events of that day. The people who stormed this building
believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions
of their President. And their having that belief was a
foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole
which the defeated President kept shouting into the
largest megaphone on planet Earth. The issue is not only
the President's intemperate language on January 6th. It is
not just his endorsement of remarks in which an associate
urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire
manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the
increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election
that was being stolen in some secret coup by our
now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the
violence of the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle,
NY, LA, etc. More than 2,000 police officers injured,
buildings burned, countless stores looted. That year did
not justify the Capitol riots, but it helped to set the
stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have lent an air
of permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments
or use metaphors that unhinged listeners might take
literally. This was different. This was an intensifying
crescendo of conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an
outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn
the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the
way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel
any guilt or responsibility for months of rioting, burning,
looting, attacks on police, and statue destruction by the
Left -- actions that were largely ignored by Democrat
politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the
rioting while pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified.
What is this valid grievance that justified burning, looting,
and killing or injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance, racial
justice, is valid.
What racial justice do these violent protesters want?
The peaceful protestors wanted police to stop treating blacks
worse than whites.
I don't think there is any proof that the police treat black people
any different than white people.
Police are given mental evaluations during training, and I'm sure
if a psychologist detected any racist tendencies, that person
would be eliminated immediately.
Even when half a police department is black, and a white officer
kills a black person the peaceful protesters think it's a racial
issue. When a black officer kills a white person, there is no
racial issue.
Don't forget Michael Brown. The witnesses in the crowd made that a
racial issue by lying about what happened.
I didn't think Josh would respond.
There is no proof that any police officer ever killed someone just
because they were black.
When a police officer uses unnecessary force, or kills someone when
it could have been avoided, then it should be settled in court. If
the officer is found guilty he should be punished, or go to prison.
Just don't say what he did was racist without any proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_deadly_force_in_the_United_States
Some conclusions are controversial, but everyone agrees that 1)
law-abiding blacks are more likely to encounter police force than
law-abiding whites and 2) police are acting racist if the people they
choose to stop is based on race. In both cases, those who argue
police aren't racist say the results are only because blacks commit
more crimes. But even assuming that is true for the sake of argument,
the indignity of #1 is real and the higher crime rates could be as a
result of 450 years of being shit upon.
Now they are shitting on they white people that had nothing to do with
it.

Every time a white police officer kills a black person, the liberals
and black activists claim race was the reason the person was killed.

In the case of George Floyd, he committed a crime and the police were
called. If black officers had responded and Floyd resisted arrest, the
outcome would probably have been the same, since Floyd had a lethal dose
of drugs in his system. No one would have said he was dead because he
was black. The police officers would have been following police
procedure. They are allowed to use neck compression to handcuff the
person or cause unconsciousness. Since they were following the rules
of the department, they probably wouldn't have faced murder charges.
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-02-18 18:59:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:25:37 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 10:32:12 -0600
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:18:16 -0800
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:45:34 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 13:22:02 +0100, Peter
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an
unprecedented second impeachment trial on the charge
of inciting an insurrection for the Jan. 6 Capitol
riot, making him the first and only president to be
impeached and acquitted twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday
in a 57-43 vote, but the number fell short of the
supermajority needed to convict the president. Had
Trump been convicted, the Senate would have moved to
bar the 45th president from holding federal office ever
again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in
finding Trump guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North
Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of
Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah,
Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial
announced the vote fell short of the two-thirds
majority need and therefore Trump is "hereby acquitted
of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the
door open to another White House bid in 2024, though
senators have hinted they may still try to bar him from
office in a separate 14th Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then
decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and
didn't want the Republicans to bring in the FBI and
testify the riot was planned weeks before Trump's
speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is
no evidence he planned an invasion of the capitol
building. However, when it happened he could have spoken
out and demanded that they back off. That he failed to do
this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to
nothing after it started. But there is more to it than
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild
falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth — because he
was angry he'd lost an election. Former President Trump's
actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction
of duty. There is no question that President Trump is
practically and morally responsible for provoking the
events of that day. The people who stormed this building
believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions
of their President. And their having that belief was a
foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole
which the defeated President kept shouting into the
largest megaphone on planet Earth. The issue is not only
the President's intemperate language on January 6th. It is
not just his endorsement of remarks in which an associate
urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire
manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the
increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election
that was being stolen in some secret coup by our
now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the
violence of the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle,
NY, LA, etc. More than 2,000 police officers injured,
buildings burned, countless stores looted. That year did
not justify the Capitol riots, but it helped to set the
stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have lent an air
of permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments
or use metaphors that unhinged listeners might take
literally. This was different. This was an intensifying
crescendo of conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an
outgoing president who seemed determined to either overturn
the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the
way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel
any guilt or responsibility for months of rioting, burning,
looting, attacks on police, and statue destruction by the
Left -- actions that were largely ignored by Democrat
politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the
rioting while pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified.
What is this valid grievance that justified burning, looting,
and killing or injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance, racial
justice, is valid.
What racial justice do these violent protesters want?
The peaceful protestors wanted police to stop treating blacks
worse than whites.
I don't think there is any proof that the police treat black people
any different than white people.
Police are given mental evaluations during training, and I'm sure
if a psychologist detected any racist tendencies, that person
would be eliminated immediately.
Even when half a police department is black, and a white officer
kills a black person the peaceful protesters think it's a racial
issue. When a black officer kills a white person, there is no
racial issue.
Don't forget Michael Brown. The witnesses in the crowd made that a
racial issue by lying about what happened.
I didn't think Josh would respond.
There is no proof that any police officer ever killed someone just
because they were black.
When a police officer uses unnecessary force, or kills someone when
it could have been avoided, then it should be settled in court. If
the officer is found guilty he should be punished, or go to prison.
Just don't say what he did was racist without any proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_deadly_force_in_the_United_States
Some conclusions are controversial, but everyone agrees that 1)
law-abiding blacks are more likely to encounter police force than
law-abiding whites and 2) police are acting racist if the people they
choose to stop is based on race. In both cases, those who argue
police aren't racist say the results are only because blacks commit
more crimes. But even assuming that is true for the sake of argument,
the indignity of #1 is real and the higher crime rates could be as a
result of 450 years of being shit upon.
Now they are shitting on they white people that had nothing to do with
it.
Every time a white police officer kills a black person, the liberals
and black activists claim race was the reason the person was killed.
In the case of George Floyd, he committed a crime and the police were
called. If black officers had responded and Floyd resisted arrest, the
outcome would probably have been the same, since Floyd had a lethal dose
of drugs in his system. No one would have said he was dead because he
was black. The police officers would have been following police
procedure. They are allowed to use neck compression to handcuff the
person or cause unconsciousness. Since they were following the rules
of the department, they probably wouldn't have faced murder charges.
If the officer had been black, I think there would have been outrage
that police - black or white - 1) target blacks and 2) it was murder.
Leaving side race, I find it very troubling that you can view that video
and not think it was murder. What has moved the needle on this debate is
repeated examples of video evidence from body cams and other sources.
Johnny
2021-02-18 20:19:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 10:59:50 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:25:37 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 10:32:12 -0600
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:18:16 -0800
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:45:34 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 13:22:02 +0100, Peter
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an
unprecedented second impeachment trial on the charge
of inciting an insurrection for the Jan. 6 Capitol
riot, making him the first and only president to be
impeached and acquitted twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday
in a 57-43 vote, but the number fell short of the
supermajority needed to convict the president. Had
Trump been convicted, the Senate would have moved to
bar the 45th president from holding federal office
ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats
in finding Trump guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of
North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan
Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt
Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey
of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the
trial announced the vote fell short of the two-thirds
majority need and therefore Trump is "hereby
acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave
the door open to another White House bid in 2024,
though senators have hinted they may still try to
bar him from office in a separate 14th Amendment
measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then
decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and
didn't want the Republicans to bring in the FBI and
testify the riot was planned weeks before Trump's
speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there
is no evidence he planned an invasion of the capitol
building. However, when it happened he could have
spoken out and demanded that they back off. That he
failed to do this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to
nothing after it started. But there is more to it than
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild
falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth — because
he was angry he'd lost an election. Former President
Trump's actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful
dereliction of duty. There is no question that
President Trump is practically and morally responsible
for provoking the events of that day. The people who
stormed this building believed they were acting on the
wishes and instructions of their President. And their
having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the
growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy
theories, and reckless hyperbole which the defeated
President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on
planet Earth. The issue is not only the President's
intemperate language on January 6th. It is not just his
endorsement of remarks in which an associate urged
'trial by combat.' It was also the entire manufactured
atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly
wild myths about a reverse landslide election that was
being stolen in some secret coup by our now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore
the violence of the Left that preceded DC. Portland,
Seattle, NY, LA, etc. More than 2,000 police officers
injured, buildings burned, countless stores looted. That
year did not justify the Capitol riots, but it helped to
set the stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have
lent an air of permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments
or use metaphors that unhinged listeners might take
literally. This was different. This was an intensifying
crescendo of conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an
outgoing president who seemed determined to either
overturn the voters' decision or else torch our
institutions on the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel
any guilt or responsibility for months of rioting, burning,
looting, attacks on police, and statue destruction by the
Left -- actions that were largely ignored by Democrat
politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the
rioting while pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified.
What is this valid grievance that justified burning, looting,
and killing or injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance,
racial justice, is valid.
What racial justice do these violent protesters want?
The peaceful protestors wanted police to stop treating blacks
worse than whites.
I don't think there is any proof that the police treat black
people any different than white people.
Police are given mental evaluations during training, and I'm sure
if a psychologist detected any racist tendencies, that person
would be eliminated immediately.
Even when half a police department is black, and a white officer
kills a black person the peaceful protesters think it's a racial
issue. When a black officer kills a white person, there is no
racial issue.
Don't forget Michael Brown. The witnesses in the crowd made
that a racial issue by lying about what happened.
I didn't think Josh would respond.
There is no proof that any police officer ever killed someone just
because they were black.
When a police officer uses unnecessary force, or kills someone
when it could have been avoided, then it should be settled in
court. If the officer is found guilty he should be punished, or
go to prison. Just don't say what he did was racist without any
proof.
This is a good overview of the data and provides the source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_deadly_force_in_the_United_States
Some conclusions are controversial, but everyone agrees that 1)
law-abiding blacks are more likely to encounter police force than
law-abiding whites and 2) police are acting racist if the people
they choose to stop is based on race. In both cases, those who
argue police aren't racist say the results are only because blacks
commit more crimes. But even assuming that is true for the sake of
argument, the indignity of #1 is real and the higher crime rates
could be as a result of 450 years of being shit upon.
Now they are shitting on they white people that had nothing to do
with it.
Every time a white police officer kills a black person, the
liberals and black activists claim race was the reason the person
was killed.
In the case of George Floyd, he committed a crime and the police
were called. If black officers had responded and Floyd resisted
arrest, the outcome would probably have been the same, since Floyd
had a lethal dose of drugs in his system. No one would have said
he was dead because he was black. The police officers would have
been following police procedure. They are allowed to use neck
compression to handcuff the person or cause unconsciousness. Since
they were following the rules of the department, they probably
wouldn't have faced murder charges.
If the officer had been black, I think there would have been outrage
that police - black or white - 1) target blacks and 2) it was murder.
Leaving side race, I find it very troubling that you can view that
video and not think it was murder. What has moved the needle on this
debate is repeated examples of video evidence from body cams and
other sources.
The video shows the cop following procedure, how can it be murder?
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-02-18 23:29:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 10:59:50 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:25:37 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 10:32:12 -0600
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:18:16 -0800
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:45:34 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 13:22:02 +0100, Peter
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an
unprecedented second impeachment trial on the charge
of inciting an insurrection for the Jan. 6 Capitol
riot, making him the first and only president to be
impeached and acquitted twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday
in a 57-43 vote, but the number fell short of the
supermajority needed to convict the president. Had
Trump been convicted, the Senate would have moved to
bar the 45th president from holding federal office
ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats
in finding Trump guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of
North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan
Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt
Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey
of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the
trial announced the vote fell short of the two-thirds
majority need and therefore Trump is "hereby
acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave
the door open to another White House bid in 2024,
though senators have hinted they may still try to
bar him from office in a separate 14th Amendment
measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then
decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and
didn't want the Republicans to bring in the FBI and
testify the riot was planned weeks before Trump's
speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there
is no evidence he planned an invasion of the capitol
building. However, when it happened he could have
spoken out and demanded that they back off. That he
failed to do this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to
nothing after it started. But there is more to it than
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild
falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth — because
he was angry he'd lost an election. Former President
Trump's actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful
dereliction of duty. There is no question that
President Trump is practically and morally responsible
for provoking the events of that day. The people who
stormed this building believed they were acting on the
wishes and instructions of their President. And their
having that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the
growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy
theories, and reckless hyperbole which the defeated
President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on
planet Earth. The issue is not only the President's
intemperate language on January 6th. It is not just his
endorsement of remarks in which an associate urged
'trial by combat.' It was also the entire manufactured
atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly
wild myths about a reverse landslide election that was
being stolen in some secret coup by our now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore
the violence of the Left that preceded DC. Portland,
Seattle, NY, LA, etc. More than 2,000 police officers
injured, buildings burned, countless stores looted. That
year did not justify the Capitol riots, but it helped to
set the stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have
lent an air of permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments
or use metaphors that unhinged listeners might take
literally. This was different. This was an intensifying
crescendo of conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an
outgoing president who seemed determined to either
overturn the voters' decision or else torch our
institutions on the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel
any guilt or responsibility for months of rioting, burning,
looting, attacks on police, and statue destruction by the
Left -- actions that were largely ignored by Democrat
politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the
rioting while pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified.
What is this valid grievance that justified burning, looting,
and killing or injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance,
racial justice, is valid.
What racial justice do these violent protesters want?
The peaceful protestors wanted police to stop treating blacks
worse than whites.
I don't think there is any proof that the police treat black
people any different than white people.
Police are given mental evaluations during training, and I'm sure
if a psychologist detected any racist tendencies, that person
would be eliminated immediately.
Even when half a police department is black, and a white officer
kills a black person the peaceful protesters think it's a racial
issue. When a black officer kills a white person, there is no
racial issue.
Don't forget Michael Brown. The witnesses in the crowd made
that a racial issue by lying about what happened.
I didn't think Josh would respond.
There is no proof that any police officer ever killed someone just
because they were black.
When a police officer uses unnecessary force, or kills someone
when it could have been avoided, then it should be settled in
court. If the officer is found guilty he should be punished, or
go to prison. Just don't say what he did was racist without any
proof.
This is a good overview of the data and provides the source
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_deadly_force_in_the_United_States
Some conclusions are controversial, but everyone agrees that 1)
law-abiding blacks are more likely to encounter police force than
law-abiding whites and 2) police are acting racist if the people
they choose to stop is based on race. In both cases, those who
argue police aren't racist say the results are only because blacks
commit more crimes. But even assuming that is true for the sake of
argument, the indignity of #1 is real and the higher crime rates
could be as a result of 450 years of being shit upon.
Now they are shitting on they white people that had nothing to do
with it.
Every time a white police officer kills a black person, the
liberals and black activists claim race was the reason the person
was killed.
In the case of George Floyd, he committed a crime and the police
were called. If black officers had responded and Floyd resisted
arrest, the outcome would probably have been the same, since Floyd
had a lethal dose of drugs in his system. No one would have said
he was dead because he was black. The police officers would have
been following police procedure. They are allowed to use neck
compression to handcuff the person or cause unconsciousness. Since
they were following the rules of the department, they probably
wouldn't have faced murder charges.
If the officer had been black, I think there would have been outrage
that police - black or white - 1) target blacks and 2) it was murder.
Leaving side race, I find it very troubling that you can view that
video and not think it was murder. What has moved the needle on this
debate is repeated examples of video evidence from body cams and
other sources.
The video shows the cop following procedure, how can it be murder?
Citation for him following procedure.
Johnny
2021-02-18 23:34:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:29:01 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 10:59:50 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:25:37 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 10:32:12 -0600
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:18:16 -0800
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:45:34 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 13:22:02 +0100, Peter
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an
unprecedented second impeachment trial on the
charge of inciting an insurrection for the Jan. 6
Capitol riot, making him the first and only
president to be impeached and acquitted twice in
history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on
Saturday in a 57-43 vote, but the number fell
short of the supermajority needed to convict the
president. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate
would have moved to bar the 45th president from
holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all
Democrats in finding Trump guilty were: Sens.
Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of
Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski
of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of
Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the
trial announced the vote fell short of the
two-thirds majority need and therefore Trump is
"hereby acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave
the door open to another White House bid in 2024,
though senators have hinted they may still try to
bar him from office in a separate 14th Amendment
measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then
decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and
didn't want the Republicans to bring in the FBI and
testify the riot was planned weeks before Trump's
speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but
there is no evidence he planned an invasion of the
capitol building. However, when it happened he could
have spoken out and demanded that they back off.
That he failed to do this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to
nothing after it started. But there is more to it than
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed
wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth —
because he was angry he'd lost an election. Former
President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a
disgraceful dereliction of duty. There is no question
that President Trump is practically and morally
responsible for provoking the events of that day. The
people who stormed this building believed they were
acting on the wishes and instructions of their
President. And their having that belief was a
foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of
false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless
hyperbole which the defeated President kept shouting
into the largest megaphone on planet Earth. The issue
is not only the President's intemperate language on
January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of
remarks in which an associate urged 'trial by
combat.' It was also the entire manufactured
atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly
wild myths about a reverse landslide election that
was being stolen in some secret coup by our
now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore
the violence of the Left that preceded DC. Portland,
Seattle, NY, LA, etc. More than 2,000 police officers
injured, buildings burned, countless stores looted.
That year did not justify the Capitol riots, but it
helped to set the stage, and in the minds of the
rioters may have lent an air of permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated
comments or use metaphors that unhinged listeners might
take literally. This was different. This was an
intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories,
orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed
determined to either overturn the voters' decision or
else torch our institutions on the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my
shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats
feel any guilt or responsibility for months of rioting,
burning, looting, attacks on police, and statue
destruction by the Left -- actions that were largely
ignored by Democrat politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the
rioting while pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified.
What is this valid grievance that justified burning,
looting, and killing or injuring more than 2,000 police
officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance,
racial justice, is valid.
What racial justice do these violent protesters want?
The peaceful protestors wanted police to stop treating blacks
worse than whites.
I don't think there is any proof that the police treat black
people any different than white people.
Police are given mental evaluations during training, and I'm
sure if a psychologist detected any racist tendencies, that
person would be eliminated immediately.
Even when half a police department is black, and a white
officer kills a black person the peaceful protesters think
it's a racial issue. When a black officer kills a white
person, there is no racial issue.
Don't forget Michael Brown. The witnesses in the crowd made
that a racial issue by lying about what happened.
I didn't think Josh would respond.
There is no proof that any police officer ever killed someone
just because they were black.
When a police officer uses unnecessary force, or kills someone
when it could have been avoided, then it should be settled in
court. If the officer is found guilty he should be punished, or
go to prison. Just don't say what he did was racist without any
proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_deadly_force_in_the_United_States
Some conclusions are controversial, but everyone agrees that 1)
law-abiding blacks are more likely to encounter police force than
law-abiding whites and 2) police are acting racist if the people
they choose to stop is based on race. In both cases, those who
argue police aren't racist say the results are only because
blacks commit more crimes. But even assuming that is true for
the sake of argument, the indignity of #1 is real and the higher
crime rates could be as a result of 450 years of being shit
upon.
Now they are shitting on they white people that had nothing to do
with it.
Every time a white police officer kills a black person, the
liberals and black activists claim race was the reason the person
was killed.
In the case of George Floyd, he committed a crime and the police
were called. If black officers had responded and Floyd resisted
arrest, the outcome would probably have been the same, since Floyd
had a lethal dose of drugs in his system. No one would have said
he was dead because he was black. The police officers would have
been following police procedure. They are allowed to use neck
compression to handcuff the person or cause unconsciousness.
Since they were following the rules of the department, they
probably wouldn't have faced murder charges.
If the officer had been black, I think there would have been
outrage that police - black or white - 1) target blacks and 2) it
was murder. Leaving side race, I find it very troubling that you
can view that video and not think it was murder. What has moved
the needle on this debate is repeated examples of video evidence
from body cams and other sources.
The video shows the cop following procedure, how can it be murder?
Citation for him following procedure.
I posted that months ago. I will try to find it again.
Johnny
2021-02-18 23:39:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:29:01 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 10:59:50 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:25:37 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 10:32:12 -0600
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:18:16 -0800
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:45:34 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 13:22:02 +0100, Peter
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an
unprecedented second impeachment trial on the
charge of inciting an insurrection for the Jan. 6
Capitol riot, making him the first and only
president to be impeached and acquitted twice in
history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on
Saturday in a 57-43 vote, but the number fell
short of the supermajority needed to convict the
president. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate
would have moved to bar the 45th president from
holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all
Democrats in finding Trump guilty were: Sens.
Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of
Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski
of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of
Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the
trial announced the vote fell short of the
two-thirds majority need and therefore Trump is
"hereby acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave
the door open to another White House bid in 2024,
though senators have hinted they may still try to
bar him from office in a separate 14th Amendment
measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then
decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and
didn't want the Republicans to bring in the FBI and
testify the riot was planned weeks before Trump's
speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but
there is no evidence he planned an invasion of the
capitol building. However, when it happened he could
have spoken out and demanded that they back off.
That he failed to do this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to
nothing after it started. But there is more to it than
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed
wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth —
because he was angry he'd lost an election. Former
President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a
disgraceful dereliction of duty. There is no question
that President Trump is practically and morally
responsible for provoking the events of that day. The
people who stormed this building believed they were
acting on the wishes and instructions of their
President. And their having that belief was a
foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of
false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless
hyperbole which the defeated President kept shouting
into the largest megaphone on planet Earth. The issue
is not only the President's intemperate language on
January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of
remarks in which an associate urged 'trial by
combat.' It was also the entire manufactured
atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly
wild myths about a reverse landslide election that
was being stolen in some secret coup by our
now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore
the violence of the Left that preceded DC. Portland,
Seattle, NY, LA, etc. More than 2,000 police officers
injured, buildings burned, countless stores looted.
That year did not justify the Capitol riots, but it
helped to set the stage, and in the minds of the
rioters may have lent an air of permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated
comments or use metaphors that unhinged listeners might
take literally. This was different. This was an
intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories,
orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed
determined to either overturn the voters' decision or
else torch our institutions on the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my
shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats
feel any guilt or responsibility for months of rioting,
burning, looting, attacks on police, and statue
destruction by the Left -- actions that were largely
ignored by Democrat politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the
rioting while pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified.
What is this valid grievance that justified burning,
looting, and killing or injuring more than 2,000 police
officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance,
racial justice, is valid.
What racial justice do these violent protesters want?
The peaceful protestors wanted police to stop treating blacks
worse than whites.
I don't think there is any proof that the police treat black
people any different than white people.
Police are given mental evaluations during training, and I'm
sure if a psychologist detected any racist tendencies, that
person would be eliminated immediately.
Even when half a police department is black, and a white
officer kills a black person the peaceful protesters think
it's a racial issue. When a black officer kills a white
person, there is no racial issue.
Don't forget Michael Brown. The witnesses in the crowd made
that a racial issue by lying about what happened.
I didn't think Josh would respond.
There is no proof that any police officer ever killed someone
just because they were black.
When a police officer uses unnecessary force, or kills someone
when it could have been avoided, then it should be settled in
court. If the officer is found guilty he should be punished, or
go to prison. Just don't say what he did was racist without any
proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_deadly_force_in_the_United_States
Some conclusions are controversial, but everyone agrees that 1)
law-abiding blacks are more likely to encounter police force than
law-abiding whites and 2) police are acting racist if the people
they choose to stop is based on race. In both cases, those who
argue police aren't racist say the results are only because
blacks commit more crimes. But even assuming that is true for
the sake of argument, the indignity of #1 is real and the higher
crime rates could be as a result of 450 years of being shit
upon.
Now they are shitting on they white people that had nothing to do
with it.
Every time a white police officer kills a black person, the
liberals and black activists claim race was the reason the person
was killed.
In the case of George Floyd, he committed a crime and the police
were called. If black officers had responded and Floyd resisted
arrest, the outcome would probably have been the same, since Floyd
had a lethal dose of drugs in his system. No one would have said
he was dead because he was black. The police officers would have
been following police procedure. They are allowed to use neck
compression to handcuff the person or cause unconsciousness.
Since they were following the rules of the department, they
probably wouldn't have faced murder charges.
If the officer had been black, I think there would have been
outrage that police - black or white - 1) target blacks and 2) it
was murder. Leaving side race, I find it very troubling that you
can view that video and not think it was murder. What has moved
the needle on this debate is repeated examples of video evidence
from body cams and other sources.
The video shows the cop following procedure, how can it be murder?
Citation for him following procedure.
The Minnesota Police Department included instructions on how to use a
controversial neck restraint in its training manual, according to court
documents, the same type of restraint that was used on George Floyd.

The court documents, obtained by The Daily Beast on Wednesday, were
included in a motion to dismiss charges against Thomas Lane, one of the
three police officers that didn't intervene while then-officer Derek
Chauvin was kneeling on Floyd's neck for nearly nine minutes before his
May 25 death. In the Minneapolis Police Department training manual,
obtained by The Daily Beast, the maneuver is explained in detail and is
said to be used on suspects that are resisting arrest. According to the
motion filed Wednesday, Lane's lawyer said he was acting in accordance
with the Minneapolis Police training manual at the time of Floyd's
death.

https://www.insider.com/minneapolis-police-trained-to-use-neck-restraint-george-floyd-2020-7
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-02-19 00:17:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Johnny
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:29:01 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 10:59:50 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:25:37 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 10:32:12 -0600
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:18:16 -0800
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:45:34 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 13:22:02 +0100, Peter
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an
unprecedented second impeachment trial on the
charge of inciting an insurrection for the Jan. 6
Capitol riot, making him the first and only
president to be impeached and acquitted twice in
history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on
Saturday in a 57-43 vote, but the number fell
short of the supermajority needed to convict the
president. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate
would have moved to bar the 45th president from
holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all
Democrats in finding Trump guilty were: Sens.
Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of
Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski
of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of
Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the
trial announced the vote fell short of the
two-thirds majority need and therefore Trump is
"hereby acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave
the door open to another White House bid in 2024,
though senators have hinted they may still try to
bar him from office in a separate 14th Amendment
measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then
decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and
didn't want the Republicans to bring in the FBI and
testify the riot was planned weeks before Trump's
speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but
there is no evidence he planned an invasion of the
capitol building. However, when it happened he could
have spoken out and demanded that they back off.
That he failed to do this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to
nothing after it started. But there is more to it than
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed
wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth —
because he was angry he'd lost an election. Former
President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a
disgraceful dereliction of duty. There is no question
that President Trump is practically and morally
responsible for provoking the events of that day. The
people who stormed this building believed they were
acting on the wishes and instructions of their
President. And their having that belief was a
foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of
false statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless
hyperbole which the defeated President kept shouting
into the largest megaphone on planet Earth. The issue
is not only the President's intemperate language on
January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of
remarks in which an associate urged 'trial by
combat.' It was also the entire manufactured
atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly
wild myths about a reverse landslide election that
was being stolen in some secret coup by our
now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore
the violence of the Left that preceded DC. Portland,
Seattle, NY, LA, etc. More than 2,000 police officers
injured, buildings burned, countless stores looted.
That year did not justify the Capitol riots, but it
helped to set the stage, and in the minds of the
rioters may have lent an air of permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated
comments or use metaphors that unhinged listeners might
take literally. This was different. This was an
intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories,
orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed
determined to either overturn the voters' decision or
else torch our institutions on the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my
shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats
feel any guilt or responsibility for months of rioting,
burning, looting, attacks on police, and statue
destruction by the Left -- actions that were largely
ignored by Democrat politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the
rioting while pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified.
What is this valid grievance that justified burning,
looting, and killing or injuring more than 2,000 police
officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance,
racial justice, is valid.
What racial justice do these violent protesters want?
The peaceful protestors wanted police to stop treating blacks
worse than whites.
I don't think there is any proof that the police treat black
people any different than white people.
Police are given mental evaluations during training, and I'm
sure if a psychologist detected any racist tendencies, that
person would be eliminated immediately.
Even when half a police department is black, and a white
officer kills a black person the peaceful protesters think
it's a racial issue. When a black officer kills a white
person, there is no racial issue.
Don't forget Michael Brown. The witnesses in the crowd made
that a racial issue by lying about what happened.
I didn't think Josh would respond.
There is no proof that any police officer ever killed someone
just because they were black.
When a police officer uses unnecessary force, or kills someone
when it could have been avoided, then it should be settled in
court. If the officer is found guilty he should be punished, or
go to prison. Just don't say what he did was racist without any
proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_deadly_force_in_the_United_States
Some conclusions are controversial, but everyone agrees that 1)
law-abiding blacks are more likely to encounter police force than
law-abiding whites and 2) police are acting racist if the people
they choose to stop is based on race. In both cases, those who
argue police aren't racist say the results are only because
blacks commit more crimes. But even assuming that is true for
the sake of argument, the indignity of #1 is real and the higher
crime rates could be as a result of 450 years of being shit
upon.
Now they are shitting on they white people that had nothing to do
with it.
Every time a white police officer kills a black person, the
liberals and black activists claim race was the reason the person
was killed.
In the case of George Floyd, he committed a crime and the police
were called. If black officers had responded and Floyd resisted
arrest, the outcome would probably have been the same, since Floyd
had a lethal dose of drugs in his system. No one would have said
he was dead because he was black. The police officers would have
been following police procedure. They are allowed to use neck
compression to handcuff the person or cause unconsciousness.
Since they were following the rules of the department, they
probably wouldn't have faced murder charges.
If the officer had been black, I think there would have been
outrage that police - black or white - 1) target blacks and 2) it
was murder. Leaving side race, I find it very troubling that you
can view that video and not think it was murder. What has moved
the needle on this debate is repeated examples of video evidence
from body cams and other sources.
The video shows the cop following procedure, how can it be murder?
Citation for him following procedure.
The Minnesota Police Department included instructions on how to use a
controversial neck restraint in its training manual, according to court
documents, the same type of restraint that was used on George Floyd.
The court documents, obtained by The Daily Beast on Wednesday, were
included in a motion to dismiss charges against Thomas Lane, one of the
three police officers that didn't intervene while then-officer Derek
Chauvin was kneeling on Floyd's neck for nearly nine minutes before his
May 25 death. In the Minneapolis Police Department training manual,
obtained by The Daily Beast, the maneuver is explained in detail and is
said to be used on suspects that are resisting arrest. According to the
motion filed Wednesday, Lane's lawyer said he was acting in accordance
with the Minneapolis Police training manual at the time of Floyd's
death.
https://www.insider.com/minneapolis-police-trained-to-use-neck-restraint-george-floyd-2020-7
Your link says Minneapolis permits a neck restraint for someone who is
resisting arrest. Floyd was subdued with the restraint and its continued
use, especially after Floyd said he couldn't breathe, is not part of the
procedures.
Johnny
2021-02-19 14:45:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 16:17:08 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:29:01 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 10:59:50 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:25:37 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 10:32:12 -0600
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:18:16 -0800
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:45:34 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 13:22:02 +0100, Peter
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an
unprecedented second impeachment trial on the
charge of inciting an insurrection for the Jan. 6
Capitol riot, making him the first and only
president to be impeached and acquitted twice in
history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on
Saturday in a 57-43 vote, but the number fell
short of the supermajority needed to convict the
president. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate
would have moved to bar the 45th president from
holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all
Democrats in finding Trump guilty were: Sens.
Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of
Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski
of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of
Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the
trial announced the vote fell short of the
two-thirds majority need and therefore Trump is
"hereby acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can
leave the door open to another White House bid
in 2024, though senators have hinted they may
still try to bar him from office in a separate
14th Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then
decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and
didn't want the Republicans to bring in the FBI
and testify the riot was planned weeks before
Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but
there is no evidence he planned an invasion of the
capitol building. However, when it happened he
could have spoken out and demanded that they back
off. That he failed to do this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next
to nothing after it started. But there is more to
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed
wild falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth —
because he was angry he'd lost an election. Former
President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a
disgraceful dereliction of duty. There is no
question that President Trump is practically and
morally responsible for provoking the events of
that day. The people who stormed this building
believed they were acting on the wishes and
instructions of their President. And their having
that belief was a foreseeable consequence of the
growing crescendo of false statements, conspiracy
theories, and reckless hyperbole which the defeated
President kept shouting into the largest megaphone
on planet Earth. The issue is not only the
President's intemperate language on January 6th. It
is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an
associate urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the
entire manufactured atmosphere of looming
catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths about a
reverse landslide election that was being stolen in
some secret coup by our now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to
ignore the violence of the Left that preceded DC.
Portland, Seattle, NY, LA, etc. More than 2,000
police officers injured, buildings burned, countless
stores looted. That year did not justify the Capitol
riots, but it helped to set the stage, and in the
minds of the rioters may have lent an air of
permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated
comments or use metaphors that unhinged listeners
might take literally. This was different. This was an
intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories,
orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed
determined to either overturn the voters' decision or
else torch our institutions on the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on
my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats
feel any guilt or responsibility for months of rioting,
burning, looting, attacks on police, and statue
destruction by the Left -- actions that were largely
ignored by Democrat politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the
rioting while pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words --
justified. What is this valid grievance that justified
burning, looting, and killing or injuring more than
2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance,
racial justice, is valid.
What racial justice do these violent protesters want?
The peaceful protestors wanted police to stop treating
blacks worse than whites.
I don't think there is any proof that the police treat black
people any different than white people.
Police are given mental evaluations during training, and I'm
sure if a psychologist detected any racist tendencies, that
person would be eliminated immediately.
Even when half a police department is black, and a white
officer kills a black person the peaceful protesters think
it's a racial issue. When a black officer kills a white
person, there is no racial issue.
Don't forget Michael Brown. The witnesses in the crowd made
that a racial issue by lying about what happened.
I didn't think Josh would respond.
There is no proof that any police officer ever killed someone
just because they were black.
When a police officer uses unnecessary force, or kills someone
when it could have been avoided, then it should be settled in
court. If the officer is found guilty he should be punished,
or go to prison. Just don't say what he did was racist
without any proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_deadly_force_in_the_United_States
Some conclusions are controversial, but everyone agrees that 1)
law-abiding blacks are more likely to encounter police force
than law-abiding whites and 2) police are acting racist if the
people they choose to stop is based on race. In both cases,
those who argue police aren't racist say the results are only
because blacks commit more crimes. But even assuming that is
true for the sake of argument, the indignity of #1 is real and
the higher crime rates could be as a result of 450 years of
being shit upon.
Now they are shitting on they white people that had nothing to
do with it.
Every time a white police officer kills a black person, the
liberals and black activists claim race was the reason the
person was killed.
In the case of George Floyd, he committed a crime and the police
were called. If black officers had responded and Floyd resisted
arrest, the outcome would probably have been the same, since
Floyd had a lethal dose of drugs in his system. No one would
have said he was dead because he was black. The police
officers would have been following police procedure. They are
allowed to use neck compression to handcuff the person or cause
unconsciousness. Since they were following the rules of the
department, they probably wouldn't have faced murder charges.
If the officer had been black, I think there would have been
outrage that police - black or white - 1) target blacks and 2) it
was murder. Leaving side race, I find it very troubling that you
can view that video and not think it was murder. What has moved
the needle on this debate is repeated examples of video evidence
from body cams and other sources.
The video shows the cop following procedure, how can it be
murder?
Citation for him following procedure.
The Minnesota Police Department included instructions on how to use
a controversial neck restraint in its training manual, according to
court documents, the same type of restraint that was used on George
Floyd.
The court documents, obtained by The Daily Beast on Wednesday, were
included in a motion to dismiss charges against Thomas Lane, one of
the three police officers that didn't intervene while then-officer
Derek Chauvin was kneeling on Floyd's neck for nearly nine minutes
before his May 25 death. In the Minneapolis Police Department
training manual, obtained by The Daily Beast, the maneuver is
explained in detail and is said to be used on suspects that are
resisting arrest. According to the motion filed Wednesday, Lane's
lawyer said he was acting in accordance with the Minneapolis Police
training manual at the time of Floyd's death.
https://www.insider.com/minneapolis-police-trained-to-use-neck-restraint-george-floyd-2020-7
Your link says Minneapolis permits a neck restraint for someone who
is resisting arrest. Floyd was subdued with the restraint and its
continued use, especially after Floyd said he couldn't breathe, is
not part of the procedures.
The neck restraint was being used until he was handcuffed. There were
three men out of sight trying to get handcuffs on him. Why it took
eight minutes, I don't know. The officer couldn't release the neck
restraint until Floyd was in handcuffs.

Floyd caused his own death by resisting arrest, and any unbiased jury
will find the officers not guilty.

An officer can use a neck restraint until the point of unconsciousness,
and that is exactly what happened. Hardly any one dies because of it.
It is an old wrestling hold.

El Castor
2021-02-18 18:47:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:25:37 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 10:32:12 -0600
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:18:16 -0800
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:45:34 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 13:22:02 +0100, Peter
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented
second impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an
insurrection for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the
first and only president to be impeached and acquitted
twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday
in a 57-43 vote, but the number fell short of the
supermajority needed to convict the president. Had
Trump been convicted, the Senate would have moved to
bar the 45th president from holding federal office ever
again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in
finding Trump guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North
Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of
Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah,
Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial
announced the vote fell short of the two-thirds majority
need and therefore Trump is "hereby acquitted of the
charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the
door open to another White House bid in 2024, though
senators have hinted they may still try to bar him from
office in a separate 14th Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then
decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't
want the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the
riot was planned weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is
no evidence he planned an invasion of the capitol
building. However, when it happened he could have spoken
out and demanded that they back off. That he failed to do
this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to
nothing after it started. But there is more to it than that
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild
falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth — because he
was angry he'd lost an election. Former President Trump's
actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction
of duty. There is no question that President Trump is
practically and morally responsible for provoking the
events of that day. The people who stormed this building
believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions
of their President. And their having that belief was a
foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole
which the defeated President kept shouting into the
largest megaphone on planet Earth. The issue is not only
the President's intemperate language on January 6th. It is
not just his endorsement of remarks in which an associate
urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire
manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the
increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election
that was being stolen in some secret coup by our
now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the
violence of the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle,
NY, LA, etc. More than 2,000 police officers injured,
buildings burned, countless stores looted. That year did
not justify the Capitol riots, but it helped to set the
stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have lent an air
of permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or
use metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally.
This was different. This was an intensifying crescendo of
conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president
who seemed determined to either overturn the voters'
decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel any
guilt or responsibility for months of rioting, burning,
looting, attacks on police, and statue destruction by the
Left -- actions that were largely ignored by Democrat
politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the
rioting while pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified. What
is this valid grievance that justified burning, looting, and
killing or injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance, racial
justice, is valid.
What racial justice do these violent protesters want?
The peaceful protestors wanted police to stop treating blacks worse
than whites.
I don't think there is any proof that the police treat black people
any different than white people.
Police are given mental evaluations during training, and I'm sure if a
psychologist detected any racist tendencies, that person would be
eliminated immediately.
Even when half a police department is black, and a white officer kills
a black person the peaceful protesters think it's a racial issue.
When a black officer kills a white person, there is no racial issue.
Don't forget Michael Brown. The witnesses in the crowd made that a
racial issue by lying about what happened.
I didn't think Josh would respond.
There is no proof that any police officer ever killed someone just
because they were black.
When a police officer uses unnecessary force, or kills someone when it
could have been avoided, then it should be settled in court. If the
officer is found guilty he should be punished, or go to prison. Just
don't say what he did was racist without any proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_deadly_force_in_the_United_States
Some conclusions are controversial, but everyone agrees that 1)
law-abiding blacks are more likely to encounter police force than
law-abiding whites and 2) police are acting racist if the people they
choose to stop is based on race. In both cases, those who argue police
aren't racist say the results are only because blacks commit more
crimes. But even assuming that is true for the sake of argument, the
indignity of #1 is real and the higher crime rates could be as a result
of 450 years of being shit upon.
I have 2 cops in the family -- although now just one, the other is
deceased. The REALITY is that police presence is concentrated in the
parts of town where criminal activity occurs, and that happens to be
largely in Black (or Hispanic) areas -- not because the police want to
be there (I assure you they do not), but because their job draws them
there. So there are the cops and there are the criminals, and
interaction ensues. Keep in mind that Blacks make up 13% of the
population, but commit half the murders, and many of their victims are
Black. Have you chosen to live in a Black neighborhood? If not, why
not? Does that make you a racist or a realist?
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-02-18 19:05:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:25:37 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 10:32:12 -0600
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:18:16 -0800
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:45:34 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 13:22:02 +0100, Peter
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented
second impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an
insurrection for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the
first and only president to be impeached and acquitted
twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday
in a 57-43 vote, but the number fell short of the
supermajority needed to convict the president. Had
Trump been convicted, the Senate would have moved to
bar the 45th president from holding federal office ever
again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in
finding Trump guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North
Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of
Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah,
Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial
announced the vote fell short of the two-thirds majority
need and therefore Trump is "hereby acquitted of the
charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the
door open to another White House bid in 2024, though
senators have hinted they may still try to bar him from
office in a separate 14th Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then
decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't
want the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the
riot was planned weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is
no evidence he planned an invasion of the capitol
building. However, when it happened he could have spoken
out and demanded that they back off. That he failed to do
this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to
nothing after it started. But there is more to it than that
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild
falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth — because he
was angry he'd lost an election. Former President Trump's
actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction
of duty. There is no question that President Trump is
practically and morally responsible for provoking the
events of that day. The people who stormed this building
believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions
of their President. And their having that belief was a
foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole
which the defeated President kept shouting into the
largest megaphone on planet Earth. The issue is not only
the President's intemperate language on January 6th. It is
not just his endorsement of remarks in which an associate
urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire
manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the
increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election
that was being stolen in some secret coup by our
now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the
violence of the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle,
NY, LA, etc. More than 2,000 police officers injured,
buildings burned, countless stores looted. That year did
not justify the Capitol riots, but it helped to set the
stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have lent an air
of permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or
use metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally.
This was different. This was an intensifying crescendo of
conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president
who seemed determined to either overturn the voters'
decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel any
guilt or responsibility for months of rioting, burning,
looting, attacks on police, and statue destruction by the
Left -- actions that were largely ignored by Democrat
politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the
rioting while pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified. What
is this valid grievance that justified burning, looting, and
killing or injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance, racial
justice, is valid.
What racial justice do these violent protesters want?
The peaceful protestors wanted police to stop treating blacks worse
than whites.
I don't think there is any proof that the police treat black people
any different than white people.
Police are given mental evaluations during training, and I'm sure if a
psychologist detected any racist tendencies, that person would be
eliminated immediately.
Even when half a police department is black, and a white officer kills
a black person the peaceful protesters think it's a racial issue.
When a black officer kills a white person, there is no racial issue.
Don't forget Michael Brown. The witnesses in the crowd made that a
racial issue by lying about what happened.
I didn't think Josh would respond.
There is no proof that any police officer ever killed someone just
because they were black.
When a police officer uses unnecessary force, or kills someone when it
could have been avoided, then it should be settled in court. If the
officer is found guilty he should be punished, or go to prison. Just
don't say what he did was racist without any proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_deadly_force_in_the_United_States
Some conclusions are controversial, but everyone agrees that 1)
law-abiding blacks are more likely to encounter police force than
law-abiding whites and 2) police are acting racist if the people they
choose to stop is based on race. In both cases, those who argue police
aren't racist say the results are only because blacks commit more
crimes. But even assuming that is true for the sake of argument, the
indignity of #1 is real and the higher crime rates could be as a result
of 450 years of being shit upon.
I have 2 cops in the family -- although now just one, the other is
deceased. The REALITY is that police presence is concentrated in the
parts of town where criminal activity occurs, and that happens to be
largely in Black (or Hispanic) areas -- not because the police want to
be there (I assure you they do not), but because their job draws them
there. So there are the cops and there are the criminals, and
interaction ensues. Keep in mind that Blacks make up 13% of the
population, but commit half the murders, and many of their victims are
Black. Have you chosen to live in a Black neighborhood? If not, why
not? Does that make you a racist or a realist?
As I said assuming you are correct about no racism for the sake of
argument, 1) the indignity of law-abiding blacks encountering police
force more often than law-abiding whites remains, and 2) the higher
crime rates and shitty neighborhoods (which of course I would not want
to live in and that doesn't make me racist**) could be as a result 450
years of being shit upon.

**In my junior year in college, I lived in an otherwise all-black
middle-class neighborhood in a house rented typically to college
students. It was great.
El Castor
2021-02-18 21:12:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 11:05:04 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:25:37 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 10:32:12 -0600
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:18:16 -0800
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:45:34 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 13:22:02 +0100, Peter
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented
second impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an
insurrection for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the
first and only president to be impeached and acquitted
twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday
in a 57-43 vote, but the number fell short of the
supermajority needed to convict the president. Had
Trump been convicted, the Senate would have moved to
bar the 45th president from holding federal office ever
again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in
finding Trump guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North
Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of
Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah,
Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial
announced the vote fell short of the two-thirds majority
need and therefore Trump is "hereby acquitted of the
charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the
door open to another White House bid in 2024, though
senators have hinted they may still try to bar him from
office in a separate 14th Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then
decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't
want the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the
riot was planned weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is
no evidence he planned an invasion of the capitol
building. However, when it happened he could have spoken
out and demanded that they back off. That he failed to do
this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to
nothing after it started. But there is more to it than that
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild
falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth — because he
was angry he'd lost an election. Former President Trump's
actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction
of duty. There is no question that President Trump is
practically and morally responsible for provoking the
events of that day. The people who stormed this building
believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions
of their President. And their having that belief was a
foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole
which the defeated President kept shouting into the
largest megaphone on planet Earth. The issue is not only
the President's intemperate language on January 6th. It is
not just his endorsement of remarks in which an associate
urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire
manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the
increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election
that was being stolen in some secret coup by our
now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the
violence of the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle,
NY, LA, etc. More than 2,000 police officers injured,
buildings burned, countless stores looted. That year did
not justify the Capitol riots, but it helped to set the
stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have lent an air
of permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or
use metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally.
This was different. This was an intensifying crescendo of
conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president
who seemed determined to either overturn the voters'
decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel any
guilt or responsibility for months of rioting, burning,
looting, attacks on police, and statue destruction by the
Left -- actions that were largely ignored by Democrat
politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the
rioting while pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified. What
is this valid grievance that justified burning, looting, and
killing or injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance, racial
justice, is valid.
What racial justice do these violent protesters want?
The peaceful protestors wanted police to stop treating blacks worse
than whites.
I don't think there is any proof that the police treat black people
any different than white people.
Police are given mental evaluations during training, and I'm sure if a
psychologist detected any racist tendencies, that person would be
eliminated immediately.
Even when half a police department is black, and a white officer kills
a black person the peaceful protesters think it's a racial issue.
When a black officer kills a white person, there is no racial issue.
Don't forget Michael Brown. The witnesses in the crowd made that a
racial issue by lying about what happened.
I didn't think Josh would respond.
There is no proof that any police officer ever killed someone just
because they were black.
When a police officer uses unnecessary force, or kills someone when it
could have been avoided, then it should be settled in court. If the
officer is found guilty he should be punished, or go to prison. Just
don't say what he did was racist without any proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_deadly_force_in_the_United_States
Some conclusions are controversial, but everyone agrees that 1)
law-abiding blacks are more likely to encounter police force than
law-abiding whites and 2) police are acting racist if the people they
choose to stop is based on race. In both cases, those who argue police
aren't racist say the results are only because blacks commit more
crimes. But even assuming that is true for the sake of argument, the
indignity of #1 is real and the higher crime rates could be as a result
of 450 years of being shit upon.
I have 2 cops in the family -- although now just one, the other is
deceased. The REALITY is that police presence is concentrated in the
parts of town where criminal activity occurs, and that happens to be
largely in Black (or Hispanic) areas -- not because the police want to
be there (I assure you they do not), but because their job draws them
there. So there are the cops and there are the criminals, and
interaction ensues. Keep in mind that Blacks make up 13% of the
population, but commit half the murders, and many of their victims are
Black. Have you chosen to live in a Black neighborhood? If not, why
not? Does that make you a racist or a realist?
As I said assuming you are correct about no racism for the sake of
argument, 1) the indignity of law-abiding blacks encountering police
force more often than law-abiding whites remains, and 2) the higher
crime rates and shitty neighborhoods (which of course I would not want
to live in and that doesn't make me racist**) could be as a result 450
years of being shit upon.
**In my junior year in college, I lived in an otherwise all-black
middle-class neighborhood in a house rented typically to college
students. It was great.
But you don't live there now, and if you did you would have bars on
the windows.
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-02-18 23:28:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 11:05:04 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:25:37 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 10:32:12 -0600
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:18:16 -0800
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:45:34 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 13:22:02 +0100, Peter
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented
second impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an
insurrection for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the
first and only president to be impeached and acquitted
twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday
in a 57-43 vote, but the number fell short of the
supermajority needed to convict the president. Had
Trump been convicted, the Senate would have moved to
bar the 45th president from holding federal office ever
again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in
finding Trump guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North
Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of
Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah,
Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial
announced the vote fell short of the two-thirds majority
need and therefore Trump is "hereby acquitted of the
charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the
door open to another White House bid in 2024, though
senators have hinted they may still try to bar him from
office in a separate 14th Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then
decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't
want the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the
riot was planned weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is
no evidence he planned an invasion of the capitol
building. However, when it happened he could have spoken
out and demanded that they back off. That he failed to do
this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to
nothing after it started. But there is more to it than that
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild
falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth — because he
was angry he'd lost an election. Former President Trump's
actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction
of duty. There is no question that President Trump is
practically and morally responsible for provoking the
events of that day. The people who stormed this building
believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions
of their President. And their having that belief was a
foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole
which the defeated President kept shouting into the
largest megaphone on planet Earth. The issue is not only
the President's intemperate language on January 6th. It is
not just his endorsement of remarks in which an associate
urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire
manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the
increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election
that was being stolen in some secret coup by our
now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the
violence of the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle,
NY, LA, etc. More than 2,000 police officers injured,
buildings burned, countless stores looted. That year did
not justify the Capitol riots, but it helped to set the
stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have lent an air
of permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or
use metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally.
This was different. This was an intensifying crescendo of
conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president
who seemed determined to either overturn the voters'
decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel any
guilt or responsibility for months of rioting, burning,
looting, attacks on police, and statue destruction by the
Left -- actions that were largely ignored by Democrat
politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the
rioting while pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified. What
is this valid grievance that justified burning, looting, and
killing or injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance, racial
justice, is valid.
What racial justice do these violent protesters want?
The peaceful protestors wanted police to stop treating blacks worse
than whites.
I don't think there is any proof that the police treat black people
any different than white people.
Police are given mental evaluations during training, and I'm sure if a
psychologist detected any racist tendencies, that person would be
eliminated immediately.
Even when half a police department is black, and a white officer kills
a black person the peaceful protesters think it's a racial issue.
When a black officer kills a white person, there is no racial issue.
Don't forget Michael Brown. The witnesses in the crowd made that a
racial issue by lying about what happened.
I didn't think Josh would respond.
There is no proof that any police officer ever killed someone just
because they were black.
When a police officer uses unnecessary force, or kills someone when it
could have been avoided, then it should be settled in court. If the
officer is found guilty he should be punished, or go to prison. Just
don't say what he did was racist without any proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_deadly_force_in_the_United_States
Some conclusions are controversial, but everyone agrees that 1)
law-abiding blacks are more likely to encounter police force than
law-abiding whites and 2) police are acting racist if the people they
choose to stop is based on race. In both cases, those who argue police
aren't racist say the results are only because blacks commit more
crimes. But even assuming that is true for the sake of argument, the
indignity of #1 is real and the higher crime rates could be as a result
of 450 years of being shit upon.
I have 2 cops in the family -- although now just one, the other is
deceased. The REALITY is that police presence is concentrated in the
parts of town where criminal activity occurs, and that happens to be
largely in Black (or Hispanic) areas -- not because the police want to
be there (I assure you they do not), but because their job draws them
there. So there are the cops and there are the criminals, and
interaction ensues. Keep in mind that Blacks make up 13% of the
population, but commit half the murders, and many of their victims are
Black. Have you chosen to live in a Black neighborhood? If not, why
not? Does that make you a racist or a realist?
As I said assuming you are correct about no racism for the sake of
argument, 1) the indignity of law-abiding blacks encountering police
force more often than law-abiding whites remains, and 2) the higher
crime rates and shitty neighborhoods (which of course I would not want
to live in and that doesn't make me racist**) could be as a result 450
years of being shit upon.
**In my junior year in college, I lived in an otherwise all-black
middle-class neighborhood in a house rented typically to college
students. It was great.
But you don't live there now, and if you did you would have bars on
the windows.
I'd be happy to live there now. It was a very safe neighborhood.
El Castor
2021-02-19 06:24:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 15:28:39 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 11:05:04 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:25:37 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 10:32:12 -0600
Post by Johnny
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 08:18:16 -0800
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 16:45:34 -0800
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
On Sun, 14 Feb 2021 13:22:02 +0100, Peter
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented
second impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an
insurrection for the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the
first and only president to be impeached and acquitted
twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday
in a 57-43 vote, but the number fell short of the
supermajority needed to convict the president. Had
Trump been convicted, the Senate would have moved to
bar the 45th president from holding federal office ever
again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in
finding Trump guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North
Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, Susan Collins of
Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt Romney of Utah,
Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial
announced the vote fell short of the two-thirds majority
need and therefore Trump is "hereby acquitted of the
charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the
door open to another White House bid in 2024, though
senators have hinted they may still try to bar him from
office in a separate 14th Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then
decided not to.
Why? Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't
want the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the
riot was planned weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is
no evidence he planned an invasion of the capitol
building. However, when it happened he could have spoken
out and demanded that they back off. That he failed to do
this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to
nothing after it started. But there is more to it than that
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild
falsehoods by the most powerful man on Earth — because he
was angry he'd lost an election. Former President Trump's
actions preceding the riot were a disgraceful dereliction
of duty. There is no question that President Trump is
practically and morally responsible for provoking the
events of that day. The people who stormed this building
believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions
of their President. And their having that belief was a
foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole
which the defeated President kept shouting into the
largest megaphone on planet Earth. The issue is not only
the President's intemperate language on January 6th. It is
not just his endorsement of remarks in which an associate
urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire
manufactured atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the
increasingly wild myths about a reverse landslide election
that was being stolen in some secret coup by our
now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the
violence of the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle,
NY, LA, etc. More than 2,000 police officers injured,
buildings burned, countless stores looted. That year did
not justify the Capitol riots, but it helped to set the
stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have lent an air
of permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or
use metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally.
This was different. This was an intensifying crescendo of
conspiracy theories, orchestrated by an outgoing president
who seemed determined to either overturn the voters'
decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit
list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel any
guilt or responsibility for months of rioting, burning,
looting, attacks on police, and statue destruction by the
Left -- actions that were largely ignored by Democrat
politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the
rioting while pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified. What
is this valid grievance that justified burning, looting, and
killing or injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance, racial
justice, is valid.
What racial justice do these violent protesters want?
The peaceful protestors wanted police to stop treating blacks worse
than whites.
I don't think there is any proof that the police treat black people
any different than white people.
Police are given mental evaluations during training, and I'm sure if a
psychologist detected any racist tendencies, that person would be
eliminated immediately.
Even when half a police department is black, and a white officer kills
a black person the peaceful protesters think it's a racial issue.
When a black officer kills a white person, there is no racial issue.
Don't forget Michael Brown. The witnesses in the crowd made that a
racial issue by lying about what happened.
I didn't think Josh would respond.
There is no proof that any police officer ever killed someone just
because they were black.
When a police officer uses unnecessary force, or kills someone when it
could have been avoided, then it should be settled in court. If the
officer is found guilty he should be punished, or go to prison. Just
don't say what he did was racist without any proof.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_use_of_deadly_force_in_the_United_States
Some conclusions are controversial, but everyone agrees that 1)
law-abiding blacks are more likely to encounter police force than
law-abiding whites and 2) police are acting racist if the people they
choose to stop is based on race. In both cases, those who argue police
aren't racist say the results are only because blacks commit more
crimes. But even assuming that is true for the sake of argument, the
indignity of #1 is real and the higher crime rates could be as a result
of 450 years of being shit upon.
I have 2 cops in the family -- although now just one, the other is
deceased. The REALITY is that police presence is concentrated in the
parts of town where criminal activity occurs, and that happens to be
largely in Black (or Hispanic) areas -- not because the police want to
be there (I assure you they do not), but because their job draws them
there. So there are the cops and there are the criminals, and
interaction ensues. Keep in mind that Blacks make up 13% of the
population, but commit half the murders, and many of their victims are
Black. Have you chosen to live in a Black neighborhood? If not, why
not? Does that make you a racist or a realist?
As I said assuming you are correct about no racism for the sake of
argument, 1) the indignity of law-abiding blacks encountering police
force more often than law-abiding whites remains, and 2) the higher
crime rates and shitty neighborhoods (which of course I would not want
to live in and that doesn't make me racist**) could be as a result 450
years of being shit upon.
**In my junior year in college, I lived in an otherwise all-black
middle-class neighborhood in a house rented typically to college
students. It was great.
But you don't live there now, and if you did you would have bars on
the windows.
I'd be happy to live there now. It was a very safe neighborhood.
Black middle class neighborhood? I'm not aware of anything like that
around here. We have very few Blacks locally, but anyone of ANY race
who can afford this area is welcome, and that would include next door.
There is no need or reason for a Black neighborhood. Oakland, across
the Bay from here is 50% Black and Hispanic and is one of the most
dangerous cities in the country. I doubt you would "be happy to live
there now". My wife worked with a very nice Black guy who was well
liked and respected by everyone in her department. He lived in a not
so nice neighborhood in Richmond, a city neighboring Oakland. One day
he didn't show up for work -- shot dead (and not by police) while
standing in front of his house. One of our Richmond branch banks was
closed for the night. Janitors called the police. Several Black men
were attempting to batter in the shatterproof glass front doors with a
metal garbage can. The police came, but were afraid to confront the
would be robbers and just slowly drove by.

To be clear, I DO NOT believe that Blacks are inherently evil. Their
85 median IQ has doomed many of them to a life of violence and crime.
Whites and Asians of comparable intelligence have similar tendencies.
This is not a problem of skin color or discrimination, it is what is
between the ears.

"Intelligence and Crime
V. IQ Differences Between Criminal and Noncriminal Groups
The majority of studies have found IQ differences between offenders
and non offenders (e.g., Ellis &Walsh, 2003). On average, the IQ for
chronic juvenile offenders is 92, about half a standard deviation
below the population mean. For chronic adult offenders, however, the
average IQ is 85, 1 standard deviation below the population mean.
https://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/crime/intelligence-and-crime/3/
islander
2021-02-17 16:43:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented second
impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an insurrection for the
Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the first and only president to be
impeached and acquitted twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday in a 57-43 vote,
but the number fell short of the supermajority needed to convict the
president. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate would have moved to bar
the 45th president from holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in finding Trump
guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of
Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt
Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial announced the
vote fell short of the two-thirds majority need and therefore Trump is
"hereby acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the door open to
another White House bid in 2024, though senators have hinted they may
still try to bar him from office in a separate 14th Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then decided not to.
Why?  Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't want
the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the riot was planned
weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is no evidence
he planned an invasion of the capitol building. However, when it
happened he could have spoken out and demanded that they back off.
That he failed to do this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to nothing after it
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild
falsehoods by
the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he'd lost an
election. Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a
disgraceful dereliction of duty. There is no question that President
Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of
that day. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting
on the wishes and instructions of their President. And their having that
belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the
defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet
Earth. The issue is not only the President's intemperate language on
January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an
associate urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire manufactured
atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths about a
reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret coup by
our now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the violence of
the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle, NY, LA, etc. More than
2,000 police officers injured, buildings burned, countless stores
looted. That year did not justify the Capitol riots, but it helped to
set the stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have lent an air of
permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use
metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally. This was
different. This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories,
orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either
overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel any guilt
or responsibility for months of rioting, burning, looting, attacks on
police, and statue destruction by the Left -- actions that were
largely ignored by Democrat politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the rioting while
pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified. What is
this valid grievance that justified burning, looting, and killing or
injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance, racial justice,
is valid.
I've posted this before, but I think it is a valid expression of
grievance focusing on the "why" rather than the "what." Listen to her
to understand the why of urban violence.

Josh Rosenbluth
2021-02-17 17:12:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented second
impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an insurrection for the
Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the first and only president to be
impeached and acquitted twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday in a 57-43 vote,
but the number fell short of the supermajority needed to convict the
president. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate would have moved to bar
the 45th president from holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in finding Trump
guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of
Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt
Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial announced the
vote fell short of the two-thirds majority need and therefore Trump is
"hereby acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the door open to
another White House bid in 2024, though senators have hinted they may
still try to bar him from office in a separate 14th Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then decided not to.
Why?  Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't want
the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the riot was planned
weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is no evidence
he planned an invasion of the capitol building. However, when it
happened he could have spoken out and demanded that they back off.
That he failed to do this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to nothing after it
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild
falsehoods by
the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he'd lost an
election. Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a
disgraceful dereliction of duty. There is no question that President
Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of
that day. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting
on the wishes and instructions of their President. And their having that
belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the
defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet
Earth. The issue is not only the President's intemperate language on
January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an
associate urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire manufactured
atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths about a
reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret coup by
our now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the violence of
the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle, NY, LA, etc. More than
2,000 police officers injured, buildings burned, countless stores
looted. That year did not justify the Capitol riots, but it helped to
set the stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have lent an air of
permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use
metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally. This was
different. This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories,
orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either
overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel any guilt
or responsibility for months of rioting, burning, looting, attacks on
police, and statue destruction by the Left -- actions that were
largely ignored by Democrat politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the rioting while
pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified. What is
this valid grievance that justified burning, looting, and killing or
injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance, racial
justice, is valid.
I've posted this before, but I think it is a valid expression of
grievance focusing on the "why" rather than the "what."  Listen to her
to understand the why of urban violence.
http://youtu.be/sb9_qGOa9Go
That's an interesting take. In spite of her anger, she doesn't argue in
favor of looting or rioting.

She says looting occurs because that's their only chance to get things
(think Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd in Trading Places). The obvious
remedy is to fix the racial economic inequities.

Secondly, at first glance it appears she endorses the rioting (fuck
Target). But if you listen carefully, she is arguing she doesn't care
one way or the other because so long as their is racial inequality, it
doesn't matter whether or not you burn down Target. Black residents are
screwed either way.

The one sentiment that troubles me is she said whites should be lucky
blacks want equality and not revenge. That's awfully close to thinking
revenge is acceptable.

A preview of coming attractions: Jeff and Johnny will argue the
inequities are due to IQ differences haviing nothing to do with 450
years of being shit upon.
El Castor
2021-02-17 19:23:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 09:12:34 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented second
impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an insurrection for the
Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the first and only president to be
impeached and acquitted twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday in a
57-43 vote,
but the number fell short of the supermajority needed to convict the
president. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate would have
moved to bar
the 45th president from holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in finding Trump
guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of
Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt
Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial announced the
vote fell short of the two-thirds majority need and therefore
Trump is
"hereby acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the door open to
another White House bid in 2024, though senators have hinted they may
still try to bar him from office in a separate 14th Amendment
measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then decided not to.
Why?  Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't want
the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the riot was planned
weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is no evidence
he planned an invasion of the capitol building. However, when it
happened he could have spoken out and demanded that they back off.
That he failed to do this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to nothing after it
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild falsehoods by
the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he'd lost an
election. Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a
disgraceful dereliction of duty. There is no question that President
Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of
that day. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting
on the wishes and instructions of their President. And their having that
belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the
defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet
Earth. The issue is not only the President's intemperate language on
January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an
associate urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire manufactured
atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths about a
reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret coup by
our now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the violence of
the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle, NY, LA, etc. More than
2,000 police officers injured, buildings burned, countless stores
looted. That year did not justify the Capitol riots, but it helped to
set the stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have lent an air of
permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use
metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally. This was
different. This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories,
orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either
overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel any guilt
or responsibility for months of rioting, burning, looting, attacks on
police, and statue destruction by the Left -- actions that were
largely ignored by Democrat politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the rioting while
pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified. What is
this valid grievance that justified burning, looting, and killing or
injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance, racial
justice, is valid.
I've posted this before, but I think it is a valid expression of
grievance focusing on the "why" rather than the "what."  Listen to her
to understand the why of urban violence.
http://youtu.be/sb9_qGOa9Go
That's an interesting take. In spite of her anger, she doesn't argue in
favor of looting or rioting.
I disagree.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
She says looting occurs because that's their only chance to get things
(think Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd in Trading Places). The obvious
remedy is to fix the racial economic inequities.
There are no racial "inequities", just "realities". Africans dominate
Olympic running events. Why? Because Olympic judges cheat in their
favor? No. They win because their genetic makeup has gifted them with
a superior physical ability to run. Why do Ashkenazi Jews earn 20% of
Nobel prizes when they number less than 1% of the world population?
Because Nobel judges cheat in their favor? No. They win because their
genetic makeup has gifted them with the highest median IQ in humanity.
"Despite being one of the smallest minorities in America, Asian
Americans are on pace with White Americans in terms of wealth per the
Federal Reserve. According to the Census Bureau, Asian median
household income leads the way at roughly $80,000, or 30% higher than
White median household income at $64,000."
https://www.financialsamurai.com/average-income-asian-americans/

Why is that??? Here's why ...
"East Asians (Mongoloid) are natives of China, Japan, Korea and
Taiwan. They also populate mainly Singapore (which explains the high
average I.Q of this state).
The median value is 105."
https://www.human-intelligence.org/east-asians/

African Americans are not nearly as gifted intellectually as they are
physically -- no doubt a product of millennia of evolution in a harsh
African environment.
"Based on SAT score data, the median IQ of African-Americans is
probably 85"
https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/04/15/iqs-of-races-in-the-united-states/#:~:text=Based%20on%20SAT%20score%20data,%20the%20median%20IQ,is%20one%20of%20numerous%20disproofs%20of%20%E2%80%9Ccultural%20bias%E2%80%9D.

Racial inequities in income, Nobel prizes, and success in athletic
events can simply be traced back to genetics -- not some hard to
define bias.
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Secondly, at first glance it appears she endorses the rioting (fuck
Target). But if you listen carefully, she is arguing she doesn't care
one way or the other because so long as their is racial inequality, it
doesn't matter whether or not you burn down Target. Black residents are
screwed either way.
The one sentiment that troubles me is she said whites should be lucky
blacks want equality and not revenge. That's awfully close to thinking
revenge is acceptable.
A preview of coming attractions: Jeff and Johnny will argue the
inequities are due to IQ differences haviing nothing to do with 450
years of being shit upon.
Why have Caucasian and Asian runners been "shit upon" by Africans in
the Olympics? Genetics. Why do Ashkenazi Jews "shit upon" the rest of
the world in the Nobel Prize arena? Genetics. Why do those Jews and
East Asians "shit upon" the rest of us in the US arrest and income
arena? Genetics. What is liberalism's answer to that? You tell me.
islander
2021-02-18 02:07:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented second
impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an insurrection for the
Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the first and only president to be
impeached and acquitted twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday in a
57-43 vote,
but the number fell short of the supermajority needed to convict the
president. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate would have
moved to bar
the 45th president from holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in finding Trump
guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of
Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt
Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial announced the
vote fell short of the two-thirds majority need and
therefore Trump is
"hereby acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the door open to
another White House bid in 2024, though senators have hinted they may
still try to bar him from office in a separate 14th
Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then decided not to.
Why?  Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't want
the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the riot was planned
weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is no evidence
he planned an invasion of the capitol building. However, when it
happened he could have spoken out and demanded that they back off.
That he failed to do this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to nothing after it
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild falsehoods by
the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he'd lost an
election. Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a
disgraceful dereliction of duty. There is no question that President
Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of
that day. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting
on the wishes and instructions of their President. And their having that
belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the
defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet
Earth. The issue is not only the President's intemperate language on
January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an
associate urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire manufactured
atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths about a
reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret coup by
our now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the violence of
the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle, NY, LA, etc. More than
2,000 police officers injured, buildings burned, countless stores
looted. That year did not justify the Capitol riots, but it helped to
set the stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have lent an air of
permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use
metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally. This was
different. This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories,
orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either
overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel any guilt
or responsibility for months of rioting, burning, looting, attacks on
police, and statue destruction by the Left -- actions that were
largely ignored by Democrat politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the rioting while
pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified. What is
this valid grievance that justified burning, looting, and killing or
injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance, racial
justice, is valid.
I've posted this before, but I think it is a valid expression of
grievance focusing on the "why" rather than the "what."  Listen to her
to understand the why of urban violence.
http://youtu.be/sb9_qGOa9Go
That's an interesting take. In spite of her anger, she doesn't argue in
favor of looting or rioting.
She says looting occurs because that's their only chance to get things
(think Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd in Trading Places). The obvious
remedy is to fix the racial economic inequities.
Secondly, at first glance it appears she endorses the rioting (fuck
Target). But if you listen carefully, she is arguing she doesn't care
one way or the other because so long as their is racial inequality, it
doesn't matter whether or not you burn down Target. Black residents are
screwed either way.
The one sentiment that troubles me is she said whites should be lucky
blacks want equality and not revenge. That's awfully close to thinking
revenge is acceptable.
A preview of coming attractions: Jeff and Johnny will argue the
inequities are due to IQ differences haviing nothing to do with 450
years of being shit upon.
She impressed me as someone who is attempting to *explain* the reasons
that some blacks burn and loot. Explaining it speaks desperation to me
and explains to me why blacks burn down their own neighborhoods. Johnny
and Jeff claim that liberals are attempting to *excuse* the violence.
They are not. The first step to stopping it is to understand it, IMV.
El Castor
2021-02-18 03:35:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented second
impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an insurrection for the
Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the first and only president to be
impeached and acquitted twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday in a
57-43 vote,
but the number fell short of the supermajority needed to
convict the
president. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate would have
moved to bar
the 45th president from holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in
finding Trump
guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of
Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt
Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of
Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial
announced the
vote fell short of the two-thirds majority need and
therefore Trump is
"hereby acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the door open to
another White House bid in 2024, though senators have hinted
they may
still try to bar him from office in a separate 14th
Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then decided not to.
Why?  Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't want
the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the riot was
planned
weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is no evidence
he planned an invasion of the capitol building. However, when it
happened he could have spoken out and demanded that they back off.
That he failed to do this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to nothing after it
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild falsehoods by
the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he'd lost an
election. Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a
disgraceful dereliction of duty. There is no question that President
Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of
that day. The people who stormed this building believed they were acting
on the wishes and instructions of their President. And their having that
belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the
defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet
Earth. The issue is not only the President's intemperate language on
January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an
associate urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire manufactured
atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths about a
reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret coup by
our now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the violence of
the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle, NY, LA, etc. More than
2,000 police officers injured, buildings burned, countless stores
looted. That year did not justify the Capitol riots, but it helped to
set the stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have lent an air of
permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use
metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally. This was
different. This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories,
orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either
overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel any guilt
or responsibility for months of rioting, burning, looting, attacks on
police, and statue destruction by the Left -- actions that were
largely ignored by Democrat politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the rioting while
pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified. What is
this valid grievance that justified burning, looting, and killing or
injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance, racial
justice, is valid.
I've posted this before, but I think it is a valid expression of
grievance focusing on the "why" rather than the "what."  Listen to her
to understand the why of urban violence.
http://youtu.be/sb9_qGOa9Go
That's an interesting take. In spite of her anger, she doesn't argue in
favor of looting or rioting.
She says looting occurs because that's their only chance to get things
(think Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd in Trading Places). The obvious
remedy is to fix the racial economic inequities.
Secondly, at first glance it appears she endorses the rioting (fuck
Target). But if you listen carefully, she is arguing she doesn't care
one way or the other because so long as their is racial inequality, it
doesn't matter whether or not you burn down Target. Black residents are
screwed either way.
The one sentiment that troubles me is she said whites should be lucky
blacks want equality and not revenge. That's awfully close to thinking
revenge is acceptable.
A preview of coming attractions: Jeff and Johnny will argue the
inequities are due to IQ differences haviing nothing to do with 450
years of being shit upon.
She impressed me as someone who is attempting to *explain* the reasons
that some blacks burn and loot. Explaining it speaks desperation to me
and explains to me why blacks burn down their own neighborhoods. Johnny
and Jeff claim that liberals are attempting to *excuse* the violence.
They are not. The first step to stopping it is to understand it, IMV.
The first step is accepting that number 85, the second would be good
jobs for Black fathers which would encourage marriage and children
raised by two parents, and the third would be a remedy for that number
in the first step. Since we lack the time for Darwin's help, the
answer is obviously technology. Sadly, liberals oppose all three
remedies and are putting their money on what? Black magic?
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-02-18 04:10:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented second
impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an insurrection
for the
Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the first and only president
to be
impeached and acquitted twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday in a
57-43 vote,
but the number fell short of the supermajority needed to
convict the
president. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate would have
moved to bar
the 45th president from holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in
finding Trump
guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill
Cassidy of
Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Mitt
Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of
Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial
announced the
vote fell short of the two-thirds majority need and
therefore Trump is
"hereby acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the door
open to
another White House bid in 2024, though senators have hinted
they may
still try to bar him from office in a separate 14th
Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then decided not to.
Why?  Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't want
the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the riot was
planned
weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is no evidence
he planned an invasion of the capitol building. However, when it
happened he could have spoken out and demanded that they back off.
That he failed to do this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to nothing after it
started. But there is more to it than that as Mitch McConnell
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild falsehoods by
the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he'd lost an
election. Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a
disgraceful dereliction of duty. There is no question that President
Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the
events of
that day. The people who stormed this building believed they
were acting
on the wishes and instructions of their President. And their
having that
belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the
defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet
Earth. The issue is not only the President's intemperate language on
January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an
associate urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire manufactured
atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths about a
reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret coup by
our now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the violence of
the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle, NY, LA, etc. More than
2,000 police officers injured, buildings burned, countless stores
looted. That year did not justify the Capitol riots, but it helped to
set the stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have lent an air of
permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use
metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally. This was
different. This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories,
orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either
overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on
the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel any guilt
or responsibility for months of rioting, burning, looting, attacks on
police, and statue destruction by the Left -- actions that were
largely ignored by Democrat politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the rioting while
pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified. What is
this valid grievance that justified burning, looting, and killing or
injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance, racial
justice, is valid.
I've posted this before, but I think it is a valid expression of
grievance focusing on the "why" rather than the "what."  Listen to her
to understand the why of urban violence.
http://youtu.be/sb9_qGOa9Go
That's an interesting take. In spite of her anger, she doesn't argue in
favor of looting or rioting.
She says looting occurs because that's their only chance to get things
(think Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd in Trading Places). The obvious
remedy is to fix the racial economic inequities.
Secondly, at first glance it appears she endorses the rioting (fuck
Target). But if you listen carefully, she is arguing she doesn't care
one way or the other because so long as their is racial inequality, it
doesn't matter whether or not you burn down Target. Black residents are
screwed either way.
The one sentiment that troubles me is she said whites should be lucky
blacks want equality and not revenge. That's awfully close to thinking
revenge is acceptable.
A preview of coming attractions: Jeff and Johnny will argue the
inequities are due to IQ differences haviing nothing to do with 450
years of being shit upon.
She impressed me as someone who is attempting to *explain* the reasons
that some blacks burn and loot. Explaining it speaks desperation to me
and explains to me why blacks burn down their own neighborhoods. Johnny
and Jeff claim that liberals are attempting to *excuse* the violence.
They are not. The first step to stopping it is to understand it, IMV.
The first step is accepting that number 85, the second would be good
jobs for Black fathers which would encourage marriage and children
raised by two parents, and the third would be a remedy for that number
in the first step. Since we lack the time for Darwin's help, the
answer is obviously technology. Sadly, liberals oppose all three
remedies and are putting their money on what? Black magic?
What technology?
El Castor
2021-02-18 06:41:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 20:10:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented second
impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an insurrection
for the
Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the first and only president
to be
impeached and acquitted twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday in a
57-43 vote,
but the number fell short of the supermajority needed to
convict the
president. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate would have
moved to bar
the 45th president from holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in
finding Trump
guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill
Cassidy of
Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska,
Mitt
Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of
Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial
announced the
vote fell short of the two-thirds majority need and
therefore Trump is
"hereby acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the door
open to
another White House bid in 2024, though senators have hinted
they may
still try to bar him from office in a separate 14th
Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then decided
not to.
Why?  Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't want
the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the riot was
planned
weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is no
evidence
he planned an invasion of the capitol building. However, when it
happened he could have spoken out and demanded that they back off.
That he failed to do this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to nothing
after it
started. But there is more to it than that as Mitch McConnell
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild falsehoods by
the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he'd lost an
election. Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot were a
disgraceful dereliction of duty. There is no question that President
Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the
events of
that day. The people who stormed this building believed they
were acting
on the wishes and instructions of their President. And their
having that
belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo
of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the
defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on planet
Earth. The issue is not only the President's intemperate language on
January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an
associate urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire
manufactured
atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths
about a
reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret
coup by
our now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the violence of
the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle, NY, LA, etc. More than
2,000 police officers injured, buildings burned, countless stores
looted. That year did not justify the Capitol riots, but it helped to
set the stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have lent an air of
permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use
metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally. This was
different. This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories,
orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either
overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on
the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel any guilt
or responsibility for months of rioting, burning, looting, attacks on
police, and statue destruction by the Left -- actions that were
largely ignored by Democrat politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the rioting while
pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified. What is
this valid grievance that justified burning, looting, and killing or
injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance, racial
justice, is valid.
I've posted this before, but I think it is a valid expression of
grievance focusing on the "why" rather than the "what."  Listen to her
to understand the why of urban violence.
http://youtu.be/sb9_qGOa9Go
That's an interesting take. In spite of her anger, she doesn't argue in
favor of looting or rioting.
She says looting occurs because that's their only chance to get things
(think Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd in Trading Places). The obvious
remedy is to fix the racial economic inequities.
Secondly, at first glance it appears she endorses the rioting (fuck
Target). But if you listen carefully, she is arguing she doesn't care
one way or the other because so long as their is racial inequality, it
doesn't matter whether or not you burn down Target. Black residents are
screwed either way.
The one sentiment that troubles me is she said whites should be lucky
blacks want equality and not revenge. That's awfully close to thinking
revenge is acceptable.
A preview of coming attractions: Jeff and Johnny will argue the
inequities are due to IQ differences haviing nothing to do with 450
years of being shit upon.
She impressed me as someone who is attempting to *explain* the reasons
that some blacks burn and loot. Explaining it speaks desperation to me
and explains to me why blacks burn down their own neighborhoods. Johnny
and Jeff claim that liberals are attempting to *excuse* the violence.
They are not. The first step to stopping it is to understand it, IMV.
The first step is accepting that number 85, the second would be good
jobs for Black fathers which would encourage marriage and children
raised by two parents, and the third would be a remedy for that number
in the first step. Since we lack the time for Darwin's help, the
answer is obviously technology. Sadly, liberals oppose all three
remedies and are putting their money on what? Black magic?
What technology?
"Artificial Intelligence in High-Quality Embryo Selection for IVF"
https://medium.com/vsinghbisen/artificial-intelligence-in-high-quality-embryo-selection-for-ivf-40cd9fa019da

"Zygote/embryo selection eugenics is nearing"
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2012/07/zygote-selection-eugenics-is-nearing/
islander
2021-02-18 14:43:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 20:10:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented second
impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an insurrection
for the
Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the first and only president
to be
impeached and acquitted twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday in a
57-43 vote,
but the number fell short of the supermajority needed to
convict the
president. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate would have
moved to bar
the 45th president from holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in
finding Trump
guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill
Cassidy of
Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska,
Mitt
Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of
Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial
announced the
vote fell short of the two-thirds majority need and
therefore Trump is
"hereby acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the door
open to
another White House bid in 2024, though senators have hinted
they may
still try to bar him from office in a separate 14th
Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then decided
not to.
Why?  Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't want
the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the riot was
planned
weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is no
evidence
he planned an invasion of the capitol building. However, when it
happened he could have spoken out and demanded that they back
off.
That he failed to do this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to nothing
after it
started. But there is more to it than that as Mitch McConnell
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild
falsehoods by
the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he'd lost an
election. Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot
were a
disgraceful dereliction of duty. There is no question that
President
Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the
events of
that day. The people who stormed this building believed they
were acting
on the wishes and instructions of their President. And their
having that
belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo
of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the
defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on
planet
Earth. The issue is not only the President's intemperate
language on
January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an
associate urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire
manufactured
atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths
about a
reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret
coup by
our now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the
violence of
the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle, NY, LA, etc. More than
2,000 police officers injured, buildings burned, countless stores
looted. That year did not justify the Capitol riots, but it helped to
set the stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have lent an
air of
permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use
metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally. This was
different. This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories,
orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either
overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on
the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel any guilt
or responsibility for months of rioting, burning, looting, attacks on
police, and statue destruction by the Left -- actions that were
largely ignored by Democrat politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the rioting while
pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified. What is
this valid grievance that justified burning, looting, and killing or
injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance, racial
justice, is valid.
I've posted this before, but I think it is a valid expression of
grievance focusing on the "why" rather than the "what."  Listen to her
to understand the why of urban violence.
http://youtu.be/sb9_qGOa9Go
That's an interesting take. In spite of her anger, she doesn't argue in
favor of looting or rioting.
She says looting occurs because that's their only chance to get things
(think Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd in Trading Places). The obvious
remedy is to fix the racial economic inequities.
Secondly, at first glance it appears she endorses the rioting (fuck
Target). But if you listen carefully, she is arguing she doesn't care
one way or the other because so long as their is racial inequality, it
doesn't matter whether or not you burn down Target. Black residents are
screwed either way.
The one sentiment that troubles me is she said whites should be lucky
blacks want equality and not revenge. That's awfully close to thinking
revenge is acceptable.
A preview of coming attractions: Jeff and Johnny will argue the
inequities are due to IQ differences haviing nothing to do with 450
years of being shit upon.
She impressed me as someone who is attempting to *explain* the reasons
that some blacks burn and loot. Explaining it speaks desperation to me
and explains to me why blacks burn down their own neighborhoods. Johnny
and Jeff claim that liberals are attempting to *excuse* the violence.
They are not. The first step to stopping it is to understand it, IMV.
The first step is accepting that number 85, the second would be good
jobs for Black fathers which would encourage marriage and children
raised by two parents, and the third would be a remedy for that number
in the first step. Since we lack the time for Darwin's help, the
answer is obviously technology. Sadly, liberals oppose all three
remedies and are putting their money on what? Black magic?
What technology?
"Artificial Intelligence in High-Quality Embryo Selection for IVF"
https://medium.com/vsinghbisen/artificial-intelligence-in-high-quality-embryo-selection-for-ivf-40cd9fa019da
"Zygote/embryo selection eugenics is nearing"
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2012/07/zygote-selection-eugenics-is-nearing/
Your citations refer to increasing the survival rate of IVF embryos. It
has nothing to do with selecting the potentially most intelligent.
Generally, IVF is supported by liberals and not by the religious right.
El Castor
2021-02-18 19:48:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by islander
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 20:10:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented second
impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an insurrection
for the
Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the first and only president
to be
impeached and acquitted twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday in a
57-43 vote,
but the number fell short of the supermajority needed to
convict the
president. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate would have
moved to bar
the 45th president from holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in
finding Trump
guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill
Cassidy of
Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska,
Mitt
Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of
Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial
announced the
vote fell short of the two-thirds majority need and
therefore Trump is
"hereby acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the door
open to
another White House bid in 2024, though senators have hinted
they may
still try to bar him from office in a separate 14th
Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then decided
not to.
Why?  Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't want
the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the riot was
planned
weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is no
evidence
he planned an invasion of the capitol building. However, when it
happened he could have spoken out and demanded that they back
off.
That he failed to do this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to nothing
after it
started. But there is more to it than that as Mitch McConnell
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild
falsehoods by
the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he'd lost an
election. Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot
were a
disgraceful dereliction of duty. There is no question that
President
Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the
events of
that day. The people who stormed this building believed they
were acting
on the wishes and instructions of their President. And their
having that
belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo
of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the
defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on
planet
Earth. The issue is not only the President's intemperate
language on
January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an
associate urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire
manufactured
atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths
about a
reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret
coup by
our now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the
violence of
the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle, NY, LA, etc. More
than
2,000 police officers injured, buildings burned, countless stores
looted. That year did not justify the Capitol riots, but it
helped to
set the stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have lent an
air of
permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use
metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally. This was
different. This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories,
orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either
overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on
the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel any guilt
or responsibility for months of rioting, burning, looting, attacks on
police, and statue destruction by the Left -- actions that were
largely ignored by Democrat politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the rioting while
pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified. What is
this valid grievance that justified burning, looting, and killing or
injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance, racial
justice, is valid.
I've posted this before, but I think it is a valid expression of
grievance focusing on the "why" rather than the "what."  Listen to her
to understand the why of urban violence.
http://youtu.be/sb9_qGOa9Go
That's an interesting take. In spite of her anger, she doesn't argue in
favor of looting or rioting.
She says looting occurs because that's their only chance to get things
(think Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd in Trading Places). The obvious
remedy is to fix the racial economic inequities.
Secondly, at first glance it appears she endorses the rioting (fuck
Target). But if you listen carefully, she is arguing she doesn't care
one way or the other because so long as their is racial inequality, it
doesn't matter whether or not you burn down Target. Black residents are
screwed either way.
The one sentiment that troubles me is she said whites should be lucky
blacks want equality and not revenge. That's awfully close to thinking
revenge is acceptable.
A preview of coming attractions: Jeff and Johnny will argue the
inequities are due to IQ differences haviing nothing to do with 450
years of being shit upon.
She impressed me as someone who is attempting to *explain* the reasons
that some blacks burn and loot. Explaining it speaks desperation to me
and explains to me why blacks burn down their own neighborhoods. Johnny
and Jeff claim that liberals are attempting to *excuse* the violence.
They are not. The first step to stopping it is to understand it, IMV.
The first step is accepting that number 85, the second would be good
jobs for Black fathers which would encourage marriage and children
raised by two parents, and the third would be a remedy for that number
in the first step. Since we lack the time for Darwin's help, the
answer is obviously technology. Sadly, liberals oppose all three
remedies and are putting their money on what? Black magic?
What technology?
"Artificial Intelligence in High-Quality Embryo Selection for IVF"
https://medium.com/vsinghbisen/artificial-intelligence-in-high-quality-embryo-selection-for-ivf-40cd9fa019da
"Zygote/embryo selection eugenics is nearing"
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2012/07/zygote-selection-eugenics-is-nearing/
Your citations refer to increasing the survival rate of IVF embryos. It
has nothing to do with selecting the potentially most intelligent.
Generally, IVF is supported by liberals and not by the religious right.
I am sure the religious right would object -- as would the Left at any
hint of genetics and intelligence. The very mention of race, genetics,
and intelligence can be a career ender for any geneticist. Remember
the cloning of Dolly the sheep? It has become commonplace. The cloning
of polo ponies has revolutionized the sport. The world is changing,
even if some of us would rather it did not.

Anyhow ...

"Embryo Selection For Intelligence"
https://www.gwern.net/Embryo-selection

"Genetic engineering will one day create the smartest humans who have
ever lived."
https://nautil.us/issue/18/genius/super_intelligent-humans-are-coming

"Defending the Genetic Selection of Intelligence: A Moral Defending
the Genetic Selection of Intelligence:"
https://digitalcommons.ursinus.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1016&context=ethics_essay
Josh Rosenbluth
2021-02-18 17:05:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 20:10:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented second
impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an insurrection
for the
Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the first and only president
to be
impeached and acquitted twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday in a
57-43 vote,
but the number fell short of the supermajority needed to
convict the
president. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate would have
moved to bar
the 45th president from holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in
finding Trump
guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill
Cassidy of
Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska,
Mitt
Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of
Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial
announced the
vote fell short of the two-thirds majority need and
therefore Trump is
"hereby acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the door
open to
another White House bid in 2024, though senators have hinted
they may
still try to bar him from office in a separate 14th
Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then decided
not to.
Why?  Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't want
the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the riot was
planned
weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is no
evidence
he planned an invasion of the capitol building. However, when it
happened he could have spoken out and demanded that they back
off.
That he failed to do this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to nothing
after it
started. But there is more to it than that as Mitch McConnell
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild
falsehoods by
the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he'd lost an
election. Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot
were a
disgraceful dereliction of duty. There is no question that
President
Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the
events of
that day. The people who stormed this building believed they
were acting
on the wishes and instructions of their President. And their
having that
belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo
of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the
defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on
planet
Earth. The issue is not only the President's intemperate
language on
January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an
associate urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire
manufactured
atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths
about a
reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret
coup by
our now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the
violence of
the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle, NY, LA, etc. More than
2,000 police officers injured, buildings burned, countless stores
looted. That year did not justify the Capitol riots, but it helped to
set the stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have lent an
air of
permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use
metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally. This was
different. This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories,
orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either
overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on
the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel any guilt
or responsibility for months of rioting, burning, looting, attacks on
police, and statue destruction by the Left -- actions that were
largely ignored by Democrat politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the rioting while
pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified. What is
this valid grievance that justified burning, looting, and killing or
injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance, racial
justice, is valid.
I've posted this before, but I think it is a valid expression of
grievance focusing on the "why" rather than the "what."  Listen to her
to understand the why of urban violence.
http://youtu.be/sb9_qGOa9Go
That's an interesting take. In spite of her anger, she doesn't argue in
favor of looting or rioting.
She says looting occurs because that's their only chance to get things
(think Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd in Trading Places). The obvious
remedy is to fix the racial economic inequities.
Secondly, at first glance it appears she endorses the rioting (fuck
Target). But if you listen carefully, she is arguing she doesn't care
one way or the other because so long as their is racial inequality, it
doesn't matter whether or not you burn down Target. Black residents are
screwed either way.
The one sentiment that troubles me is she said whites should be lucky
blacks want equality and not revenge. That's awfully close to thinking
revenge is acceptable.
A preview of coming attractions: Jeff and Johnny will argue the
inequities are due to IQ differences haviing nothing to do with 450
years of being shit upon.
She impressed me as someone who is attempting to *explain* the reasons
that some blacks burn and loot. Explaining it speaks desperation to me
and explains to me why blacks burn down their own neighborhoods. Johnny
and Jeff claim that liberals are attempting to *excuse* the violence.
They are not. The first step to stopping it is to understand it, IMV.
The first step is accepting that number 85, the second would be good
jobs for Black fathers which would encourage marriage and children
raised by two parents, and the third would be a remedy for that number
in the first step. Since we lack the time for Darwin's help, the
answer is obviously technology. Sadly, liberals oppose all three
remedies and are putting their money on what? Black magic?
What technology?
"Artificial Intelligence in High-Quality Embryo Selection for IVF"
https://medium.com/vsinghbisen/artificial-intelligence-in-high-quality-embryo-selection-for-ivf-40cd9fa019da
"Zygote/embryo selection eugenics is nearing"
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2012/07/zygote-selection-eugenics-is-nearing/
We are likely a long way off from that day. When that day comes, are you
going to require people to use IVF?
El Castor
2021-02-18 19:07:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 18 Feb 2021 09:05:52 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Wed, 17 Feb 2021 20:10:53 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by islander
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 11:07:08 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 08:44:42 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 17:03:17 -0800, Josh Rosenbluth
Post by Josh Rosenbluth
Post by El Castor
Post by Peter
Post by Johnny
By Marisa Schultz
Published 30 mins ago
Former President Trump was acquitted in an unprecedented second
impeachment trial on the charge of inciting an insurrection
for the
Jan. 6 Capitol riot, making him the first and only president
to be
impeached and acquitted twice in history.
A majority of senators found Trump guilty on Saturday in a
57-43 vote,
but the number fell short of the supermajority needed to
convict the
president. Had Trump been convicted, the Senate would have
moved to bar
the 45th president from holding federal office ever again.
The seven GOP senators who joined with all Democrats in
finding Trump
guilty were: Sens. Richard Burr of North Carolina, Bill
Cassidy of
Louisiana, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska,
Mitt
Romney of Utah, Ben Sasse of Nebraska and Pat Toomey of
Pennsylvania.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who presided over the trial
announced the
vote fell short of the two-thirds majority need and
therefore Trump is
"hereby acquitted of the charge."
The acquittal means that as of now Trump can leave the door
open to
another White House bid in 2024, though senators have hinted
they may
still try to bar him from office in a separate 14th
Amendment measure.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-acquitted-in-second-impeachment-trial-for-inciting-jan-6-capitol-riot
The Senate also voted to call witnesses, and then decided
not to.
Why?  Because the Democrats had no witnesses, and didn't want
the Republicans to bring in the FBI and testify the riot was
planned
weeks before Trump's speech.
And it was planned by Trump.
Trump wanted a loud obnoxious demonstration, but there is no
evidence
he planned an invasion of the capitol building. However, when it
happened he could have spoken out and demanded that they back
off.
That he failed to do this is unforgivable.
I agree he did not plan an invasion and he did next to nothing
after it
started. But there is more to it than that as Mitch McConnell
They did this [the riot] because they had been fed wild
falsehoods by
the most powerful man on Earth — because he was angry he'd lost an
election. Former President Trump's actions preceding the riot
were a
disgraceful dereliction of duty. There is no question that
President
Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the
events of
that day. The people who stormed this building believed they
were acting
on the wishes and instructions of their President. And their
having that
belief was a foreseeable consequence of the growing crescendo
of false
statements, conspiracy theories, and reckless hyperbole which the
defeated President kept shouting into the largest megaphone on
planet
Earth. The issue is not only the President's intemperate
language on
January 6th. It is not just his endorsement of remarks in which an
associate urged 'trial by combat.' It was also the entire
manufactured
atmosphere of looming catastrophe; the increasingly wild myths
about a
reverse landslide election that was being stolen in some secret
coup by
our now-President.
Quite true. I can't disagree, but it is hard to ignore the
violence of
the Left that preceded DC. Portland, Seattle, NY, LA, etc. More
than
2,000 police officers injured, buildings burned, countless stores
looted. That year did not justify the Capitol riots, but it
helped to
set the stage, and in the minds of the rioters may have lent an
air of
permissibility.
Sadly, many politicians sometimes make overheated comments or use
metaphors that unhinged listeners might take literally. This was
different. This was an intensifying crescendo of conspiracy theories,
orchestrated by an outgoing president who seemed determined to either
overturn the voters' decision or else torch our institutions on
the way out.
OK, I understand your point. In any event, Trump is on my shit list.
While on the subject of politicians, should Democrats feel any guilt
or responsibility for months of rioting, burning, looting, attacks on
police, and statue destruction by the Left -- actions that were
largely ignored by Democrat politicians?
I think Biden acted appropriately in both condemning the rioting while
pointing out the underlying grievance is valid.
Underlying grievance is valid? In other words -- justified. What is
this valid grievance that justified burning, looting, and killing or
injuring more than 2,000 police officers?
The violence is not justified even though the grievance, racial
justice, is valid.
I've posted this before, but I think it is a valid expression of
grievance focusing on the "why" rather than the "what."  Listen to her
to understand the why of urban violence.
http://youtu.be/sb9_qGOa9Go
That's an interesting take. In spite of her anger, she doesn't argue in
favor of looting or rioting.
She says looting occurs because that's their only chance to get things
(think Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd in Trading Places). The obvious
remedy is to fix the racial economic inequities.
Secondly, at first glance it appears she endorses the rioting (fuck
Target). But if you listen carefully, she is arguing she doesn't care
one way or the other because so long as their is racial inequality, it
doesn't matter whether or not you burn down Target. Black residents are
screwed either way.
The one sentiment that troubles me is she said whites should be lucky
blacks want equality and not revenge. That's awfully close to thinking
revenge is acceptable.
A preview of coming attractions: Jeff and Johnny will argue the
inequities are due to IQ differences haviing nothing to do with 450
years of being shit upon.
She impressed me as someone who is attempting to *explain* the reasons
that some blacks burn and loot. Explaining it speaks desperation to me
and explains to me why blacks burn down their own neighborhoods. Johnny
and Jeff claim that liberals are attempting to *excuse* the violence.
They are not. The first step to stopping it is to understand it, IMV.
The first step is accepting that number 85, the second would be good
jobs for Black fathers which would encourage marriage and children
raised by two parents, and the third would be a remedy for that number
in the first step. Since we lack the time for Darwin's help, the
answer is obviously technology. Sadly, liberals oppose all three
remedies and are putting their money on what? Black magic?
What technology?
"Artificial Intelligence in High-Quality Embryo Selection for IVF"
https://medium.com/vsinghbisen/artificial-intelligence-in-high-quality-embryo-selection-for-ivf-40cd9fa019da
"Zygote/embryo selection eugenics is nearing"
https://emilkirkegaard.dk/en/2012/07/zygote-selection-eugenics-is-nearing/
We are likely a long way off from that day. When that day comes, are you
going to require people to use IVF?
No, but the day will likely come when wealthy women will avail
themselves of this opportunity. If so, I would support government
funding for women who wished to take part, but were unable to afford
it.
Loading...