Trump v Biden 2020,The insurrection (pt 6) Read OP

Professor Moriarty

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I'd disagree broadly speaking. It does a disservice to those with actual mental health concerns to give these people an "out" of poor mental health. for their actions.

They just think that the laws are different for them because they are "Real" Americans.

They genuinely see themselves as Patriots , standing up for what is right and that they are no different than George Washington et al.

It's cognitive dissonance and radicalisation that's the problem here , not mental health per se.

I would be very certain that there is high levels of mental health problems in that cohort. To say that does not do a "disservice" to other people with mental health problems. That's your extrapolation and it's not one that I would agree with. The reality is that people with severe and complex mental health problems are more vulnerable to manipulation. That's just an unfortunate fact.

yagan

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

A significant portion of them are quite uneducated, poor and looking for someone to blame. Why there are high-ranking former military, seated politicians and corporate lawyers there probably boils down to racism/anti-Semitism or one of the various other MAGA beliefs.

I would however suggest that those there because of Q conspiracy theories are likely there because of mental issues of one kind or another.

The mentally ill will melt away, they enjoyed the ride but will get in the way of the true believers, the ones who've been prepping since 9/11, the ones with the cable ties and improvised weapons in the senate.

Many will be ex military so they're already prepped for overthrowing government.

FreudianSlippers

duploelabs wrote: »

Again, I take umbrage with this. Radicalization from the algorithm would amount to a similar paranoia that someone who is suffering from mental health issues, but would not be the cause of their paranoia.

'Mental health issues' are the excuse used by fox when you've a lone shooter situation similar to the Vegas shooting happens

I can accept that, but would it be ok to say that they are perhaps suffering from mental health issues because of their constant exposure to Q and other conspiracy / radicalization sources?

For example, I would agree that a terrorist doesn't succumb to radicalization because they have mental health issues necessarily; but I would suggest that whilst they're carrying out the terrorist act they almost certainly aren't acting in a manner conducive to a healthy mental state of being.

ohnonotgmail

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Did I say they were?

I would however suggest that those there because of Q conspiracy theories are likely there because of mental issues of one kind or another.

I was disagreeing with this. these people are stupid and gullible not mentally ill.

FreudianSlippers

jill_valentine wrote: »

He knew. He's wearing his real military identifiers, instead of the usual Gravy Seals airsoft patches.

It's an American flag with a punisher skull on it. Unless I'm gravely mistaken I don't think that's a "real military identifier" and from what I've seen online, other than the hat from a coffee shop and tactical clothes that can be purchased online there are no other major identifiers.

I'm not saying he isn't military, but I don't think he's necessarily identifiable as such from this or the other picture.

FreudianSlippers

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I was disagreeing with this. these people are stupid and gullible not mentally ill.

But that's not what your post said, nor is it what mine said. So...

ohnonotgmail

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

But that's not what your post said, nor is it what mine said. So...

It is exactly what my post said. your lack of comprehension is your issue not mine.

FreudianSlippers

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

It is exactly what my post said. your lack of comprehension is your issue not mine.

Go back and read my post, perhaps slowly this time. I did not say that "stupidity and gullibility are [...] mental health issues."

astrofool

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I'd disagree broadly speaking. It does a disservice to those with actual mental health concerns to give these people an "out" of poor mental health. for their actions.

They just think that the laws are different for them because they are "Real" Americans.

They genuinely see themselves as Patriots , standing up for what is right and that they are no different than George Washington et al.

It's cognitive dissonance and radicalisation that's the problem here , not mental health per se.

Most of them will probably end up using mental health as part of their defence when charged.

donspeekinglesh

Cruz Stocky Steak wrote: »

Freedom of speech should not equate to being able to make threats under pseudonyms on the Internet or indeed without an alias.

The writing was on the wall on Parler and Twitter for what occurred on Wednesday. It was staring them in the face.

The Supreme Court has held that anonymous speech is largely protected by the first amendment.

Luckily for Parler users they had to hand over ID/SSN to sign up. :rolleyes:

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

He certainly cannot pardon himself from impeachment, but I'm not entirely sure he cannot still pardon others for crimes relating to the impeachment (as I said, I've not actually looked into that aspect in great detail so open to correction).

Obviously, if convicted, he'd not be able to pardon anyone, which would be amazing.

It's never been done before so there's no definitive answer, and while the courts lean toward reading the pardon power as being quite broad this might be too far.

astrofool

Maxpfizer wrote: »

It's just wild to me that someone is actually pushing the idea that almost all of America's COVID deaths are directly the fault of Trump.

I don't think anyone thinks that all the COVID deaths are down to him, however, it wouldn't be a stretch to say that at least 50% of them are down to the inept way his administration dealt with the pandemic when you see how other countries were able to deal with it much better (which is 2000 deaths per day at the moment).

FreudianSlippers

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Go back and read my post, perhaps slowly this time. I did not say that "stupidity and gullibility are [...] mental health issues."

Here. Since you seem to need this spoon-fed to you:

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

A significant portion of them are quite uneducated, poor and looking for someone to blame. Why there are high-ranking former military, seated politicians and corporate lawyers there probably boils down to racism/anti-Semitism or one of the various other MAGA beliefs.

Stupid, gullible. Not mental health-related.

I would however suggest that those there because of Q conspiracy theories are likely there because of mental issues of one kind or another.

Different statement. Unrelated to stupidity or gullibility.

jill_valentine

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It's an American flag with a punisher skull on it. Unless I'm gravely mistaken I don't think that's a "real military identifier" and from what I've seen online, other than the hat from a coffee shop and tactical clothes that can be purchased online there are no other major identifiers.

I'm not saying he isn't military, but I don't think he's necessarily identifiable as such from this or the other picture.

Not that guy. That guy is very careful to hide his identity.

This guy -

https://mobile.twitter.com/jsrailton/status/1347279463088844800

is wearing his actual unit insignia and likely some of his actual service issue.

FreudianSlippers

astrofool wrote: »

Most of them will probably end up using mental health as part of their defence when charged.

Quite different legally on a Federal level than on a State level. I am not a Federal lawyer (nor am I a criminal lawyer tbf) but my understanding is that you'd have to have a good reason not to stand trial due to incapacity or enter a not guilty by reason of insanity plea. I don't think (open to correction based on caveat earlier) that you can mitigate your actions by way of mental health plea.

This would, I suggest, be particularly the case in light of Trump's executive order last July.

jimmycrackcorm

Quin_Dub wrote: »

He definitely needs to be held to account without question, it's also very politically astute from the Democrats.

They could get the articles of impeachment over to the Senate in a day or two at most from the House.

They then force the GOP Senators to pin their colours to the mast.

[*]Will McConnell bring it to the floor for a vote?
[*]If there's a vote how many Senators will vote against his impeachment?
[*]If he was actually impeached , would Pence then give him a pardon for all his other stuff (allowing for the fact that he can't be pardoned for the specific impeachment charges)?
[*]Would Pence give out pardons to the rest of the family etc.?

The GOP senators must be aware that the Dems will now have control with all three branches, so if they want to start working in a bipartisan way, then this is the what they will need to do.

FreudianSlippers

donspeekinglesh wrote: »

The Supreme Court has held that anonymous speech is largely protected by the first amendment.

For potentially criminal speech, certainly an individual would find it hard to identify anonymous/pseudonymous individuals but not necessarily law enforcement.

From a defamation point of view, it's actually quite easy to get a court order (at least from my experience in CA) to compel intermediaries and/or hosts to disclose ISPs and thereafter for ISPs to identify the lessor of the ISP once a John/Jane Doe defamation case is brought.

valoren

"Benedict Pence is Judas. Mitt Pence. Mike McCain. Weasel. Weakling. Quitter. Coward. Democrats' new bitch. He's not 1/100th the man Donald Trump is. He should sign up for a free Obamacare sex change. The conservative right in America needed him to step up and fight with the President. Instead he backed down, put his tail between his legs and slithered off to hide under a rock and lick his own pussy. I don't ever want to see his face again"

A disturbing insight into what a radicalised Trump supporter thinks about Pence.

jill_valentine

Btw he's also ex Air Force, I wonder if he came there with the woman who was killed.

FreudianSlippers

jill_valentine wrote: »

Not that guy. That guy is very careful to hide his identity.

This guy -

https://mobile.twitter.com/jsrailton/status/1347279463088844800

is wearing his actual unit insignia and likely some of his actual service issue.

Oh yeah, that guy is bang to rights... saw they've identified him on Twitter hours ago. Apparently he retired a quite well-ranked officer.

ohnonotgmail

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Go back and read my post, perhaps slowly this time. I did not say that "stupidity and gullibility are [...] mental health issues."

I know what you said. I quoted it twice. no point going any further with you.

FreudianSlippers

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I know what you said. I quoted it twice. no point going any further with you.

No, you either misread what I said or you're incorrectly inferring something from what I said. The only reason there'd be no point in going any further is if you actually re-read what I said and you're in too deep to just back out now.

duploelabs

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I can accept that, but would it be ok to say that they are perhaps suffering from mental health issues because of their constant exposure to Q and other conspiracy / radicalization sources?

For example, I would agree that a terrorist doesn't succumb to radicalization because they have mental health issues necessarily; but I would suggest that whilst they're carrying out the terrorist act they almost certainly aren't acting in a manner conducive to a healthy mental state of being.

Absolutely and categorically not. A mental health issue would potentially make someone susceptible to radicalization but it doesn't work the other way round

ohnonotgmail

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

No, you either misread what I said or you're incorrectly inferring something from what I said. The only reason there'd be no point in going any further is if you actually re-read what I said and you're in too deep to just back out now.

I have clarified exactly what part of your post I was disagreeing with. you think they have mental health issues. I disagree. I think they are just gullible and stupid. life is too short to listen to tedious **** from people who just suck the energy out of everything.

Jaded Walker

There's no chance of impeachment at this stage, it's too late.
All it takes is long speeches and question and answer sessions to make sure of that.
Let him face charges at state level and the Democrats can was their hands of him and basically make a clear statement that it's a matter for the State in question and not a federal matter.
He'll fade from the headlines having to live under the rules of his bail.

FreudianSlippers

duploelabs wrote: »

Absolutely and categorically not. A mental health issue would potentially make someone susceptible to radicalization but it doesn't work the other way round

So you would suggest that a person with no mental health issues that is radicalized into a suicide bombing isn't suffering from mental health issues at the time they decide to carry out and ultimately do carry out the bombing?

Mental illnesses are health conditions involving changes in emotion, thinking or behavior (or a combination of these). Mental illnesses are associated with distress and/or problems functioning in social, work or family activities.
[...]
Mental Health...

involves effective functioning in daily activities resulting in

Productive activities (work, school, caregiving)
Healthy relationships
Ability to adapt to change and cope with adversity

Mental Illness...

refers collectively to all diagnosable mental disorders — health conditions involving

Significant changes in thinking, emotion and/or behavior
Distress and/or problems functioning in social, work or family activities

Source:
https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/what-is-mental-illness

It might be easier for you to provide what definition you're working from because I think we're at cross purposes.

FreudianSlippers

Jaded Walker wrote: »

There's no chance of impeachment at this stage, it's too late.
All it takes is long speeches and question and answer sessions to make sure of that.
Let him face charges at state level and the Democrats can was their hands of him and basically make a clear statement that it's a matter for the State in question and not a federal matter.
He'll fade from the headlines having to live under the rules of his bail.

I disagree, impeachment could be filed today if they wanted to. My understanding of the reason for delay is that there is a bigger case to be built.

If you're talking about conviction, that's a different and unprecedented story with serious repercussions for even attempting to use the Republican theory that past-Presidents can still be impeached against them.

Quin_Dub

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Oh yeah, that guy is bang to rights... saw they've identified him on Twitter hours ago. Apparently he retired a quite well-ranked officer.

There was also the absolute Gimp wearing his work ID badge on a lanyard around his neck as he smashed the place up....

If they actually thought they were committing crimes they'd have masked up etc.

These people genuinely believed that they were in the right and that they are patriots.

jill_valentine

So it turns out the dead woman was in an Air Force security unit specifically tasked with guarding the capital, that trains specifically as a rapid reaction squad for situations just like the one she participated in

She then served in the Air Force Reserves and the Air National Guard. In the Guard, she was assigned to a unit based near Washington that is known as the “Capital Guardians,” because one of their primary missions is defending the city. Security forces in the squadron regularly train with riot shields and clubs for what the Air Force calls “civil disturbance missions.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/us/who-was-ashli-babbitt.html

She likely had knowledge of the building and its security fallbacks. She had to have been heavily involved in planning this, if not a ringleader. This was not a wrong place/wrong time situation.

I wonder if the other ex air force guy served with her.

yagan

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I disagree, impeachment could be filed today if they wanted to. My understanding of the reason for delay is that there is a bigger case to be built.

There's a few charges that could be leveled against him, now that a police officer has died because of the march on the senate he encouraged.

• Murder, kidnapping resulting in death, or conspiracy to kill resulting in death, of the President of the United States, the Vice President, or a member of the presidential staff
  
• Attempting, authorizing or advising the killing of any officer, juror, or witness in cases involving a Continuing Criminal Enterprise, whether such killing occurs or not

Pence's life was endangered so Trump has two choices now, go quietly or go for broke. The former is the smart option, but we're taking about a narcissist who's lucid moments are extremely rare and against character.

yagan

jill_valentine wrote: »

So it turns out the dead woman was in an Air Force security unit specifically tasked with guarding the capital, that trains specifically as a rapid reaction squad for situations just like the one she participated in



https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/07/us/who-was-ashli-babbitt.html

She likely had knowledge of the building and its security fallbacks. She had to have been heavily involved in planning this, if not a ringleader. This was not a wrong place/wrong time situation.

I wonder if the other ex air force guy served with her.

Very likely her conspirators walked away the minute they knew they couldn't take hostages and were hours away once the Senate was secured.