Sujet : Re: No, the FBI did *NOT* confirm there was no insurrection on Jan. 6
De : bax02_spamblock (at) *nospam* baxcode.com (Baxter)
Groupes : talk.politics.miscDate : 17. Mar 2024, 19:45:08
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <ut7dnj$3lt5a$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
User-Agent : Xnews/5.04.25
oldernow <
oldernow@dev.null> wrote in
news:slrnuvea1l.rje.oldernow@oldernow.jethrick.com:
On 2024-03-17, Max Boot <max.boot@lathymes.com> wrote:
There's another sweeping swath word ('Nothing') likely indicating
being nuance-challenged.
>
No need for nuance where Trump is concerned.
Declaring "no need for nuance" tends to indicate inability to nuance
more than some objective absence of the possibility of nuance to/in
a topic.
Said another way, I'm not wont to pretend to not see just because
a blind person tells me there's nothing to see.
Also, I'm pretty sure it's "alleged crimes",
>
No. Trump hasn't been convicted yet, but there is no
question about things that Trump did — incitement of
insurrection, slopping together slates of fake electors,
pressuring GA secretary of state to engage in election
fraud, willfully obstruct the recovery of stolen documents
— and there is no question they are crimes.
I don't doubt that "there is no question" in a mind incapable of
entertaining questions.
But the notion of presumption of innocence until proven guilty
seems a higher road to me than declaring "there is no question"
prior to conviction. To me, the latter attitude ultimately leads
to obviating the need for trials altogether.
This is not a court of law. We can call it like we see it. There's
plenty of evidence of tRump's crimes - perhaps you just need more, or
perhaps no amount of evidence will sway you.