quote:

they have shit for brains?

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The author admits it holds for all politicians, just in his opinion, Trump is worse. He also points out his area is research into how anxiety affects people in psychology- he’s not an expert in belief systems, learning, cognition, etc. he clearly makes the case he’s a opinionated individual and this is not a scientific paper.

He makes the claim it’s hard to disagree.

Kind of odd given what one sees here.

Fundamentally, the problem with his approach is both sides lie. A lot.

The popular media has been pushing all the fraud and corruption in the legal system- systemic racism, et al.

The folks on the left take the appeal to authority of Trump and his corruption at face value.

The MAGA types take the appeal to authority of DJT on its face value.

If you want to convince the MAGA types how Trump is lying to them, you need to establish you are not biased against their political positions, and then find out what kind of evidence they will accept. There may be a few who actually only will believe DJT; but most probably already know Trump did a lot of these things… they tend to believe that while what he did is against the rules, that he is just doing what the other side has been getting away with. They see it as a political ploy to gain control for the political opposition.

Frankly, while in no way it justifies Trump, they do have a point.

We say it’s ok to have ANTIFA or BLM block off a city because they have a “just grievance.”

But when it’s the Trumpites all the sudden it’s an insurrection. It’s a continuum of the our cause is just, theirs is deplorable hyper partisan behavior that has been getting worse. When the mainstream types keep pushing this “your positions are the problem” rhetoric you shouldn’t be surprised when those folks won’t listen to anything you have to say.

I’ve been convinced that Trump is a blight on the country, but it did take a while. Mainly because I couldn’t trust the folks shouting it the loudest. Eventually Trump just said enough for me to hear him admit his problems.

I still don’t trust Merrick Garland or any of the democratic leadership. I’m convinced Biden is in the same boat as Trump, maybe to a modestly less degree, but he’s made himself wealthy by being a person in a job field that does not renumerate well if you follow the rules they make the rest of us follow.

So this guy is misusing his mantle of scientific authority (read his article, it’s full of “listen to me, see my background, I’m right!” Yet when Dr. Easter who has every bit as much, if not more publication makes such a comment, he gets denigrated. Neither one’s political opinions have anything to do with their scientific roles.

Yet you post it up and use it as an appeal to authority.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
That comment is equally stated as the rightist trope that the illegal immigrant problem is an invasion.

I agree the 1/6 folks in the Capitol building were wrong and criminal.

Was it an insurrection?

You guys admit that term is poorly defined legally.

I don’t know that I would call them guilty of treason. I don’t think any of them have even been charged with that.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
BLM protesters damaged federal buildings in Nevada and Oregon.
Liberal groups, weather underground and armed resistance unit, both set off bombs at the capitol.
It means there are a few violent assholes out there, even in the united states. Cherry pick your favorites, but they exist from all sides. It was a dem voter who shot the senator at the baseball game for being republican.
There is no innocent party.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Well, in my mind, insurrection is armed revolt against the government and would be treason.

Seditious conspiracy isn’t treason, or they would have charged them with it.

Again, they committed illegal acts and are paying the price for it… but the folks in Portland or Minneapolis? How much prison time again?

quote:

If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Read treason. It doesn’t say anything about a declaration of war by the government. It’s if you conduct war against the US or give aid and comfort to the enemies of the US.

Seditious conspiracy is just a lesser charge for the same acts requiring more than one person.

As to why? Probably because they defined seditious conspiracy so it was easier to prove.

If they were armed and revolting against the USG, they could just as equally been charged with treason… but it would be much more likely to be seen as an overreach by the government on the part of the citizenry.

quote:

Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
Again, where does it state that there has to be a declaration of war/state of war?

The Supreme Court said it, Cramer vs U.S.

It is saying if you are using force against the US government, it’s an act of war.

No, if you are doing it as an individual it's Sedition; as part of a group Seditious Conspiracy.

Remember that in the civil war, the USG did not recognize the legitimacy of the CSA. How can there be a state of legally declared warfare if there is no government to declare war? So therefore war in the sense of treason is not necessarily a declared war.

The USG lent the Confederacy legitimacy in a plethora of ways, POW swaps the most prominent.

I’m glad you take your oath seriously.

I take mine as well.

Is not attacking the Capitol an act of war?

Or insanity, or terrorism. Like most things, it depends.

If it is, why were these folks who owe allegiance to the United States not committing treason?

Seditious conspiracy was a crime made up much later than treason was put in the constitution.

There are two parts- sedition and conspiracy. Conspiracy requires more than one person be involved. Sedition is acts against the authority of the government. See your USC re seditious conspiracy.

Treason is a bit broader. Committing acts of war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to the enemies of the US, while owing allegiance to the US. No requirements for multiple people.

Admittedly the constitution is rather vague about what war is, what aid and comfort is, who the enemies of the US are, and what owing allegiance is defined as. Most know what it is, at least in their minds, and we have tried folks regarding it before, with more than a few convictions. Not all were during a declared war.

John Brown and his fellows were convicted and hanged for treason against Virginia, not the U.S. The only non-wartime case I see is 1922, a miner, and his conviction likely would have been tossed but he got bail during his appeal and disappeared.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
If you read the news from the days reported, the underground and others were called "liberal" groups.

quote:

Originally posted by LongDistanceOperator:
I’ll have to read it later, but…they have shit for brains?

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
The papers I brought up to read used radicals and liberals both. If you can go back 40-50 yrs you can argue with the reporters that wrote the news.
I didnt write it, they did.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The author admits it holds for all politicians, just in his opinion, Trump is worse. He also points out his area is research into how anxiety affects people in psychology- he’s not an expert in belief systems, learning, cognition, etc. he clearly makes the case he’s a opinionated individual and this is not a scientific paper.

He makes the claim it’s hard to disagree.

Kind of odd given what one sees here.

Fundamentally, the problem with his approach is both sides lie. A lot.

The popular media has been pushing all the fraud and corruption in the legal system- systemic racism, et al.

The folks on the left take the appeal to authority of Trump and his corruption at face value.

The MAGA types take the appeal to authority of DJT on its face value.

If you want to convince the MAGA types how Trump is lying to them, you need to establish you are not biased against their political positions, and then find out what kind of evidence they will accept. There may be a few who actually only will believe DJT; but most probably already know Trump did a lot of these things… they tend to believe that while what he did is against the rules, that he is just doing what the other side has been getting away with. They see it as a political ploy to gain control for the political opposition.

Frankly, while in no way it justifies Trump, they do have a point.

We say it’s ok to have ANTIFA or BLM block off a city because they have a “just grievance.”

But when it’s the Trumpites all the sudden it’s an insurrection. It’s a continuum of the our cause is just, theirs is deplorable hyper partisan behavior that has been getting worse. When the mainstream types keep pushing this “your positions are the problem” rhetoric you shouldn’t be surprised when those folks won’t listen to anything you have to say.

I’ve been convinced that Trump is a blight on the country, but it did take a while. Mainly because I couldn’t trust the folks shouting it the loudest. Eventually Trump just said enough for me to hear him admit his problems.

I still don’t trust Merrick Garland or any of the democratic leadership. I’m convinced Biden is in the same boat as Trump, maybe to a modestly less degree, but he’s made himself wealthy by being a person in a job field that does not renumerate well if you follow the rules they make the rest of us follow.

So this guy is misusing his mantle of scientific authority (read his article, it’s full of “listen to me, see my background, I’m right!” Yet when Dr. Easter who has every bit as much, if not more publication makes such a comment, he gets denigrated. Neither one’s political opinions have anything to do with their scientific roles.

Yet you post it up and use it as an appeal to authority.

quote:

As usual…Dr. Butler in for “logical” analysis.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:
The author admits it holds for all politicians, just in his opinion, Trump is worse. He also points out his area is research into how anxiety affects people in psychology- he’s not an expert in belief systems, learning, cognition, etc. he clearly makes the case he’s a opinionated individual and this is not a scientific paper.

He makes the claim it’s hard to disagree.

Kind of odd given what one sees here.

Fundamentally, the problem with his approach is both sides lie. A lot.

The popular media has been pushing all the fraud and corruption in the legal system- systemic racism, et al.

The folks on the left take the appeal to authority of Trump and his corruption at face value.

The MAGA types take the appeal to authority of DJT on its face value.

So this guy is misusing his mantle of scientific authority (read his article, it’s full of “listen to me, see my background, I’m right!” Yet when Dr. Easter who has every bit as much, if not more publication makes such a comment, he gets denigrated. Neither one’s political opinions have anything to do with their scientific roles.

Yet you post it up and use it as an appeal to authority.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

Doc Butler, you used the term "appeal to authority". I looked it up to be sure I knew the definition. The problem I have with that sort of dismissal is that I have opinions, with basis I think is good, but there are others far more qualified than I in whatever field I'm talking about. So, appealing to authority is essential IMO. It's not a fallacy in logic. Like climate change, I'm not one to be out there doing scientific research, nor have a degree in a specific field of science. I think it's a logic fallacy to NOT appeal to authority.

The problem arises when one appeals to a FALSE Authority. One, just one, example is Trump.

Also, we can count on you to do the both sides thing, or look-over-there, or what-about-them, or some semblance of false equivalence.

The point of the OP is clearly both sides do not support Trump, never have, and never will. And, under the weight of evidence, the flip side is NOT default to supporting Biden.

The question is why some support Trump no matter how much evidence there is, giving reason to not support him.

quote:

Originally posted by crbutler:

If you want to convince the MAGA types how Trump is lying to them, you need to establish you are not biased against their political positions, and then find out what kind of evidence they will accept.

That's just too high of a bar. Not my job, desire, inclination. If they can't sort it out for themselves, given how long and how deep their rabbit hole is, I don't want or need the frustration and futility of what you suggest as a remedy. I know it's easier to criticize, maybe lazy and divisive but I settle for it.

There may be a few who actually only will believe DJT; but most probably already know Trump did a lot of these things… they tend to believe that while what he did is against the rules, that he is just doing what the other side has been getting away with. They see it as a political ploy to gain control for the political opposition.

Frankly, while in no way it justifies Trump, they do have a point.

There's a lot of chit they believe, which ain't true/reality. They project too much.

We say it’s ok to have ANTIFA or BLM block off a city because they have a “just grievance.”

Who's "We"?

But when it’s the Trumpites all the sudden it’s an insurrection. It’s a continuum of the our cause is just, theirs is deplorable hyper partisan behavior that has been getting worse. When the mainstream types keep pushing this “your positions are the problem” rhetoric you shouldn’t be surprised when those folks won’t listen to anything you have to say.

It WAS an insurrection. It was a multi-faceted conspiracy to thwart a peaceful transition of power per the constitution, and unlawful invasion of the Capitol, which was just part of the plan to keep Trump in power, in the WH. The logical fallacy is making false equivalence of acts by ANTIFA and BLM, and it's a diversion and justification ploy, and believing such BS is actually evidence of succumbing to Appeal to False Authority, and cognitive bias.

I’ve been convinced that Trump is a blight on the country, but it did take a while. Mainly because I couldn’t trust the folks shouting it the loudest. Eventually Trump just said enough for me to hear him admit his problems.

Cognitive bias is strong, ain't it!!!! How do you know when you've really conquered it? Hint - see your former and last paragraph, above and below.

I still don’t trust Merrick Garland or any of the democratic leadership. I’m convinced Biden is in the same boat as Trump, maybe to a modestly less degree, but he’s made himself wealthy by being a person in a job field that does not renumerate well if you follow the rules they make the rest of us follow.

quote:

Originally posted by theback40:
It must be more than conservative bias Kabob.
CNN's last poll shows over 60% of people think Biden was in on his sons money grabs.
That means independents and Dems believe it too, to reach that number.