Judge Reminds RNC That Riot Was Not 'Legitimate Political Discourse'

[lennypartiv]

You are insane. You're declaring war on most of the people in the United States,

We're declaring war on the people who stole the election.

 

[BS Filter]

You really sound like a terrorist.

So do Democrats. We're in a civil war.

 

[BS Filter]

Time will tell. Like I said the Republicans are acting real crazy scaring away voters.

Tell me that on election day in November.

 

[bodecea]

Appointed by Chimpy.

By whom? Is that some "christian" term?

 

[bodecea]

So do Democrats. We're in a civil war.

You in the vanguard? Or hiding under your bed..................again?

 

[BS Filter]

You are insane. You're declaring war on most of the people in the United States, I don't think so. Most people are not extremists, but for you to suggest such a thing means that you are an extremist.

George Washington was an extremist.

 

[BS Filter]

You in the vanguard? Or hiding under your bed..................again?

I'm sitting on your face.

 

[dblack]

I believe a riot can indeed be a valid legitimate political action.

The question is whether it's legitimate political discourse. Discourse implies a base level of mutual respect. A riot does not.

 

[dblack]

Steal an election, expect a protest.

But what about when there was no election stolen? What if it's just the result of an unhinged narcissist making wild accusations out of the blue? What if it's just a bunch of deluded partisans who can't - or simply won't - accept that they lost.

Because, theater aside, we all know that's what's going on.

 

[pknopp]

The question is whether it's legitimate political discourse. Discourse implies a base level of mutual respect. A riot does not.

You have to define what you are respecting. When an entity is violating your rights you have no obligation to be respectful.

 

[dblack]

You have to define what you are respecting. When an entity is violating your rights you have no obligation to be respectful.

Agreed. But then it's no longer discourse.

 

[pknopp]

Agreed. But then it's no longer discourse.

Looking at it that way makes the words of the judge pretty worthless. She is then arguing the only legitimate reaction is a respectful one and she is wrong.

 

[BS Filter]

You have to define what you are respecting. When an entity is violating your rights you have no obligation to be respectful.

So when BLM blocks a hiway and gets violent with anyone trying to get around their blockade, the people who had their rights taken away can beat the shit out of them, huh.

 

[dblack]

Looking at it that way makes the words of the judge pretty worthless. She is then arguing the only legitimate reaction is a respectful one and she is wrong.

Legitimate implies legal. I'm not really interested in splitting hairs or equivocating on definitions. But storming the Capitol building can't be something we endorse as a legitimate response to political frustrations. One might argue it's justified, but it is an act of rebellion. I see no reason to water it down.

 

[BS Filter]

Is this a legal protest?

 

[pknopp]

So when BLM blocks a hiway and gets violent with anyone trying to get around their blockade, the people who had their rights taken away can beat the shit out of them, huh.

If they want arrested.............................................

We are discussing people's response to the government.

 

[Rigby5]

A federal judge took aim at the Republican National Committee’s recent distortion of reality during sentencing for a violent Capitol rioter.

“It is not ‘legitimate political discourse,’” Judge Amy Berman Jackson said during her Thursday sentencing of Mark Leffingwell, who will spend six months in prison for assaulting police at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 last year.

Jackson was referring to the RNC’s description of the riot that left five people dead and more than 140 officers injured as “legitimate political discourse” when the group censured two of their own party members last week for daring to suggest that the Capitol attack was, in fact, an attack.

“So, it needs to be crystal clear that it is not patriotism,” she said. “It is not standing up for America. It is not ‘legitimate political discourse,’ and it is not justified to descend on the nation’s Capitol at the direction of a disappointed candidate and disrupt the national process.”

The RNC censured Reps. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) and Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) for participating in the House committee investigating the attack.

Jan. 6 Sentencing Judge Reminds RNC That Riot Was Not 'Legitimate Political Discourse'

"It is not ‘legitimate political discourse,’ and it is not justified to descend on the nation’s Capitol at the direction of a disappointed candidate and disrupt the national process."

www.huffpost.com

I totally agree with Judge Amy Berman Jackson! What do you think?

Sorry, but violence IS not only "legitimate political discourse", but often the ONLY possible discourse.
That is because the media only is willing to put something on the air if there is violence.
That is why we had to use violence to end the illegal war in Vietnam.
Violence has always been necessary, such as the Boston Tea Party, and actually, the entire American Revolution.
Violence most certainly can be legitimate political discourse, when it become necessary.
There no longer is any way to gain access to the media that can engage voters, without committing violence.
The media and government are too corrupt to provide any alternative legitimate platform for political discourse.

If you want an example, think back about Prohibition.
Was it legal to criminalize alcohol?
Absolutely not.
There is on evidence anyone else needed to prevent everyone else from drinking alcohol.
So it was totally and completely illegal.
But yet thousands of people were killed or incarcerated over Prohibition.
Did they ever get relief or compensation?
No.
Al Capone was never compensated for the decades he was illegally imprisoned.

The point being that government is often illegal and criminal, and we need to do much more to stop that.
We do not really have law enforcement, but a hierarchy that only enforces what the bureaucracy from the top wants.
We currently have at least half a million people illegally imprisoned.
The whole system is completely corrupt, and is serving a profit motive, with illegal mandatory sentences, asset forfeiture, etc.
We need to clean house and start over completely.
The whole system is totally corrupt and evil.

 

[pknopp]

Legitimate implies legal. I'm not really interested in splitting hairs or equivocating on definitions. But storming the Capitol building can't be something we endorse as a legitimate response to political frustrations. One might argue it's justified, but it is an act of rebellion. I see no reason to water it down.

The Founders understood that the government would not always maintain it's lane and would need put back into it by the people. I've noted that while I support the people's rights to protest I didn't support what the people on Jan 6 were protesting.

 

[BS Filter]

If they want arrested.............................................

We are discussing people's response to the government.

The democrat party isn't the government.

 

[BS Filter]

The Founders understood that the government would not always maintain it's lane and would need put back into it by the people. I've noted that while I support the people's rights to protest I didn't support what the people on Jan 6 were protesting.

How about these "protesters"