First insurrectionist removed from office under 14th amendment

[Slade3200]

I posted it. What did you feel you read?

No you didn’t. You posted your own fake definition. Back it up with a legitimate source and you win the argument

 

[ABikerSailor]

18 U.S. Code § 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection

www.law.cornell.edu

Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof, or gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 808; Pub. L. 103–322, title XXXIII, § 330016(1)(L), Sept. 13, 1994, 108 Stat. 2147.)

Doesn't say how many are required (based on the language using the term "whoever", I'm guessing just one person could be considered an insurrection), just that they engage in rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the US or our laws. And, saying that they wanted to get rid of Biden and reinstall Trump after an election said Biden won (rebelling against our laws and elections, meaning the authority of the US), as well as saying that they wanted to hang Pelosi and Pence (officials of the US government), that yeah, it was an insurrection. Doesn't say that you have to be successful, doesn't specify the level of violence that needs to be done, doesn't even say that they have to be armed, just says that they need to go against the authority of the US, in whatever form that may take.

I quoted myself because I'd posted the definition of what insurrection is according to the USC. And, it was faster to quote my previous post rather than type everything again. And, I also did it because if I gave a post #, most of the right wing idiots who say it wasn't an insurrection wouldn't have the intelligence or ability to go back and read it, so I posted it again.

Liberals define insurrection by what they feel the worst case outcome might have been. Worst case played as most likely is Big in lib loon land.
Insurrection is in fact defined by the outcome and not a feeling such as intent and this rag tag bunch had utterly Zero ability to take control of government, depose the existing and install their own. Zero=fact. What maybe, might have, could have been is feeling

Read the definition that I've posted yet again from the USC. Nowhere does it say that an outcome is required, just that you go against the authority or laws of the US. 1 or more people can be determined to be an insurrection, whether or not they are successful. And, yeah, it was an insurrection as the protesters main idea that they were presenting was to take Biden out of office and reinstate Trump (ignoring the authority of the US and it's duly held election), as well as were calling for the hanging of both Pence and Pelosi. Sorry Weatherman, there isn't a certain level that has to be met, simply wanting to do it is sufficient, regardless of the amount of people participating. It doesn't have to become a full blown replacement of the government, as even the desire to do so and publicly stating as such is sufficient to be considered an insurrection.

 

[Slade3200]

I quoted myself because I'd posted the definition of what insurrection is according to the USC. And, it was faster to quote my previous post rather than type everything again. And, I also did it because if I gave a post #, most of the right wing idiots who say it wasn't an insurrection wouldn't have the intelligence or ability to go back and read it, so I posted it again.



Read the definition that I've posted yet again from the USC. Nowhere does it say that an outcome is required, just that you go against the authority or laws of the US. 1 or more people can be determined to be an insurrection, whether or not they are successful. And, yeah, it was an insurrection as the protesters main idea that they were presenting was to take Biden out of office and reinstate Trump (ignoring the authority of the US and it's duly held election), as well as were calling for the hanging of both Pence and Pelosi. Sorry Weatherman, there isn't a certain level that has to be met, simply wanting to do it is sufficient, regardless of the amount of people participating. It doesn't have to become a full blown replacement of the government, as even the desire to do so and publicly stating as such is sufficient to be considered an insurrection.

I’ve been posting similar definitions. Using legal and English language sources. martybegan and WEATHER53 and several other turds just ignore the real definitions and make up their own with no sourcing or back up. It just shows how weak their positions are and how bad they are at debate

 

[Coyote]

Fascists are going to fascist.

You sure are….

 

[scruffy]

You sure are….

We're not the ones rifling through Melania's panties.

 

[Slade3200]

We're not the ones rifling through Melania's panties.

“We” who is we? And who is rifling through Melanie’s panties?

 

[scruffy]

“We” who is we?

Anyone to the right of Chairman Mao.

And who is rifling through Melanie’s panties?

Agents of the Derp State who want to intimidate righties, because they don't like the unorthodoxy and the POPULISM Donald Trump brings to the table. They did it deliberately AND maliciously, of that you can be sure.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I quoted myself because I'd posted the definition of what insurrection is according to the USC. And, it was faster to quote my previous post rather than type everything again. And, I also did it because if I gave a post #, most of the right wing idiots who say it wasn't an insurrection wouldn't have the intelligence or ability to go back and read it, so I posted it again.



Read the definition that I've posted yet again from the USC. Nowhere does it say that an outcome is required, just that you go against the authority or laws of the US. 1 or more people can be determined to be an insurrection, whether or not they are successful. And, yeah, it was an insurrection as the protesters main idea that they were presenting was to take Biden out of office and reinstate Trump (ignoring the authority of the US and it's duly held election), as well as were calling for the hanging of both Pence and Pelosi. Sorry Weatherman, there isn't a certain level that has to be met, simply wanting to do it is sufficient, regardless of the amount of people participating. It doesn't have to become a full blown replacement of the government, as even the desire to do so and publicly stating as such is sufficient to be considered an insurrection.

Again using that definition then a traffic stop can be an insurrection,

 

[Lastamender]

You sure are….

That fascist crap is projecting. Trump supporters are not violent. Democrats have a couple gangs of thugs, Anti-Fa and BLM, and the FBI and DoJ.

 

[Slade3200]

Anyone to the right of Chairman Mao.




Agents of the Derp State who want to intimidate righties, because they don't like the unorthodoxy and the POPULISM Donald Trump brings to the table. They did it deliberately AND maliciously, of that you can be sure.

And you believe this why? Because some right wing dipshit told you?

 

[martybegan]

Of course you are. I’m the one posting the real definition and you’re making up your own and not backing it up.

You’re just trolling at this point.

"real"

Your interpretation's only real background is your desire to punish your political enemies.

 

[martybegan]

I’ve been posting similar definitions. Using legal and English language sources. martybegan and WEATHER53 and several other turds just ignore the real definitions and make up their own with no sourcing or back up. It just shows how weak their positions are and how bad they are at debate

Again, definitions can be just as biased as interpretations, like your interpretation.

Of course, debating this with a side that needs a biologist to define what a woman is is probably pointless.

 

[scruffy]

And you believe this why? Because some right wing dipshit told you?

Dumbshit, look in the mirror.

Here's reality:

The single biggest threat to our democracy is loss of confidence

And instead of addressing the doubt, like good responsible representatives of the People are supposed to do, the asinine Stalinist Democraps are doing their best to increase it and lock it in.

Democrats are DANGEROUS right now, they're completely fucking irresponsible and they're engaging in Stalinist tactics against the political opposition

 

[Slade3200]

"real"

Your interpretation's only real background is your desire to punish your political enemies.

I’m not posting definitions from political sources I’m using dictionaries and literal legal code. You can’t post anything to back up your claims. Fail

 

[Slade3200]

Again, definitions can be just as biased as interpretations, like your interpretation.

Of course, debating this with a side that needs a biologist to define what a woman is is probably pointless.

Definitions describe what words mean. That’s not biased it’s a simple definition of which you have no clue what insurrection means

 

[martybegan]

I’m not posting definitions from political sources I’m using dictionaries and literal legal code. You can’t post anything to back up your claims. Fail

These days dictionaries are political sources, and the legal code relates insurrection to rebellion. Both of which require some mechanism to actually overthrow the government or at least prevent government exercise of authority in a given area.

Neither of which happened on 1/6.

 

[martybegan]

Definitions describe what words mean. That’s not biased it’s a simple definition of which you have no clue what insurrection means

I know and you know what it means, it's your side applying it to a situation that it doesn't apply to.

 

[Slade3200]

Dumbshit, look in the mirror.

Here's reality:

The single biggest threat to our democracy is loss of confidence

And instead of addressing the doubt, like good responsible representatives of the People are supposed to do, the asinine Stalinist Democraps are doing their best to increase it and lock it in.

Democrats are DANGEROUS right now, they're completely fucking irresponsible and they're engaging in Stalinist tactics against the political opposition

Ok wonderful, you finally show a sliver of intelligence. Yes, loss of confidence in our institutions is a tremendous threat to our democracy. This was the goal of the Russian disinformation campaign launched during the 2016 election and it seems to have worked like a charm in conjunction to wingnut lefties over politicizing everything and more so by Trump and his base push his barrage of lies and attacks against our intititions. If you can’t see how you’re a puppet playing right into the hands of this then you are as blind as a bat.

 

[Slade3200]

These days dictionaries are political sources, and the legal code relates insurrection to rebellion. Both of which require some mechanism to actually overthrow the government or at least prevent government exercise of authority in a given area.

Neither of which happened on 1/6.

You keep saying that insurrection requires a mechanism to overthrow the government but you can’t back that up with one source. You’re excuse is that all the dictionaries are politicized. That is the stupidest argument I’ve heard from you yet

 

[Slade3200]

I know and you know what it means, it's your side applying it to a situation that it doesn't apply to.

I apply it to a situation that fits the definition to the letter. You deny it based on a definition that you are making up and can’t back up. Hmmm, pretty clear who has the stronger point here.