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

[Rigby5]

While I agree with your argument that the people should take the government back over, unfortunately the ones who have attempted to do so would only double down on many of the things you note are wrong.

Agreed.
Somehow one has to get people to differentiate between freedom and the threat to freedom.
When it comes to individual liberties, I want a Libertarian, Laissez Faire, hands off approach, but when it comes to big bucks, multi national corporations, I want strong restrictions against abuses of individual rights, like collective bargaining protections, limits on media control, limits on campaign contributions, etc.

For example, I think it was oil companies in the US that funded the campaign to attack Iraq over false WMD claims.
That made billions for them, and we paid for it, in money and lives.

 

[j-mac]

Fine.
Conservatism over constitutional interpretation is great.

WOW! There's a lot here to break down so bear with me...

What exactly do you mean by the phrase "Conservatism over Constitutional interpretation?

It is my belief that we start with you either believe in Constitutional government, and its restrictions on Federal Government or you don't...Conservative believe in the Constitution and its mandate to keep the Federal Government small, and restrained....

But that does not at all conflict with liberal and progressive reform on the state level...

That's where the Founders wanted the power, relegated to the States when the questions have nothing to do with the Enumerated powers spelled out by the Constitution.

And if the States want that, and it is within their own State Constitutions then fine, have at it, and reap the rewards, or suffer the consequences.....

...to provide all workers with protection from abusive multi national corporations, like collective bargaining...

Again, fine, if you can convince your fellow American's in the State you reside in to enact more protections for Unions, and convince them to join, then go for it...That's not a Federal issue.

...health care access guarantees...

This is where the bastardization of the language occurs...Who in this country doesn't have "access" to Health Care?

As far as I know, a Hospital can not turn you away if you present with an Emergency....

media coverage guarantees to all political views, etc.

What would that look like to you? Do we not have public access channels in all States?

The wealthy elite can and have used their wealth to turn this country back into a feudal system.

A feudal system? Really? Little hyperbolic don't you think?

Tell me how they are doing this?

For example, the population should have learned from Vietnam, that the military industrial complex pushes bad wars.
But when it came to WMD lies about Iraq, the media did it to us all over again.

You sound like you need 'boogeymen' to make your arguments....

And it is we who pay for those needless and immoral wars, and it is young innocent people we send off to die for those corporate profits.

Well, the World is a dangerous place...It would be nice to believe that the United States could just give the World a Coke, and sing Cumbya and all would be fine, but the problem is that without the US, there would be a vacuum in the power make up, and not for the better if you ask me...

Conservatism on the constitutional level is great, but...

Always beware the "but"....

So what's better? Progressivism? I think we see the failures of that on display now.

conservatives also tend to then try to control everything, like the War on Drugs.

Drugs encroach our nations borders....That's why the Federal Government is involved...So, you think it is a good thing that overdose death is on the rise with Drugs like Fentanyl? Or is it just because you can't smoke pot legally yet?

While that started by Clinton, the conservatives tend to have too much of a religious belief about what all people should or should not do, and that is dangerous.

So, Religion is dangerous? How?

Clearly both democrats and republicans are responsible for the US having the largest % imprisoned in the whole world, and that has to end.

Hey, here's a novel thought....Don't break the law, and you have a zero percent chance of ending up in prison...That is until Progressive liberal scum outlaw dissenting political opinion....

Real conservatives should know that government can not dictate things like drug use, that harms no one else.

Depends on what you mean by harm....

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Real conservatives should know that government can not dictate things like drug use, that harms no one else.

I cannot comprehend the degree of ignorance and mental failure, that it must take to believe that drug abuse is harmless. This is separate from any issues as to what role government should or should not take, at what levels, to protect people from their own folly, but I think it is undeniable that drug abuse is harmful, to the individuals who engage in it, to those associated with them and to society as a whole.

 

[Rigby5]

WOW! There's a lot here to break down so bear with me...

What exactly do you mean by the phrase "Conservatism over Constitutional interpretation?

It is my belief that we start with you either believe in Constitutional government, and its restrictions on Federal Government or you don't...Conservative believe in the Constitution and its mandate to keep the Federal Government small, and restrained....



That's where the Founders wanted the power, relegated to the States when the questions have nothing to do with the Enumerated powers spelled out by the Constitution.

And if the States want that, and it is within their own State Constitutions then fine, have at it, and reap the rewards, or suffer the consequences.....



Again, fine, if you can convince your fellow American's in the State you reside in to enact more protections for Unions, and convince them to join, then go for it...That's not a Federal issue.



This is where the bastardization of the language occurs...Who in this country doesn't have "access" to Health Care?

As far as I know, a Hospital can not turn you away if you present with an Emergency....



What would that look like to you? Do we not have public access channels in all States?



A feudal system? Really? Little hyperbolic don't you think?

Tell me how they are doing this?



You sound like you need 'boogeymen' to make your arguments....



Well, the World is a dangerous place...It would be nice to believe that the United States could just give the World a Coke, and sing Cumbya and all would be fine, but the problem is that without the US, there would be a vacuum in the power make up, and not for the better if you ask me...



Always beware the "but"....

So what's better? Progressivism? I think we see the failures of that on display now.



Drugs encroach our nations borders....That's why the Federal Government is involved...So, you think it is a good thing that overdose death is on the rise with Drugs like Fentanyl? Or is it just because you can't smoke pot legally yet?



So, Religion is dangerous? How?



Hey, here's a novel thought....Don't break the law, and you have a zero percent chance of ending up in prison...That is until Progressive liberal scum outlaw dissenting political opinion....



Depends on what you mean by harm....

There are many different interpretations of what conservative means and it usually is played off against liberalism, even thought that is not necessarily true.

But in the case of constitutional interpretation, there is a conservative vs liberal face off on how the constitution should be interpreted. Either conservatively strict as to only allow what is explicitly authorized, or liberally as to allow all that is not explicitly prohibited federal jurisdiction.

In the case of fiscal conservatism, there is similar face off of not borrowing vs liberal spending.

But when it comes to individual rights, there should be no such conflict. Both conservative and liberal should push the fact only the defense of individual rights is the basis for any legal authority. You can not pass any legislation that restricts individual freedom, that is not required in order to protect the rights of others.
Government can not be self authorizing. All laws have to have a rational based on the defense of some rights.
Liberals, progressives, and conservatives should all be on the same page over prioritizing individual rights above all else.

I agree the state or local level is where all real government action should occur.
It is closer to the people, so is more accessible, responsive, appropriate, and less expensive.

But the problem is what Marx wrote about in 1830. The industrial revolution took away cottage industries that could no longer compete. So those with excess capital gained complete control over everything and everyone. For example, you ask "who does not have health care access"? And the answer is most people. The cost of health care in the US has been deliberately inflated by insurance companies that has bought it out and taken it over. They have a monopoly and are gouging. You can't get access unless you become a prepaid member, giving up any say about costs or quality. That happens any time you prepay, and you should never prepay for anything. I am lucky to be healthy, but I have almost never had health care access, as a contractor. When I tried to get health insurance, as in individual I had no bargaining power. It would have been $1200/month for my family. That is ridiculous. So I went without and had to use the ER whenever I needed stitches of something. But the ER is awful, charging over $2000 for a few stitches, and no long term testing, diagnosis, or therapies.
The health care in the US is about the worst in the whole world. And that is because we allowed monopolies.
But health care is only one of many monopolies.
To work you need to apply for a job from the big corporations, who can deny anyone they decide has the wrong political views.
You as an individual have no bargaining power.
The only way to make it fair is collective bargaining, where all the workers together have closer to equal clout to the companies monopolizing all the jobs.
Fairness is also necessary in the vast sums it now costs just to get a sufficient education these days.

I do not believe you know what Progressive means.
All that means is that as society gets more over populated, with less wilderness and more control exerted by corporations, landlords, etc., that we need more protection of individual liberties.
For example, the 14th amendment to end slavery, wholesale discrimination, etc.
More constantly has to be protected, as the growing population, disparity of large multi national corporations to individuals, and expensive media, makes personal freedom harder and harder to maintain.
Progressive just means constantly improving and fixing things that were not detailed enough in the past.
It does not at all mean centralization, as the propagandists seem to always claim.
Progressive was never a national movement, but only done on the state level.
For a history, look up WI progressives.

All the deaths from drug overdoses, drug shoot outs, etc., are entirely deliberate by those who want to criminalize drugs.
There is no legal authority to criminalize drugs.
And criminalization creates the drug trade by enticing poor people with high profits.
It kills by preventing any dose standardization, testing, etc., and by causing a cash economy that can not use police, banks, checks, credit cards, etc.
If drugs were legal, there would not be a single drug related death.

As for religion, its dangers are historical. Like burning witches, conquistadors, inquisitions, etc.
Religion should have ended all wars, but instead created them.
The US has never really been attacked since 1812, and yet they claim we have to murder millions of innocents all over the world, in order to be safe.
There was not a single war that was honest or necessary, (since 1812),
The Spanish did not sink the USS Maine, and the French invaded Germany in WWI.
The Domino theory was a lie, and there were no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq.

 

[Rigby5]

I cannot comprehend the degree of ignorance and mental failure, that it must take to believe that drug abuse is harmless. This is separate from any issues as to what role government should or should not take, at what levels, to protect people from their own folly, but I think it is undeniable that drug abuse is harmful, to the individuals who engage in it, to those associated with them and to society as a whole.

Who said drugs were "harmless"?
Not me.
However, it should be clear to anyone who really understand any political or legal philosophy, that it is a million times worse to criminalize drugs.
There simply is no legal means by which that can be done, and is so authoritarian and corrupt, that whenever you have a "War on Drugs", the whole government then becomes evil.

Drugs are dangerous, but the only method government can be involved is education.
It can't dictate.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Who said drugs were "harmless"?

You did.

Real conservatives should know that government can not dictate things like drug use, that harms no one else.

 

[Rigby5]

You did.

​

​

​

No, I think drugs are very dangerous because they are attempts to use and override our inherent systems of internal self motivation.
The body uses drugs to make us eat, sleep, have sex, etc., and if we play around with artificial sources of these same drugs, we are at great risk.

The point is just the way to minimize the harmful effects of these drugs is to ensure they are legal.
Criminalizing them greatly increases the problems, like by a factor over 10 or more.

Read more carefully.
I said drugs harm "no one else", and that does not mean they do not harm the user.

 

[j-mac]

There are many different interpretations of what conservative means and it usually is played off against liberalism, even thought that is not necessarily true.

But in the case of constitutional interpretation, there is a conservative vs liberal face off on how the constitution should be interpreted. Either conservatively strict as to only allow what is explicitly authorized, or liberally as to allow all that is not explicitly prohibited federal jurisdiction.

In the case of fiscal conservatism, there is similar face off of not borrowing vs liberal spending.

But when it comes to individual rights, there should be no such conflict. Both conservative and liberal should push the fact only the defense of individual rights is the basis for any legal authority. You can not pass any legislation that restricts individual freedom, that is not required in order to protect the rights of others.
Government can not be self authorizing. All laws have to have a rational based on the defense of some rights.
Liberals, progressives, and conservatives should all be on the same page over prioritizing individual rights above all else.

I agree the state or local level is where all real government action should occur.
It is closer to the people, so is more accessible, responsive, appropriate, and less expensive.

But the problem is what Marx wrote about in 1830. The industrial revolution took away cottage industries that could no longer compete. So those with excess capital gained complete control over everything and everyone. For example, you ask "who does not have health care access"? And the answer is most people. The cost of health care in the US has been deliberately inflated by insurance companies that has bought it out and taken it over. They have a monopoly and are gouging. You can't get access unless you become a prepaid member, giving up any say about costs or quality. That happens any time you prepay, and you should never prepay for anything. I am lucky to be healthy, but I have almost never had health care access, as a contractor. When I tried to get health insurance, as in individual I had no bargaining power. It would have been $1200/month for my family. That is ridiculous. So I went without and had to use the ER whenever I needed stitches of something. But the ER is awful, charging over $2000 for a few stitches, and no long term testing, diagnosis, or therapies.
The health care in the US is about the worst in the whole world. And that is because we allowed monopolies.
But health care is only one of many monopolies.
To work you need to apply for a job from the big corporations, who can deny anyone they decide has the wrong political views.
You as an individual have no bargaining power.
The only way to make it fair is collective bargaining, where all the workers together have closer to equal clout to the companies monopolizing all the jobs.
Fairness is also necessary in the vast sums it now costs just to get a sufficient education these days.

I do not believe you know what Progressive means.
All that means is that as society gets more over populated, with less wilderness and more control exerted by corporations, landlords, etc., that we need more protection of individual liberties.
For example, the 14th amendment to end slavery, wholesale discrimination, etc.
More constantly has to be protected, as the growing population, disparity of large multi national corporations to individuals, and expensive media, makes personal freedom harder and harder to maintain.
Progressive just means constantly improving and fixing things that were not detailed enough in the past.
It does not at all mean centralization, as the propagandists seem to always claim.
Progressive was never a national movement, but only done on the state level.
For a history, look up WI progressives.

All the deaths from drug overdoses, drug shoot outs, etc., are entirely deliberate by those who want to criminalize drugs.
There is no legal authority to criminalize drugs.
And criminalization creates the drug trade by enticing poor people with high profits.
It kills by preventing any dose standardization, testing, etc., and by causing a cash economy that can not use police, banks, checks, credit cards, etc.
If drugs were legal, there would not be a single drug related death.

As for religion, its dangers are historical. Like burning witches, conquistadors, inquisitions, etc.
Religion should have ended all wars, but instead created them.
The US has never really been attacked since 1812, and yet they claim we have to murder millions of innocents all over the world, in order to be safe.
There was not a single war that was honest or necessary, (since 1812),
The Spanish did not sink the USS Maine, and the French invaded Germany in WWI.
The Domino theory was a lie, and there were no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq.

With all you see wrong with the US, and believe me, my jaw is on the ground after reading your words here, but why would you stay in a country that is SO bad as you describe it? Why not go to Europe, or Canada?

 

[Rigby5]

With all you see wrong with the US, and believe me, my jaw is on the ground after reading your words here, but why would you stay in a country that is SO bad as you describe it? Why not go to Europe, or Canada?

That is silly.
Back about 2000 years ago, the big country colonizing the rest of the world was the evil ancient Rome.
They enslaved, massacred, invaded, abused, and used people for sport.
That was hardly ever any society as evil.
But yet no sane person would have ever wanted to live anywhere else, because they they would have no protection from the abuses of Rome.
Only by living in Rome, could one be safe from invasion, enslavement, genocide, etc.
The phase for it is, "in the belly of the beast".

But it is also true one can do more to try to change this from within.
Anyone outside of the US would have no ability to modify the actions of the US at all.

 

[j-mac]

That is silly.
Back about 2000 years ago, the big country colonizing the rest of the world was the evil ancient Rome.
They enslaved, massacred, invaded, abused, and used people for sport.
That was hardly ever any society as evil.
But yet no sane person would have ever wanted to live anywhere else, because they they would have no protection from the abuses of Rome.
Only by living in Rome, could one be safe from invasion, enslavement, genocide, etc.
The phase for it is, "in the belly of the beast".

But it is also true one can do more to try to change this from within.
Anyone outside of the US would have no ability to modify the actions of the US at all.

HAHA! and do tell what are you doing to actively "change this from within"?

 

[woodwork201]

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?

She and you are both full of shit. There were a small handful of people who damaged or stole property, or threatened violence but, far moreso than the "mostly peaceful" protests throughout most of 2020, the protests at the Capitol were warranted, legal, constitutionally protected, and peaceful.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I said drugs harm "no one else", and that does not mean they do not harm the user.

Which is factually incorrect.

Yes, it is the drug abuser who is most harmed, but it is unbelievably ignorant to believe that he doesn't harm many others, as well as himself.

 

[DrLove]

Vindman is going to win this case. It's pretty much open and shut. All that remains is how much of Trumpy Bear's money he's gonna take.

 

[bripat9643]

The 1/6 rightwing terrorist attack on America’s democracy was a lawless act of treason by conservatives.

That conservatives support and defend that act of terrorism and treason is further proof of the right’s contempt for the Constitution, the rule of law, our democratic institutions, and the will of the people.

Clayton delivers another load.

 

[bripat9643]

Which is factually incorrect.

Yes, it is the drug abuser who is most harmed, but it is unbelievably ignorant to believe that he doesn't harm many others, as well as himself.

Being a lazy shiftless loser also harms others. Should we arrest anyone who isn't living up to his full potential?

 

[bripat9643]

Vindman is going to win this case. It's pretty much open and shut. All that remains is how much of Trumpy Bear's money he's gonna take.

What case?

 

[DrLove]

What case?

BriPoop is still here saying absolutely NOTHING? Cool!

 

[woodwork201]

Well, you just earned a permanent ignore. Bye...

May I have one, too?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

May I have one, too?

Perhaps we should all ask Chief Shitting Bull to put us on ignore, and then take this thread over mocking it behind it's back. If it really does have us all on ignore, then it will be oblivious to all the mockery, which will make its attempt to carry on any conversation in this thread all the more hilarious.

 

[lennypartiv]

Vindman is going to win this case. It's pretty much open and shut. All that remains is how much of Trumpy Bear's money he's gonna take.

You liberals keep saying Trump is going to lose a lawsuit. We're still waiting.