Comments by "Jim Werther" (@jimwerther) on "NBC News"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@VincenzoGCosta
Here is how democracy is at stake:
Six months of daily riots "mostly peaceful protests", egged on by Democrats and the mainstream media. The most costly riots in American history. And Democrat politicians, Kamala Harris among them, promoted a fund which bailed rioters out of prison.
One member of Congress advocated getting in the face of political adversaries. That was a Democrat - Maxine Waters.
Someone tried to murder numerous Congressmen, and nearly killed Steve Scalise. He was inspired to do so by Bernie Sanders's rhetoric.
A member of the Supreme Court was targeted for assassination. Bret Kavanaugh was marked by a member of the left. This came after Kavanaugh was publicly threatened by Senate Majority leader Chuck Schumer.
Five police officers were assassinated by a BLM supporter angry about police killings of black men, an issue reported on endlessly by the mainstream media. Statistics clearly show that whites are disproportionately killed by police. The leftist narrative is a lie, but the five Dallas officers are dead nonetheless.
Respected, Nevada-based long-time journalist Jeff German, age 69, was stabbed to death, allegedly by a politician he was covering, 45 year old Rob Telles, who faces the death penalty.
Shall I continue?
Meanwhile, the following is a list of elected Republicans who supported the invasion of the Capitol, a terrible incident which lasted three hours total:
(crickets)
And those are the facts.
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@zacharythomas8617
Unlike you leftists, who live life in an echo chamber of radical nonsense, I avail myself of the facts, and make a point of learning how it is that the radical left comes to believe in that which they do. As such, I not only watch Democrat Party spin such as Meet The Press, I have a subscription to the NYT, the LA Times, and the WaPo. I know of what I speak. The commenters here, however, are so stunningly ignorant that they fail to even recognize how badly they expose their ignorance with their comments, or else they would be far too embarassed to write them in he first place.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form."
- John Stuart Mill, On Liberty
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@WalterPetrovic
You can be upset as Trump as you want, and I can also be, but that rather obviously doesn't equate with treason.
1. "Popular vote" - Irrelevant. You know that, I know that, Hillary knows that, and everyone who can read the Constitution knows that. Skip the red herrings.
2. "His incessant fighting" - Again, vague and irrelevant. You know that as well. That's twice that you just raised meaningless irrelevancies in order to try to change the topic.
3. "leading up to his pushing MAGATS into open rebellion" - Legally speaking? How so? Did he ever tell anyone to rush into Congress and disrupt the proceedings? No, he did not. Instead, he exhorted the crowd to "peacefully protest", and yes, that is a direct quote from January 6th. Trump's wild rhetoric in the two months following the election was exceedingly irresponsible and flat-out outrageous, but in no way does it meet the legal standard for incitement, any more or less than it does Bernie Sanders's rhetoric pushing the Congressional Baseball Shooter into his own terrible actions.
Furthermore, not a single individual who was arrested for January 6th-related actions has been charged with insurrection, let alone convicted.
Which means that you are now many steps short of concluding that Trump directly caused (he didn't) an insurrection (which no one has been charged with).
4. "violates his Presidential oath of Office" - If Trump did in fact violate his presidential oath of office, that is still not the same thing as treason. Nixon violated the oath, and was forced out as a result. Did anyone even accuse him of treason?
5. "Regardless how anyone want (sic) to paint this, it is treason." No, actually it is nothing of the sort, otherwise you would have been able to give a coherent explanation of why it is.
1
-
@WalterPetrovic
In short, you would like to redefine "treason" to "something which gets Walter D. Petrovic upset". Unfortunately for you the law doesn't work that way. Not one person has been charged with insurrection related to January 6th, let alone convicted. And Donald Trump has not been charged with anything at all. "Treason" is a major accusation - so major that not only does it have a legal definition in the dictionary, the founding fathers actually made a point of specifically defining it in the Constitution itself. Why? Because they didn't want the Walter D. Petrovics of the world to come along and start throwing out accusations of "treason" whenever they felt like it.
I have explained this point at length, and have given you plenty of opportunity to explain how Donald Trump crossed that threshhold, but you keep responding with nonsensical points about popular vote totals and the like.
What you are actually stumbling along trying to come up with is a definition of "incitement". But the problem there is threefold:
1. Legally speaking, Trump did not cross the line into incitement, in that he never asked anyone to get violent. "Incitement" has a very specific legal definition.
2. Even if Trump had been guilty of incitement, a charge which has not been leveled at him by any prosecutor, that is still far short of "treason", obviously.
3. By your definition, there are literally hundreds of Democrats who could and should be tried for treason as a result of terrible incidents such as the cold-blooded execution of five Dallas Police Officers and two more in New York City, the shooting at the Republican baseball practice in which Congressman Steve Scalise nearly died, and, most glaringly, the six months of rioting, murder and mayhem that took place in major, Democrat-run cities throughout the United States in 2020. Among those who would be guilty of "treason" by your definition would be: Former President Obama, current Vice President Kamala Harris (who was among several Democrat Senators who set up a bail fund for rioters), Senator Bernie Sanders, and hundreds of other elected officials, all of whom spread falsehoods leading to evil actions and, in the case of the 2020 riots, the destabilization of the United States, including a massive hike in violent crime that continues to this day.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1