Hodad

The creepiest part is that these MAGA dolts have no actual values of their own. It's purely a cult of personality. If Trump (who also has no values, so not unlikely) turned around tomorrow and said that NATO is vital to our security, his boot-licking sycophants wouldn't hesitate to flip themselves upside down and come back posting about how important NATO is.

The only existential crisis was Trump attempting a coup. For the first time in our nation's history a president sought to circumvent the peaceful transfer of power. There is no evidence that the 2020 election was stolen, and no evidence that there was widespread voter fraud. There simply isn't. Despite it being the most scrutinized and analyzed election in history. Pence didn't LET the Democrats win. The voters chose the Democratic candidate. Pence simply upheld his constitutional responsibility to certify the vote, as has been done by every VP before him. ^^those are facts, and they will not be washed away by your ungrounded conspiracy speculation.

Is it your position that some substantial portion of the population would find, say, calls for genocide as speech that is not extreme? Is there value in such speech? No. Is there harm in such speech? Yes. So, as with all other rights, there's a practical analysis to be made and sensible laws to be made. In the same way that most gun enthusiasts think the 2nd amendment protects a neighbor's right to own a rifle, but not to own a nuclear bomb. We recognize that rights are not absolute and we pass laws to balance harm and benefit.

If you want to use aggressive Russian expansionism as an analogy to a defensive alliance, by all means, enjoy. I'm not debating phony history with a compulsive liar.

You've never told a truth in your life. NATO is a defensive alliance. Your victim-blaming bullshit is boring--and would embarrass any decent person. There is exactly ONE way that Ukraine joining a defensive alliance affects Russia: it makes it harder for Russia to invade. Your whole stupid rationale is that Ukraine didn't want an openly aggressive Russia to invade them, so they sought a defensive alliance, so Russia just HAD to invade them. If someone puts locks on their doors it forces a burglary to happen. If someone puts on an athletic cup, they just force someone to kick them in the crotch.

If you don't want people to see your Putin love, stop cheering on the aggressor and blaming the victim. Easy peasy. Just because Trump is Putin's biggest fan doesn't mean that you need to be.

You lost every thinking person with the first fantastically stupid remark right out of the gate. Sure, there wouldn't be a war if Ukraine had simply let Russia invade without resistance. 🙄 Brilliant.

You're willfully naive. Ukraine is fighting for it's very existence against Russia, and you complain that they are muzzling pro-Russian political and propaganda elements? Boo hoo. It's a war. Compromises are made when people are trying to survive. If Zelensky were an actual villain those people would be rounded up and killed or interned. The US, back in the era you MAGA fools romanticize, locked up Japanese citizens just for being of Japanese ancestors--they weren't even actively supporting Japan. Now that was bad, yet here we are still a free country. Seems like Zelensky is doing pretty well in context. Again, look at the facts. Ukraine is still, remarkably, a relatively free country even in the midst of an existential war. Grow up and save your pearl clutching for the your fellow Puties in the next issue of your Putin fanzine.

Yes, despite whatever fever swamp YouTube crap you mainline, Ukraine is our democratic ally in the region and a relatively free country, even under stricter wartime conditions.

I suspect you know full well that's not all he told them. He did mention peaceful once at the beginning of the speech, but then he spent an hour framing the moment as an existential crisis, to fight (21ish times, iirc) and that if they didn't stop "the steal" (the vote certification) they wouldn't have a country anymore. He told them where to go, what to accomplish and that the urgency was critical and immediate. The insurrectionists interpreted that language exactly as it was intended. All while he was actually plotting to steal the election He's a traitor and a scumbag. Also happens to be guilty of the many charges he's facing.

Eh, it cost member and non-member nations whatever aid they elected to give. Unlike you, these Nations collectively believe in liberty, democracy, self determination and are willing to lend aid to free people fighting to remain free. To people of conscience, it's more than a "wasteland."

Geez, we do all know what it means (now) but I was just suggesting you acknowledge the mistake. You've gone overboard. That kind of negative self-talk doesn't help anyone. It's okay to make mistakes.

Well, if "they" are people like you who don't know the definition and use of the word, I guess maybe they might. But the rest of the world very much understands that compelling language does not necessitate physical force or threat. Again, try reading your own definition. And you may be unaware, but legally people can indeed be liable for inciting action with compelling language. Obviously that includes things like conspiracy and insurrection, but also slander and libel and things like "fighting words" because they are understood to compel action in response. So your own personal "made-up" definition of "compel" is incompatible with common understanding, with formal definition, and with legal definition. Maybe you should write a strongly worded letter to the rest of the world. Tell 'em you'd like to render the word "compel" meaningless. Good luck with that.

No, they don't. They understand that there is a spectrum of compulsion informed by the context. Again, I refer you to the first definition and example that YOU posted. 1. force or oblige (someone) to do something. "a sense of duty compelled Harry to answer her questions" Nobody thinks that a "sense of duty" physically forced or even explicitly threatened consequences. Post after post, you dig a deeper hole. lol Read your own damn definition.

Great. Now look up the definition of "force" which ALSO does not have to be physical. Jeebus. As expected, you clearly will choose to die on the stupid hill. The definition YOU posted contradicted your argument, but still you persist. Talk about silliness. If your ego is too fragile to admit a mistake or gap in knowledge, that's pretty sad.

Blah, blah, blah. NATO, as an organization isn't doing anything. The member states are the actors. And Blackrock isn't a nation, let alone a NATO member. No member nation has any need to keep NATO relevant. The member nations do not derive any financial gain from the fact that NATO exists. They receive a security benefit. Again, what you are proposing is that Sally in apartment 7B is down in the basement bashing the boiler with a hammer in order to justify the existence of the co-op, which will route the collected money for repairs. I guess because she loves paying money to the co-op for repairs? lol -- it's kookoo

You posted it, but apparently didn't read it. 🤣 The very first example: "a sense of duty compelled Harry to answer her questions" <-- oh, look, it's not physical. Summons? <-- oh yeah, those are words Did you happen to read that long list of "similar" words? Or synonyms? Apparently not. Coerce, pressure, demand, insist, urge, etc. I'm guessing you're the sort of person who will choose to die on this hill rather than admit you didn't know the meaning of the word, but it wont' change the fact that everybody else is pretty clear what it means. You're erecting an artificial barrier to communication.

Of course the listener makes their own choices. You could choose to defy the law. There would then be consequences.The language of the directive is still compelling. Do you think the word "compel" means exclusively to literally use physical force to move someone's body. If so, you're using your own made up definition. Everyone else understands that "compelling" describes a spectrum of very motivating language rather than physical force.

Of course words compel action. They just have to be compelling words. Are there any laws that you follow that cause you to behave in ways that you wouldn't voluntarily or naturally behave? Of course. Congrats, words have compelled you. To be compelling, words have to be believed and communicate plausible positive or negative benefits of a proposition. You believe the words are earnest and true, they give you information and you take action on that information if the perceived consequence is sufficiently attractive or repulsive to justify the action.

"Taxpayer funds" is still completely irrelevant to your moronic conspiracy theory. The member countries of NATO are not opposing Putin so that they can pay themselves--they are spending that money on defense anyway. Nor are they opposing Putin so that they can chip in to keep the lights on at NATO headquarters. You're theory is unbelievably stupid, predicted on a fundamental ignorance of what NATO is or how it operates. "The end."

Oh, there were no convictions? That'll be a huge comfort to the guys rotting in prison, liar. Two guilty pleas and five convictions. Jeebus. You're utterly without shame.

At this point, I think we know the old saying is not true. We see that words do hurt. They can hurt anyone, but the emotionally vulnerable are particularly at risk. And with the easy reach words have today we've seen an epidemic of young people socially bullied to death. Or you can think of Hitler and the Nazi propaganda machine dehumanized Jews and other vulnerable minorities to the point that an otherwise sane populace came to accept unbelievable atrocities. So words do matter and they certainly can hurt. The idea of a hate crime is that it has the secondary effect of terrorizing the targeted group. It's similar to the way that we think of terrorism and murder differently. Yes, they are both killing, but terrorism (like hate crimes) causes additional harm to the population outside of the direct harm to the victims.

Sounds easier. And no, he absolutely did incite the insurrection. The only reason those people marched down to storm the Capitol and hunt our legislators is because Trump told them lies for months, riled them up again that day and told them that stopping the certification was an existential crisis for the country. Partisan hacks will equivocate, but that's a fact.

I expect is simply a pragmatic choice. If you can put a crook behind bars with something easier to prove and skip all the silly wrangling about free speech and word definitions, do it. Take the concrete case as an easy (or easier) layup Add new charges later if you want to. A little like Al Capone and tax evasion.

Trump is mercurial, but the one constant amidst the chaos is that he consistently hires the worst, batshit crazy lawyers.