What, pray tell, gives you that idea? Considering i seem to know more about it than most of the people in this thread that want to pull some sort of "gotcha" on me, id argue the opposite. What do you find me to be in disagreement with the constitution on? Only arguments I've made here have been that there's no proof that Trump ordered an assault on the capitol. If your argument is that they were whipped up by his rhetoric (and I'd like to see it in context, including the "peacefully and patriotically let your voices be heard" part included), then way more people need to be imprisoned longer for their "involvement" in the BLM/antifa riots of 2020. Maxine Waters literally stated that if you see a "Trumper" in a public place to get in their face and tell them they're not welcome. Seems to be pretty inciting speech, yet she's free to roam about and squander our tax dollars (like both sides do, I'm not disputing that). You don't really believe any of this shit, you just hate Trump and see it as an excuse to remove him from politics and to serve as a warning to anyone who dares to stand in the way of your progressive agenda.

Saying I was "there in spirit, so come get me" was pretty obviously a joke. If you don't like it, that's on you.

[–] Rustmilian@lemmy.world 1 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

Trump didn't "order an assault", he incited it via his negligent speech; there's a big difference in intent. Now if you want to debate on who was involved that's fine; because shit fuckers like QAnon cult were involved along with other trash; but it's a fact that Trump's speech and even his entire campaign was negligent and rallied much attention from radicals even just leading up to it, his speech was just the straw that killed the camel and was the perfect excuse for these psychos. Even with "peacefully and patriotically let your voices be heard" included, his campaign had already riled up the radicals and as we know once radicals are riled up their delusions make them only hear the "They're attacking our democracy, march down to the capital... Be strong... Fight like hell... If you don't fight like hell your not going to have a country anymore... Fight like hell".

Now I'm not going to argue wether or not he meant to incite the riot or wether or not it's a reflection of Trump or even wether it or not it was an inside job (it likely partially was considering the parties involved, ~~some even glowed θ⁠‿⁠θ~~), but it's pretty clear that his campaign was negligent at the least.

Don't get me wrong, I have a pretty negative opinion of both Trump and Biden. Biden is an incompetent mental not there puppet with half his body in the grave and Trump openly supports Putin... So... Yeah... I'm not huge fan of the Democratic party or Republican party as is either. Wether I'm more right or left leaning is extremely questionable but I can tell you one thing, I'm very much openly critical of both parties and the "vote for the lesser evil" bs.

[–] rug_burn@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Finally a well thought out and reasonable response. I appreciate that, along with the lack of name-calling.

The issue at hand is, mere negligence, even if it was ruled as such, rarely elicits a conviction, and oftentimes won't even resort in charges. Stack that with the resentment that roughly 50% of the voting public (not ongoing to argue numbers, just using it as a rough guide) would see it as an attack on the person whom they believed in and voted for (or saw as a foil to someone they liked less, in this case Biden).

There's also the issue that criminal negligence is notoriously hard to convict on, and in the highly unlikely scenario it were charged, convicted and sentenced, it wouldn't take a dream team of lawyers to overturn based on unequal application of the law, which, in this case, wouldn't take more than watching the nightly news.

None of this is stating that it's my belief that he was criminally negligent by using the terms "fight like hell" and such, I do not. It's common enough vernacular in the English language that to try and indict, let alone convict on it is pretty paper-thin.

Look, I understand that roughly half of the country dislikes him, if not outright hates him. However, that isn't enough to throw out precedent in an attempt to remove him from the ballot. The fact that it is being tried in several states is, in its pure form, fascism.

Interesting that you bring up the possibility of false flag actors, I wasn't going to go there, but I do appreciate the honesty in that it is quite possible there were some there.

[–] Rustmilian@lemmy.world 0 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

I can at least partially agree, however I want to preference that with had he actually intentionally incited the riot he should be removed given the nationalistic bases making it pretty fascist in it own right. However, it has already been found that there's insufficient evidence (specifically for the riot at least) in a court of law and in so removing him at this point would indeed be pretty unjust.

Interesting that you bring up the possibility of false flag actors

I'm nearly 100% sure that there were, like we already know that the QAnon cult was there because they were very public about their presence and I had already seen them planing it on their brain rot forums prior to it. The other parties are a bit more dubious to varying degree but I'm not going to pretend like there isn't any evidence because there most certainly is even if it's not completely solid. There's also the given that the QAnon cult have their own connections and intersections with other radical parties that were said to have been involved.
As for the glowies involvement; though the most dubious; It'd not be surprising either, Biden would make for a pretty good puppet considering his mental state and it's not like they haven't puppeteer-ed before, for example... The NSA & FBI capitalizing on 9/11 by exploiting their connection with president Bush to sign in the patriot act authorizing them to violate privacy and civil liberties via the conduct of warrantless wiretaps and surveillance on international phone calls and emails of American citizens as part of the President's Surveillance Program and Terrorist Surveillance Program. Which the NSA's mass surveillance programs was then exposed by Edward Snowden, a former contractor for the National Security Agency (NSA), in 2013.

[–] rug_burn@sh.itjust.works 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

You won't find much of an argument with me on any of these points. We see our freedoms get trampled on in the name of... whatever, and too many people just say "thank you sir, may I have another".

[–] Rustmilian@lemmy.world 2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

It seems that a lot of anti-trump/pro-biden folk just downvote anything even slightly differing in opinion without even understanding the nuance and that's a big character flaw on their part, granted pro-trump/anti-biden folk can be the same way; however I've found the pro-biden folk to be more so.
Like I've already said previously, I'm pretty anti-both and criticize them more or less equally but anti-trump folk seems to be "if you're not with me, your against me", when in reality I'm neither; the only thing I'm 'with' is human rights, but they don't care; all they see is an attack on their beloved and completely ignore the true nature of my standing.