Arrest Trump for Treason

[pbrower2a]

(11-22-2016, 08:13 AM)Odin Wrote:

(11-22-2016, 01:55 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Actually, I fought the Cold War to protect freedom, including free speech.  Free speech means nothing if it doesn't include speech we disagree with.

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal

-Karl Popper

Exactly. Freedom of expression implies that people have the capacity to discern credibility from nonsense, and good from evil. But this implies a populace wise enough to determine from reasoning even against religious teaching (because religious teaching can be misguided or corrupt)  the difference between good and evil and the necessity to choose good over evil; people must also develop some capacity to discern reliability through logical processes even against visceral feelings. Visceral feelings might tell us that theft is wrong, but they can also tell us that one's race is superior to that of another.

Now how do we impress this upon people sated with recorded video and music and who play too many video games?

[Eric the Green]

(11-22-2016, 08:13 AM)Odin Wrote:

(11-22-2016, 01:55 AM)Warren Dew Wrote: Actually, I fought the Cold War to protect freedom, including free speech.  Free speech means nothing if it doesn't include speech we disagree with.

Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal

-Karl Popper

Incitement of violence is already criminal, and Trump is guilty.





Rachel Maddow presents a video timeline of Donald Trump's comments at rallies that have stoked hostility and incited violence by his supporters against protesters, leading to chaos after a canceled rally in Chicago.

There's going to be protests against Trump. And Trump will incite his brown shirts and turn the police against the protesters. We are headed toward Civil War, folks.

[pbrower2a]

We protesters can carry cameras and we can use them against a rioter (as in someone who smashes a store window) or a counter-protester (at least the police have some responsibilities) and supply the police and DAs with photographic evidence of crimes. Just because we dislike Donald Trump and the Republican party does not mean that we are not good citizens. We all have legitimate concerns for law and order; someone who torches a car (it could be a one of our cars, dammit!) or smashes a store window (we might want to have a sandwich and a coffee in some store after the protest, and the store owner and staff did nothing wrong) -- let alone acts with brutality toward us (counter-protesters are more dangerous than cops!) deserves to be exposed to the full judgment of the legal process. Tough luck, crook! Law and order is necessary to allow protests like ours.

[Eric the Green]

That's a big danger. In the past violence by some on the Left has brought about reaction and repression. Law and order is necessary to allow protests like ours. Of course, the Drumpf government is likely to repress non-violent protests.

The Martin Luther King approach is to respond to brute force with soul force. It can work, and arouse support for the cause, as long as the brute force of the government does not become as brutal as that of dictators like Assad. It's a question of how far the Drumpf government will go in cracking down on us. They may see it as to their advantage to crack down hard, if they feel the public supports them, and if Dumb Drumpf can drum up support for it. I suspect violence by the protesters would be harder as well, in that case.

[pbrower2a]

(12-28-2016, 07:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: That's a big danger. In the past violence by some on the Left has brought about reaction and repression. Law and order is necessary to allow protests like ours. Of course, the Drumpf government is likely to repress non-violent protests.

The Martin Luther King approach is to respond to brute force with soul force. It can work, and arouse support for the cause, as long as the brute force of the government does not become as brutal as that of dictators like Assad. It's a question of how far the Drumpf government will go in cracking down on us. They may see it as to their advantage to crack down hard, if they feel the public supports them, and if Dumb Drumpf can drum up support for it. I suspect violence by the protesters would be harder as well, in that case.

Non-violent protest is the right way to go. It worked against segregationism and Ku Kluxism in the 1960s in America well enough that people in Commie states used it in the 1980s. Armed resistance is the wrong way to go.

We have an advantage this time: in the big cities a Bull Connor is unlikely to loose dogs or fire water cannons at peaceful protesters. This may be to the consternation of some State governors, but that is their problem and not ours. We also have cameras and camcorders. We can put our media on the Internet for all to see. We can also supply video of misconduct by rioters and attackers to law enforcement and the courts. At the least we can be fair. We are for human rights and law and order -- at that there is no conflict.

[Eric the Green]

(12-28-2016, 08:10 PM)pbrower2a Wrote:

(12-28-2016, 07:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: That's a big danger. In the past violence by some on the Left has brought about reaction and repression. Law and order is necessary to allow protests like ours. Of course, the Drumpf government is likely to repress non-violent protests.

The Martin Luther King approach is to respond to brute force with soul force. It can work, and arouse support for the cause, as long as the brute force of the government does not become as brutal as that of dictators like Assad. It's a question of how far the Drumpf government will go in cracking down on us. They may see it as to their advantage to crack down hard, if they feel the public supports them, and if Dumb Drumpf can drum up support for it. I suspect violence by the protesters would be harder as well, in that case.

Non-violent protest is the right way to go. It worked against segregationism and Ku Kluxism in the 1960s in America well enough that people in Commie states used it in the 1980s. Armed resistance is the wrong way to go.

We have an advantage this time: in the big cities a Bull Connor is unlikely to loose dogs or fire water cannons at peaceful protesters. This may be to the consternation of some State governors, but that is their problem and not ours. We also have cameras and camcorders. We can put our media on the Internet for all to see. We can also supply video of misconduct by rioters and attackers to law enforcement and the courts. At the least we can be fair. We are for human rights and law and order -- at that there is no conflict.

Fortunately most of the protests will be in cities, which are mostly blue governed. At some point Drumpf might call out the national guard and federalize the police for his "politically incorrect" crackdown, and then all bets are off. But unless and until that happens, protesters will be relatively safe in blue states and their cities, at least.

[Eric the Green]

[Eric the Green]

The only good coup would dethrone all the cabinet and Pence too. They are all tools of both Russia and the American corporate bosses, and nothing more. I've never seen a worse group of absolute assholes appointed to anything, ever. And his choices prove that Trump is as bad or worse than Cruz and Pence. You were right; he is.

But IF Pence DOES take over sometime before 2020, things will be looking up ONLY because Pence is not a charismatic demagogue who can entertain and bowl over the deluded masses with his 9-4 horoscope score featuring his Mars rising and Jupiter-Uranus "popular hero" trine configured with his Sun and Moon (just like his cohorts Dubya and Bill had). Pence is eminently beatable! He is as dull as nails. They could nominate even Hillary Clinton again and beat him! (It would be better for the Democrats to nominate a better candidate with a higher score though, no doubt)

[pbrower2a]

In 1989, Presidents Bush and Gorbachev, upon hearing of demonstrations in Romania, warned President Ceausescu to not fire upon peaceful protesters. He did, and this was the result (warning: this is not for the faint-hearted!):





That is a fair warning to any leader who orders the police or military to fire upon peaceful protesters.

[Eric the Green]

To bad it didn't work out better for the people in Syria. It depends on how powerful and ruthless the tyrant is, and whether he has the full support of his army and police. With Assad, he also had powerful allies, from other tyrannies (Russia, Iran), and weak allies as opponents. The tyrant in Romania no longer had a powerful Russian ally to back him.

[Bronsin]

How about we arrest THESE people for Treason instead:

[Bronsin]

(01-10-2017, 08:23 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 08:10 PM)Bronsin Wrote: How about we arrest THESE people for Treason instead:

Did they become Kremlin Quislings?

They have always been!

[pbrower2a]

Donald Trump is not Vidkun Quisling. Quisling was in fact a brilliant man. He simply was a megalomaniac.

[Eric the Green]

(01-11-2017, 06:56 AM)Bronsin Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 08:23 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-10-2017, 08:10 PM)Bronsin Wrote: How about we arrest THESE people for Treason instead:

Did they become Kremlin Quislings?

They have always been!

Why don't we arrest the creeps who put out these fake news stories?

And the lies about Hillary; many on the Left believed them. Really too bad; she would have been so much better as president than she was as a candidate. Makes me sad. 

But, I guess, it wasn't really in the stars, even though I wanted to think she had a chance. Trump was going to be hard to beat, no matter how bad his behavior was. I knew that. He knows how to put on a good show.

[pbrower2a]

(01-13-2017, 02:12 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:

(01-13-2017, 03:28 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Why don't we arrest the creeps who put out these fake news stories?

And the lies about Hillary; many on the Left believed them. Really too bad; she would have been so much better as president than she was as a candidate. Makes me sad. 

But, I guess, it wasn't really in the stars, even though I wanted to think she had a chance. Trump was going to be hard to beat, no matter how bad his behavior was. I knew that. He knows how to put on a good show.

Well, as you know the 1A would protect the reporting orgs. However, the SVR/GRU assets and those who harbor and give comfort to them, who are the initial "sources" of them, and who coordinate the overall operations - they are committing acts of war, espionage and treason. For the ones who are not Americans this drone is for you, for the American ones giving aid and comfort, lock 'em up and string 'em up.

As effective sanction would be disgrace.

There used to be journalistic standards -- obviously, don't make stuff up; don't plagiarize. Remember Jayson Blair? Who? He got some high-profile stories for the New York Times  before he was shown to have made stuff up and plagiarized. For editors -- fact-check. That's what new journalism grads got to do -- make sure that there is some sizzle to the steak. Wikipedia has an article on him, and it goes blank for the next then years. I have no idea of what he has been doing for the last ten years. Janet Cooke, a Washington Post journalist who fabricated a story about an 8-year-old heroin addict (it was well written, but fiction is in another section of the newsstand), was exposed and disgraced. I have no idea what she does for a living now.  

With the technology that we now have, practically anyone can be a 'journalist'. Getting the stories is trickier. One of the easiest ways is to be a conduit for propaganda.

Maybe our society is so ferociously competitive and result-oriented (get results or perish!) that even in complete futility one is pressed to succeed, even if dishonestly. Serving a foreign government? Be very, very careful.

[Eric the Green]

Roy Rigordaeva shared Angela Kennedy's post.
15 hrs ·

Angela Kennedy
January 17 at 8:56pm · Boca Raton, FL ·
In 3 more days, "POTUS" will have a new meaning: "Putin Owns The United States."

[Eric the Green]

Wow, that's good news. MANY more to go, afaic.

I wonder if Drump said "you're fired!" to him.

And I wonder whether his replacement would be any better.....

[Odin]

(02-14-2017, 12:17 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Flynn's out (resigned). One down, a few more to go.

All that "America First" rhetoric by Trump and Co. is a good example of projection and gaslighting.

[Bob Butler 54]

Watergate changed American politics.  The press and the Democrats took a president all the way down.  I’ve a sense that ever since the Republicans have wanted to return the favor.  The willingness to smear political opponents has been getting ever more rancid.

Yet, Nixon deserved it.  His flaw was paranoia.  His White House existed in a world where the Democratic Party and the Students for a Democratic Society were infiltrated and controlled by the Soviets.  To save the country, these internal traitors hostile to the United States had to be defeated by any means possible.  Living in this alternate reality, seeing the opposition as living a total lie, they lied themselves.  There was no respect for truth at all.

I’m starting to feel a genuine echo.  Trump isn’t paranoid.  He’s a narcissist.  That changes things in a lot of ways, but not all.  Any who oppose him are The Enemy, to be attacked from the hip.  There is again an alternate reality and lack of respect for the truth.  One should also remember that Nixon’s personal covert operations team was called ‘The Plumbers’ as their original purpose was to stop the rampant leaks that were sabotaging many of Nixon’s efforts.  We're starting to see that dynamic building again, where genuine patriots feel it necessary to expose a genuinely flawed administration, while the administration will futilely try to respond by trying to block the leaks.

There isn’t enough blood in the water yet for the sharks to go into a full feeding frenzy, but I’m starting to get the feeling of early Watergate.  The press has their knives out.  The Democrats sense a weakness.  The White House isn’t particularly attached to reality or truth.  The ongoing deceptions only whet the appetite to press harder.  Trump also simply doesn’t have the people skills to hold together a coherent coalition.

I’ve also a sense that Putin has his knife already in, and is waiting the best time to twist it.  He is being provocative, deploying treaty banned missiles, parking spy ships off the East Coast, having fighters buzz US assets…  and Trump doesn’t seem willing or able to respond.  All Trump is doing is pretending it isn’t happening.  Putin was quite willing to take down Hillary, and I’ve no reason to believe he won’t also take down Trump.  I suspect he has the ammunition, the means to leak it, and is waiting for the perfect timing.  I’m starting to take seriously the notion that the Trump White House can be blackmailed, that Putin will take advantage of this as much as he can, then he will twist the knife.  He does not seem to be playing it subtle.

Putin has been portrayed by the West in general and the US government in particular as a gangster capitalist with the morals of a fascist.  Ok, so maybe there are good reasons for such a portrayal.  Still, maybe, just maybe, he's a bit ticked off.  Maybe he wants to kick the US off it's high horse, to take the US status as 'leader of the free world' down a notch or three.  

One political party down.  One to go.  Working on it.

Since Watergate we have had no lack of scandal, press hostile to the president and confrontational attack politics.  Watergate set the example, and too many people since have thought presidents fair game and tried to repeat the exercise.  They haven’t been able to do so as the presidents since Nixon haven’t been so deeply flawed.  Trump may be just that flawed.  While I haven’t been big on the ‘Arrest Trump for Treason’ thread or the like, it is starting to feel like it might really happen.

[Eric the Green]

So now we have Putin violating the ABM treaty, buzzing our ships, and fomenting more war in Ukraine. He is using cyber attacks against Estonia and Lithuania and other countries. He has declared Russia will never give up Crimea. It may be that Putin already sees Trump as giving him the green light, and is testing out his new ally.

"It would be great if we could get along with Russia" Trump says. I guess this is what he means by getting along. All I can say is it didn't take long for my prediction to come true that Putin would take advantage of his boy in the WH. How long now before Putin invades Estonia? Will he just move into Syria and take over there too? Will he carry out a coup in DC? Who knows just how far he's going to go.