By questioning verdict delivered by the citizens Republicans edge ever closer to a totalitarian cult

[myata]

One needs to recognize that this is happening in a difficult social background. The political system is in a partisan deadlock. Both parties contributed to it, the increasing then extreme polarization leading to a system that is very much closed on itself and running for itself.

Then, a part of the population, and relatively soon we will find out the measure of it, prefers to forget that a working democracy is an instrument of active and responsible citizens that needs to be checked and maintained at all times. They now want to see it as a magical want that has to satisfy all tantrums and caprices and is guaranteed to work no matter what one throws at it.

This is a dangerous social and political environment. It is reminiscent of Rome's before the fall of democracy, and Germany before the fall to totalitarianism. This the political system in a partisan deadlock the path out of this conundrum is not at all clear.

Still the Republicans have a choice to make here. Giving in and falling into insanity is not an obligation and not at all certainty for any individual who has the integrity, principles and can think for themselves. If you would not resist it openly, you don't have to contribute and participate in it. Participating in madness is a choice and it will have consequences. Everyone who contributed will be held to account: if not by the courts and justice, then by the history itself.

Totalitarianism is already here. This is another sign of rising totalitarianism: "Attack Trump verdict or be exiled - a new test for Republicans".

"Larry Hogan, a moderate Republican who is running for an open Senate seat in liberal-leaning Maryland, took to social media to urge all Americans to “respect the verdict and the legal process”.

Within minutes, Chris LaCivita, a top official on Trump’s campaign, posted a crystal-clear reply to Mr Hogan: “You just ended your campaign.” The implication: if you’re not with us on this, you’re politically dead." (BBC)

It is ugly. It is disgusting. It has no explanations or excuses.

At first, it was about some lying buffoon. It could have ended there, in a community of thinking, active and responsible citizens of principle and integrity. Now the mob wants to take with it the party; and then, the country into its place of insanity.

No: no one who can think and speak for themselves, their mind and conscience has to participate in this. History shows and tells us that very clearly. There are no explanations. There may not be path back. The future of a great democracy will be decided by thinking and responsible citizens; or by a mindless mob worshiping a lying Idol. The outcomes cannot be the same. You knew it: now find the will and courage to admit it and take it to act.

[gatomontes99]

I love it when the left tells us how we have to react to their tin-pot dictator. That's totally democratic.

Did you tell blacks they can't think cops are out to get them too?

[suds]

Hogan.... "respect the verdict and the legal process"

Part of the legal process is the right to appeal. Trump is neither above the law or below the law and has the same rights as any American. Not respecting a verdict such as in this case (which can be appealed) is not being undemocratic.

[myata]

11 minutes ago, suds said:

Not respecting a verdict such as in this case (which can be appealed) is not being undemocratic.

This is clearly stretching words to the point where they couldn't mean anything. If justice system is "rigged" that is, undermining one of the key democratic institutions: then what's the point of appealing to the rigged system, that itself can be claimed "rigged" if it wouldn't go the desired way? Is it an instrument that is necessary and works for all citizens, or a toy that has to work always for me? Really, they haven't a clue.

No it's worth than undemocratic: it's not even having a clue what democracy is about: the laws applied to all citizens equally, if it doesn't or wouldn't work in my favor (not equally).

And the main point is missed of course: whatever another citizens said, can be a matter for a discussion; it cannot be the cause for persecution. In a democracy that is; totalitarianism  is a different story. And this is how we know the difference.

[suds]

7 minutes ago, myata said:

This is clearly stretching words to the point where they couldn't mean anything. If justice system is "rigged" that is, undermining one of the key democratic institutions: then what's the point of appealing to the rigged system, that itself can be claimed "rigged" if it wouldn't go the desired way? Is it an instrument that is necessary and works for all citizens, or a toy that has to work always for me? Really, they haven't a clue.

No it's worth than undemocratic: it's not even having a clue what democracy is about: the laws applied to all citizens equally, if it doesn't or wouldn't work in my favor (not equally).

And the main point is missed of course: whatever another citizens said, can be a matter for a discussion; it cannot be the cause for persecution. In a democracy that is; totalitarianism  is a different story. And this is how we know the difference.

I'm not claiming the system is 'rigged'. Only that Judges can be incompetent, can make mistakes when directing a trial, or can have conflicts of interest. That's why there's an appeals process. If you really want to know what a totalitarian justice system looks like, read Solzhenitsyn's Gulag Archipelago.

[Fluffypants]

Looks like Myata got his marching orders from the DNC.

They are saying the same BS they said after the last election, "If you don't respect the decision of the court your not a real American" I am waiting for the first media dummy to tell us "It was the most fair and just trial in the history of this country"

[myata]

7 minutes ago, suds said:

I'm not claiming the system is 'rigged'.

That's what Trump said, and his stooges are echoing. A responsible citizen can admit the necessity and validity of the democratic legal system without agreeing to every of its decision. It does not mean that the system is rigged. It means that the verdict stands, and is accepted unless or until it is overturned on appeal.

This is not what Trump's mob is hollering, not at all. They insist on their right to dictate which is the correct decision and what is "rigged", nothing less. If they didn't agree with any decision, it has to be "rigged". And that, should it come to pass would mean the end of independent justice as democratic institute, not so? We do not have justice anymore: the mob decides. How could one with working mind and conscience not see it?

[herbie]

Shouldn't paint all Republicans with the demented MAGA brush. There are some left with some remnants of moral decency,

[myata]

7 minutes ago, herbie said:

There are some left with some remnants of moral decency,

Of course. And for them this marks a decision point. Only a choice: nobody made them.

[herbie]

They can stay home, spoil their ballot, write in 'none of the above' etc. Or show up at the convention an purge the Trumpoids.

Think about it: can you name any other civilized country where a candidate so deep in shit would be supported by their own party? Here? The UK, Australia, New Zealand?
Not a f^cking chance!
Run a Kim Campbell or John Turner to spare themselves of the shame. Yank them from office just like Theresa May, Thatcher, Boris Johnson.

[suds]

32 minutes ago, myata said:

That's what Trump said, and his stooges are echoing. A responsible citizen can admit the necessity and validity of the democratic legal system without agreeing to every of its decision. It does not mean that the system is rigged. It means that the verdict stands, and is accepted unless or until it is overturned on appeal.

This is not what Trump's mob is hollering, not at all. They insist on their right to dictate which is the correct decision and what is "rigged", nothing less. If they didn't agree with any decision, it has to be "rigged". And that, should it come to pass would mean the end of independent justice as democratic institute, not so? We do not have justice anymore: the mob decides. How could one with working mind and conscience not see it?

Trump has claimed in the past that the U.S. Justice system has become too politicized.  Prominent Democrats claim the U.S. Supreme Court has become too politicized and have even issued threats against the Court itself. Both Democrats and Republicans have a habit of questioning the validity of elections but only if the other side wins. My opinion is that politics is what's behind everything that's tearing America apart today. A two party system makes it even all the more polarizing. Maybe in Trump's case (as the leading Republican candidate)  a more neutral Judge and a more  neutral location could have been selected. Combine all that with a highly politicized media. You're going a little overboard with the totalitarianism nonsense. Things are what they are in the States and hopefully they'll work things out.

[ironstone]

1 hour ago, myata said:

This is clearly stretching words to the point where they couldn't mean anything. If justice system is "rigged" that is, undermining one of the key democratic institutions: then what's the point of appealing to the rigged system, that itself can be claimed "rigged" if it wouldn't go the desired way? Is it an instrument that is necessary and works for all citizens, or a toy that has to work always for me? Really, they haven't a clue.

No it's worth than undemocratic: it's not even having a clue what democracy is about: the laws applied to all citizens equally, if it doesn't or wouldn't work in my favor (not equally).

And the main point is missed of course: whatever another citizens said, can be a matter for a discussion; it cannot be the cause for persecution. In a democracy that is; totalitarianism  is a different story. And this is how we know the difference.

You guys are the same people that scream that there are too many black and brown people in jail because of bias in the justice system and in juries.

But in the case of Trump, where they turn a misdemeanor (statute of limitations passed) into a felony through what is often described as a 'novel interpretation' of the law, you guys see nothing wrong with that.

Hillary just got a small fine for her campaign finance violation from the FEC. The FEC chose not to fine Trump, instead various state prosecutors literally campaigned on getting him, and they did.

[suds]

28 minutes ago, ironstone said:

instead various state prosecutors literally campaigned on getting him, and they did.

Yep, it doesn't get any worse than that.

"Show me the man, and I'll find you the crime" .....Laurentiy Beria (Soviet Secret Police Chief)

[robosmith]

5 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

I love it when the left tells us how we have to react to their tin-pot dictator. That's totally democratic.

The verdict was made by 12 citizens, none of which is a dictator of ANY KIND. Put down the pipe.

5 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Did you tell blacks they can't think cops are out to get them too?

^FALSE EQUIVALENCE.

Cops are known to routinely violate legal rights in many districts. 

That's why they're wearing body cams now and many times "forgetting" to turn them on.

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, Fluffypants said:

Looks like Myata got his marching orders from the DNC.

They are saying the same BS they said after the last election, "If you don't respect the decision of the court your not a real American" I am waiting for the first media dummy to tell us "It was the most fair and just trial in the history of this country"

IF you know of a country that has a better justice system, you are free to leave.

Once a country goes fascist, you are no longer free at all.

[robosmith]

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

You guys are the same people that scream that there are too many black and brown people in jail because of bias in the justice system and in juries.

But in the case of Trump, where they turn a misdemeanor (statute of limitations passed) into a felony through what is often described as a 'novel interpretation' of the law, you guys see nothing wrong with that.

Have you read the law? IF not, you don't know what you're talking about.

https://nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/175/175.10.pdf

Quote

Penal Law § 175.10 reads: "A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof." The charge substitutes the language of falsifying business records in the second degree in the appropriate place.

 

1 hour ago, ironstone said:

Hillary just got a small fine for her campaign finance violation from the FEC. The FEC chose not to fine Trump, instead various state prosecutors literally campaigned on getting him, and they did.

Prove it. Just cause you heard it on FOS LIES does not make it true.

[myata]

2 hours ago, suds said:

Both Democrats and Republicans have a habit of questioning the validity of elections but only if the other side wins.

What Democrat has claimed an election stolen and called to undermine or have it overturned? Can we stay on the side of the reality that means, facts? That's first.

[myata]

1 hour ago, suds said:

Yep, it doesn't get any worse than that.

OK now you're talking. There are all kinds of checks in the system like Grand Jury, and this was a jury trial just one citizen finding a ground for reasonable doubt would have been enough to hang it. But no. You just want to cry and shout. You want to have the system "rigged" when it doesn't live up to your wishes, and jump right in when it goes your way. This is of course a fantasy. Democracy does not work like that and cannot, period.

You don't have a clue how it works and you have no desire to look into and understand. The forefathers thought how to make it work; many generations tried hard, very best to make it work. You want to cheer and clap and have it fulfill your desires like a magic wand. Dumb. Irresponsible. But of course only a choice. Like you're the first of these. Romans traded their democracy for bread and circuses millennia back. Like you can surprise anyone and anything in this universe with dumb choices.

[Fluffypants]

44 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Have you read the law? IF not, you don't know what you're talking about.

https://nycourts.gov/judges/cji/2-PenalLaw/175/175.10.pdf

 

Prove it. Just cause you heard it on FOS LIES does not make it true.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-fusion-gps/index.html Proof that Hillary got fined for falsifying records. Remember when she had Fusion GPS create the Steele dossier she had her lawyers pay for it and listed it as a legal expense sound familiar?

https://www.oleantimesherald.com/opinion/braggs-trump-indictment-is-a-campaign-promise-kept/article_e7f11833-3c5b-52b7-9c5b-a1018943c3cf.html Proof Bragg campaigned on getting Trump.

Come on Robo you claim to be some sort of genius yet you don't know things that were fairly common knowledge if you even paid a modicum of attention.

 

Edited June 1 by Fluffypants

[gatomontes99]

1 hour ago, robosmith said:

The verdict was made by 12 citizens, none of which is a dictator of ANY KIND. Put down the pipe.

^FALSE EQUIVALENCE.

Cops are known to routinely violate legal rights in many districts. 

That's why they're wearing body cams now and many times "forgetting" to turn them on.

12 useful id1ots doesn't make Biden any less of a dictator. And the comparison was exactly the same. Either you accept what an officer of the law says or you don't. You don't get to cherry pick.

[robosmith]

42 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/03/30/politics/clinton-dnc-steele-dossier-fusion-gps/index.html Proof that Hillary got fined for falsifying records.

You mean campaign expenditures? Those are not NY State business records.

42 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

Remember when she had Fusion GPS create the Steele dossier she had her lawyers pay for it and listed it as a legal expense sound familiar?

The DNC hired lawyers that hired Steele to do research. Not to keep a sexual affair from ruining her campaign ambitions.

And the Steele Dossier was NOT PUBLIC until AFTER the election. AKA, ZERO IMPACT on the election.

So you see, you've cited another FALSE EQUIVALENCE.

42 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

https://www.oleantimesherald.com/opinion/braggs-trump-indictment-is-a-campaign-promise-kept/article_e7f11833-3c5b-52b7-9c5b-a1018943c3cf.html Proof Bragg campaigned on getting Trump.

Not according to your cite:

Quote

In that campaign, he won a Democratic primary crowded with fellow Democrats who promised that, if elected, they would go after Trump.

It doesn't explicitly SAY, let alone QUOTE, Bragg saying ANYTHING about going after Trump.

 

42 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

Come on Robo you claim to be some sort of genius yet you don't know things that were fairly common knowledge if you even paid a modicum of attention.

You've failed to pay attention if you thought you posted the smoking gun.

All it says is Bragg's FELLOW DEMOCRATS made that promise. 

But that was enough to FOOL YOU. LMAO

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, gatomontes99 said:

12 useful id1ots doesn't make Biden any less of a dictator.

Show your evidence that Biden ordered a specific result from that JURY.

 

1 minute ago, gatomontes99 said:

And the comparison was exactly the same. Either you accept what an officer of the law says or you don't. You don't get to cherry pick.

Cause you believe that a specific statement is a BINARY meaning? LMAO

Maybe it is half true, or half false. Or anywhere in between true and false.

[suds]

1 hour ago, myata said:

What Democrat has claimed an election stolen and called to undermine or have it overturned? Can we stay on the side of the reality that means, facts? That's first.

In 2016 Hillary Clinton admitted defeat and then for the next four years complained bitterly the election was stolen from her and that Trump was an 'illegitimate President'. And the media gladly picked up on it. Google it. And as far as 'undermining' goes, that's what the impeachment process does to a Presidency. It undermines it by not allowing a President to operate freely. Even if the Democrats don't succeed with their two impeachments, they still win.

Edited June 1 by suds

[West]

Questioning authoritative government overreach is as American as baseball (before the gays got ahold of it) and apple pie

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, suds said:

In 2016 Hillary Clinton admitted defeat and then for the next four years complained bitterly the election was stolen from her and that Trump was an 'illegitimate President'. And the media gladly picked up on it. Google it. And as far as 'undermining' goes, that's what the impeachment process does to a Presidency. It undermines it by not allowing a President to operate freely. Even if the Democrats don't succeed with their two an impeachments, they still win.

Trump CHOSE to engage in the illegal activities which really gave the Democrats NO CHOICE but to impeach him. Esp for the 2nd one.

And BTW, Trump's conviction for election tampering is MORE evidence he was an illegitimate POTUS.

Of course we already know that since the election was decided by the razor thin margin of >>1% of the vote in 3 states, every advantage he had was CRUCIAL.

Of course he knew that Stormy getting out would kill his chances which is why he paid $130K to hide her.

4 minutes ago, West said:

Questioning authoritative government overreach is as American as baseball (before the gays got ahold of it) and apple pie

Questioning is fine, inciting violence to disrupt the certification is NOT.