Peterkin

Pass. I get your drift and will now move upwind.

You mean it was impossible, in knowledge of the history of US police vis a vis African Americans, days after one policeman had brutally and publicly murdered and African American, to anticipate that more arrests of people who could not afford bail would take place in a foreseeable future - unless the same person who anticipated such arrests was at the same time, but promoting violence by protestors, without using one single word about the police, the right wing or any kind of violent act? Whereas: There is nothing unusual about bail funds https://bailfunds.github.io/ Yes, I might at that!

Morally, no: entertaining temptation is only 10% percent of transgression; enetrtaining others with your temptation may only amount to another 10%, but is appreciated nonetheless. Not legally, either, come to that, unless you actually told known sting-ray-owning partisans to contribute and then they or their fish actually stung someone going about his lawful occasions.

I stand corrected. I inadvertently referenced some of his earlier statements. I'll rephrase the question accordingly: In what way is asking to help raise bail [a standard legal procedure of extracting money from people in custody, whether they have any money or not] for people have been arrested for whatever reason and by whatever means (see Amnesty International documentation of police behaviour) promoting violence?

Where? Where!? In what way is asking to help raise bail [a standard legal procedure of extracting money from people in custody, whether they have any money or not] for people have been arrested for whatever reason and by whatever means (see Amnesty International documentation of police behaviour) condoning violence?

That's part of their motivation, of course. Some law-enforcement sources regard their participation at various BLM events as a direct response to Trump's calls to action. There is a long history behind his relationship with racist extremists. https://www.vox.com/21506029/trump-violence-tweets-racist-hate-speech and also a recent history specifically aimed at BLM https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/09/01/over-over-trump-has-focused-black-lives-matter-target-derision-or-violence/ https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/25/trump-attacks-black-lives-matter-racial-justice-movement.html As for what happens next: If he gets the chance and they're still at large and loyal, it escalates. https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/06/pitts-jan-6-insurrection-a-dress-rehearsal-for-something-far-worse/

That's a tiny sample of the available information. Many sources, many points of view. If you want to know, you can find out. How does that even come up as a possible question? Has anyone attempted to justify it? The correlation between Trump's calls to action and the actions his people have taken is evident. How events during the BLM protests relate to those actions is established. A time-line is drawn. Believe what you choose.

That one's fairly thorough as regards police violence. This one lists a number of specific incidents by organized Trump supporters. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/22/white-supremacists-rightwing-domestic-terror-2020 says: Emboldened? Hell, yeah!

Lots, but it's available to anyone who actually gives a damn.

I didn't imply anything. I questioned, then rejected your presentation of the cause-effect relationship of events. Any way you mix it around, the original statement: did attribute the earlier instance of violence to the BLM protesters, whereas the bulk of it it was in fact carried out by right wing extremists.

Perhaps we've been informed by different sources. Nothing. All except using that nebulous idea as either justification or emboldnment for the January 6 insurrection, which, I repeat, had nothing at all to do with protest and was all bout overturning a legitimate election.

This was the part with which CharonY and I took issue, especially when followed up by: It's quite the wrong way around. At each of those protests, it was they themselves, the militant right fringe, who committed violent acts and got away with it. Their violent action were never in response to "Media and Politicians behaving badly"; the bad behaviour on the part of politicians and some segments of the media was to condone the right wing violence. The justification for attacking the Capitol had nothing to do demonstrations of signs anybody held up anywhere: it was Trump telling them to seize power that was rightfully theirs, from the democratically elected government that stole it from them. Whole different dynamic. I never claimed that you ever claimed; merely attempting to clarify which end of the stick is the handle.

Not everything else... but partly also that. The same groups who staged the attack on the Capitol were responsible for much or most of the violence at BLM protests and other confrontations, like the ones in Charlottsville, and Michigan, and suffered very few consequences. https://www.propublica.org/article/sense-of-entitlement-rioters-faced-no-consequences-invading-state-capitols-no-wonder-they-turned-to-the-u-s-capitol-next As for the Capitol siege, they were expressly invited by Their President. How much more emboldenment do they need?

Sorry. My cursor skipped a line on the second pass and I didn't notice. It jumps around sometimes when the mouse needs its feet washed. Will attend to it right away! Correction:

Why not? Why would a past illness disqualify an otherwise sound candidate? If FDR was physically fit enough, I guess so was JFK and so is Biden. I don't believe that's related to treatment for skin cancer.

If you ever get the chance again, change doctors. I gave you a couple of links that explain it. Several of us have explained various aspect of the identification and classification process. Oh well....

Something different. The authorities would be too well prepared, get the barricades up, choke street traffic to observable single file, install metal detectors, etc. Plus, the insurgents' Glorious Leader isn't in the White House to cheer them on and retard the defence efforts. (Remember Trump started organizing that mess back in March.) If he is in the White House, they won't need to attack the Capitol; it'll be their officially designated rest room. The next battle will be somewhere else, probably one of the state legislatures, or more probably staged as spontaneous against a demonstration in support of the civil rights of some group they're trying to disenfranchise.

Depends where they live. https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/primary-types.aspx I very much doubt it was Republican crossovers who put Biden in line for the presidency. They would have supported a candidate who couldn't beat theirs, rather than the one with the best chance. Still, once they registered as Democrats, maybe they felt differently about Trump. You just never know.

Are we talking about the nomination or the election this time around? After each person who wishes to run for an office is deemed eligible, has established a campaign committee, submitted the relevant legal forms and and paid the filing fee for candidacy, they begin by running in primaries where party members (those card-carrying ones; It might be self-defeating to let in the opposing party's members) vote for delegates in each state (delegates may be pledged of unpledged - 'super' ones, important enough party members to use their personal judgement over their constituents', and then these delegates vote at the nominating convention. All these events have to organized by a coherent body, which is the national convention committee for each party; all these candidate selection procedures are carried out under their auspices. There are all kinds of ways in which the caucus is able to influence who qualifies and who is finally nominated. The process itself is by-and-large democratic, but very much party-restricted up until the campaign between each party's nominees. Fine. I'm reasonably sure he won't want to put himself through that wringer again - supposing he survives this term. I sometimes wonder how not following leads to conclusions of such acuity.

Yes, I heard you the first time. You used the correct adjective for the judgment of the DNC, but misapplied it to election itself. Has this not been covered sufficiently?

While by definition 'impeachment' can mean any sort of indictment, in the political arena, it's generally used to refer to a proceeding to show cause why an office-holder should be removed. So, that doesn't apply, unless Trump holds an elected office of which he is proven unworthy. (And, obviously, if he were to attain that office again, there soon would be nobody left to impeach him.) So it has to be criminal charges that stand up in a court of law, just as with any other citizen. I don't know what the charges will be, but the statute of limitations normally begins at the completion of the crime and runs five years; that is, if prosecution is not begun within that period, it's too later to file charges. In this case, whatever the crimes listed in the indictment, I believe they must relate directly to the responsibilities of the office, and there must be conviction before the next election, to disqualify him. (Not sure about the last bit; US law is a bit fuzzy where it's founded in the constitution, rather than legal precedent.)

The proceedings last night were not concentrated on inciting to violence; that had already been covered. They were focused on dereliction of duty. They made the case very well; I thought Kinziger's summation was particularly effective. The DoJ won't act on any case that it's not sure of winning, so the evidence has to be complete, impeccably presented, perfectly packaged and tied up with big pink bow. I think the committee is covering each and every aspect of his wrongdoing, one session at a time.

If everything in the universe regarding which a person or persons may be uncertain is classified as 'questionable' then the word 'questionable' as commonly used, i.e: doubtful, dubious, problematic, not affording assurance of the worth, soundness, or certainty of something then the word is of highly questionable value in language. Anyway, the people who subscribe to the 'stolen election' story are not questioning [seeking evidence as to factual state of the subject at issue]; they are idly doubting on the basis of a thoroughly and publicly disproved lie.

An article about the opinion of people who have been misled is not evidence that an election result is questionable. That result has already been decided in 50 courts, 50 states and a federal government. It is evidence of effective propaganda and the gullibility of humans.

Not without you understanding the structure of DNA, its sequencing and identification of markers.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_sequencing