Hodad

Fair point. We know MAGA won't think.

If you were half as interested in thinking through an issue as you are at (ironic) insults, you might learn a thing or two. Instead, you'll just parrot Putin's propaganda like a good little bot. "Aggressive defense"? That's nonsense. NATO doesn't "go" anywhere. There's probably no amount of repeating that will penetrate your conspiracy fever brain, but NATO is a defensive alliance. If Finland suddenly decided to attack Russia, it would not trigger any NATO help. Again, the ONLY way that NATO is a "threat" to Putin is that it's an impediment to his expansionist ambitions.

One's neighbor joining a defensive alliance opposed to one's own objectives constitutes a geopolitical setback, not a threat. What you're saying is that if your nextdoor neighbor joins the neighborhood watch and you don't like that (because you might want to commit a few crimes), it's right and fair for you to burn his house down. That's bullshit. Ukraine simply joining NATO--which it hasn't even done--would make it part of a defensive pact. The ONLY way that inconveniences Putin is that the country he planned to attack anyway would have allies to come to its defense. NATO is not a threat to Russia, Russians, their territory or sovereignty. There is no offensive alliance. It's a "threat' to Putin's expansionist ambition. And nowhere outside of conspiracy fever-brained Putin ass kissers does that provide a moral or legal justification to attack Ukraine.

The thing is, he's not unelectable. He's the same doddering old man he was last week. But as long as Trump is on the ballot whoever is on in the other side--and in whatever condition--is an electable candidate. A potato is a better option. A potato won't do anything at all to improve our country. It's completely worthless. But it won't actively try to end the Republic, as Trump has already done. Beyond the myriad smaller--and larger--harms he has done, he is the only disappointed loser in the history of this nation who put himself above the country, seeking to thwart the peaceful transfer of power that is absolutely central to democracy. We had one very close call already. That was the dress rehearsal. We may not survive the next attempt. And there are a lot of Americans who feel the same way. I like being an American. I don't want to become whatever we'd be called in a post-democratic nation. If it's a potato, I'm voting potato.

And the neat part is that a ton of what we sent was aging stock that would have been "retired" anyway. We're paying to refresh our own supplies with equipment manufactured in the USA. The money goes into the economy and the product goes into our arsenal.

Yes, there's something fishy about those Ukrainians (shifty looking bunch). I mean, sure they SAY they're fighting because they don't want to be invaded, conquered and stripped of their self-determination and liberty, but that just doesn't add up... 🤔

Also, the sentence for insurrection is, IIRC, only 10 years. The obstruction charges come with 20 years and are easier to prove.

Hey look, still riding that dumb lie. Please link to anywhere that poster asked Ukrainians to fight for anything, or you owe them an apology.

Er, nobody actually said that. Apparently you went to the Tucker Carlson school of journalism.

Probably in a pile under Trump's tax returns and healthcare plan.

Well, we only think the Kremlin spokesperson is unreliable and likely to lie to us. We don't have his personal texts and emails confirming and confessing to the fact.

Okay, well have fun pondering. You're welcome, if you so choose, to hold the heterodox opinion that people shouldn't be liable for inciting criminal action. But it's just not relevant to the reality of Trump facing liability under established law.

All fair points.

No idea who that is, but your spank bank is your business.

I listened to the opening arguments live, and they are night and day different in terms of clarity and efficacy, but I am deeply skeptical that this court is going make the plain judgment. They will 100% weasel out of it because it's a political hot potato and it's a highly political court.

important edit

I'm sure you think you're making a reasonable argument, but again, the "question" of shared responsibility goes back hundreds of years (or longer) in Western legal tradition. It's not really a question any longer. It's both common sense and legal precedent. So, respectfully, what you're doing is like the person who shows up on the last day of a philosophy class and then wants to belabor a point that everyone else worked through on day one. It doesn't mean it's an invalid question, but it's remedial. You're not going to overturn a massive body of law with your ponderings. Yes, I have agency. Nearly everyone has agency. But the decision to act is predicated on informational inputs for which other parties can be responsible. This is basic stuff. No I, personally, wouldn't act on information from you or from Trump. But if it were someone credible in an urgent circumstance, I certainly might. If I saw a woman struggling with a man and she cried "rape!" I might assault the perceived assailant to eliminate an immediate threat. If it were true, I'd be a hero. If the woman had lied, she would also--and perhaps exclusively--be liable for the assault. Again, this is long-settled stuff. I didn't define it because it's not relevant. Casually, incitement is trying to compel or persuade people to take urgent action. In a legal sense, the action is to commit a crime. It's not really necessary to have MY definition of commonly understood words or phrases. You could parse that for hours. Your opinion of whether or not Trump is guilty of a crime WRT incitement should be based on the applicable federal legal code. Go read the indictment.

If you don't know what he said, I'm not sure how you've come to any kind of position on his level of responsibility? You should probably go read that speech. He said A LOT in his rambling incoherent style. Early on he encouraged peaceful protest. But then, critically, he spent an hour telling the crowd that the election was stolen through fraud, and he told them they had to fight like hell, and he told them that they had to march to the Capitol right now and "stop the steal" or they wouldn't have a country anymore. He very much created an existential crisis in the minds of those people. He told them that a massive crime was in progress. That their country was being "stolen" and that they had to fight and take action now. And he told them where to stop it. And he told them when they needed to stop it. And all of it was a lie. Of course the mob, believing Trump, was going to take desperate action. The people who have been tried for their actions expressed as much. And many have expressed anger about being duped. Think of it like "swatting."

It's an "and," not an "or." Yes, the people to stormed the capitol should be held responsible for their actions. And yes, incitement is, in some circumstances, a crime. And Trump should also be held accountable for what he did to cause the attack. There is a loooong history in Western legal tradition that apportions blame/responsibility among parties involved. Planners, directors, commanders and requestors of criminal acts or otherwise harmful acts are very often apportioned responsibility for their roles. It doesn't mean that the actors were mindless automatons, it means that they wouldn't have otherwise acted without the guidance or incitement to do so. For example, note that Enrique Tarrio (leader of the Proud Boys) was not even in D.C. on the day of the insurrection, but he has been held accountable for his role in planning and fomenting the attack. 22 years in prison. Trump absolutely caused the insurrection, from the big lie about the election to the the existential crisis he communicated to his followers. After swearing and oath of loyalty to the constitution, no less. He should be held accountable.

The US certainly exercises force, but I'm not sure you know what the word "aggressive" means. The US is active in world affairs. In the last 50 years it has often often played the role of peace maker or peace keeper or otherwise intervened in conflicts, often as part of a coalition. It has taken defensive action. It has taken retributive action. But it is not wantonly invading other countries. It is not conquering. It is not expanding. In short, it is involved in many conflicts, but it is not, as an aggressor, starting conflicts. The one very notable exception to this is W's invasion of Iraq. He definitely started that war--and without reasonable justification. It was entirely elective and is a huge black eye on the legitimacy of the US as force in the world for stability, freedom and peace. This doesn't mean that the military itself is perfect, or that I personally agree with all of the actions, objectives and aims of every intervention. But the US is not, generally, aggressive. And we certainly aren't trying to gobble up our weaker neighbors and steal their resources. You're welcome.

Boy, that's a lot of fools.

What would do you live in? Lol That's truly absurd. The USA has not expanded it's territory a bit, despite having smoke opportunity and power. And YES, the Russian forces were stopped. Do you not have access to international media? Russia has a GDP just north of Spain's, and the rust bucket military apparatus to match. You said something so batshit, flat-earth crazy there's only so much one can do right it, Mr. Coyote.

Because only someone VERY stupid would still be watching a man who, in his own words clearly admitted to deliberately lying to his audience for months, and whose lies cost his former employer almost a billion dollars? And let's be clear Tucker has always been a liar, and had never been a journalist. It's just that he's on record admitting it now. It's unbelievable that there are people dumb enough to give him their time and viewership revenue after all of that.

He tried to claim immunity because his lawyers looked at the hundreds of times he lied to his followers about a "stolen election." They watched video of how he turned a crowd into a mob be telling them that they had to march to the Capitol right now and "stop the steal" or they wouldn't have a country anymore. And after all that it was clear that no rational person or jury would believe that he didn't create a phony existential crisis that incited a riot. So better to make the case that he should be immune to the consequences of what he quite obviously did. But don't worry. After they lose the immunity case they'll go right back to pretending he didn't do anything wrong.

"You see, Tucker, I had to invade my resource-rich sovereign neighbor. They were afraid I would invade them, so they sought defensive alliances. They were obviously right."