Please avoid making threats or wishing for violent crimes against any individual

[136or142]

I'm just curious: does this mean that nobody can make a comment in favor of the death penalty (at least in a specific case)?

Ultimately, other than the legal nicities, there really is no difference between having the state kill on your behalf rather than wishing somebody dead (or for 'violent crimes' against any individual.)

If there were truly equal justice in the carrying out of the death penalty, I suppose one could argue it was truly fair justice being meted out by the state, but I think everybody here knows that's not the reality.

I think I've abided by this rule and although I have mixed feelings about it, I can see its value. Every discussion could turn into some flame war without the rule.

But, on my initial point at least 60% of Americans support the death penalty, so this idea that people (at least Americans) find the idea of wishing somebody killed to be morally repugnant is just a lie.  

I wrote in the second paragraph about the supposed rationales of how a person can support the death penalty but virtue signal over somebody else wishing for somebody be killed.  Obviously I think those rationales are garbage.

So, I seriously would like to know if this rule does extend to calling for the death penalty to be carried out, or, if not, what makes the high profile people this rule is obviously primarily for so special?

[136or142]

I haven't checked all the comments on the latest shooting, but one of the idiotic arguments against gun control is 'we need guns to prevent government tyranny.'

Is that argument allowed?  Because getting away from the abstract nonsense of this statement, what it really means at present is 'we need guns to kill Donald Trump or to kill members of Congress.'

[136or142]

I haven't checked on the comments on the latest shooting, but one of the idiotic arguments against gun control is 'we need guns to prevent government tyranny.'

Is that argument allowed?  Because getting away from the abstract nonsense of this statement, what it really means at present is 'we need guns to kill Donald Trump or to kill members of Congress.'

Lmao, no it doesn't. Nice try though.

1.You're not a moderator.

2.Why doesn't it?

[136or142]

I'm just curious: does this mean that nobody can make a comment in favor of the death penalty (at least in a specific case)?

Ultimately, other than the legal nicities, there really is no difference between having the state kill on your behalf rather than wishing somebody dead (or for 'violent crimes' against any individual.)

If there were truly equal justice in the carrying out of the death penalty, I suppose one could argue it was truly fair justice being meted out by the state, but I think everybody here knows that's not the reality.

I think I've abided by this rule and although I have mixed feelings about it, I can see its value. Every discussion could turn into some flame war without the rule.

But, on my initial point at least 60% of Americans support the death penalty, so this idea that people (at least Americans) find the idea of wishing somebody killed to be morally repugnant is just a lie.  

I wrote in the second paragraph about the supposed rationales of how a person can support the death penalty but virtue signal over somebody else wishing for somebody be killed.  Obviously I think those rationales are garbage.

So, I seriously would like to know if this rule does extend to calling for the death penalty to be carried out, or, if not, what makes the high profile people this rule is obviously primarily for so special?

Read more carefully the text of the headline of this thread, and I confident that you will find the answer to your question.

I have.  This is why I wrote "in a specific case."  Maybe you should read more carefully what I wrote.

[136or142]

Wishing someone to die via applying the rule of law is different than wishing or calling for them to be executed outside the rule of law.

I'm not trying to play games here, but at what point in the 'rule of law' does that apply.  There are credible allegations that Donald Trump committed treason and the ultimate penalty for treason is death, so at what point does that kick in for him and for everybody else? 

When there are allegations?
When they are charged?
When they are convicted?
When they are sentenced?

Again, I expect the rules on this forum are the same for Trump as they are for any other individual.

[136or142]

Wishing someone to die via applying the rule of law is different than wishing or calling for them to be executed outside the rule of law.

I'm not trying to play games here, but at what point in the 'rule of law' does that apply.  There are credible allegations that Donald Trump committed treason and the ultimate penalty for treason is death, so at what point does that kick in for him and for everybody else?  

When there are allegations?
When they are charged?
When they are convicted?
When they are sentenced?

Again, I expect the rules on this forum are the same for Trump as they are for any other individual.

The comments below would be OK:

When there are allegations? If the allegations are true, Trump should be charged, tried, and if found guilty, he should get the death penalty.
When they are charged? If found guilty, Trump should get the death penalty.
When they are convicted? Trump should get the death penalty.
When they are sentenced? I hope he is executed soon (if he got the death penalty). If not found guilty, then expressing the opinion that he should have been found guilty, and got the death penalty, would be OK.

I hope this helps. But somehow I think you are just messing with me. That's OK.

It does help and I  my questions were sincere, I was not asking rhetorical questions or trying to play games with you.

On Taegan Goddard's Political Wire, for the first time he posted a story raising the possibility that Mueller is making a case for treason.

Is Robert Mueller Building a Case for Treason?
May 18, 2018 at 11:12 am EDTBy Taegan Goddard148 Comments
This piece is only available to Political Wire members.


I asked specifically about this because this has seemed to me the obvious criminal charge in a conspiracy between the Trump Campaign (and Administration) and Russia (and Putin) for at least months now.

[136or142]

It's a fair point. I mean I have to imagine that there have been times here when people wished for the violent death of Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein and the same could potentially have been said about Castro or Putin or Kim Jong Un. No different from Trump.

If this poster really believes this, he is deranged beyond belief.

Torie, you're a sane, reasonable person.  I hope you can see that some of these people here are off the rails in what is unprecedented ways for a forum of this nature.

How do you know you're not the one deranged beyond belief?

[136or142]

It's a fair point. I mean I have to imagine that there have been times here when people wished for the violent death of Osama Bin Laden or Saddam Hussein and the same could potentially have been said about Castro or Putin or Kim Jong Un. No different from Trump.

If this poster really believes this, he is deranged beyond belief.

Torie, you're a sane, reasonable person.  I hope you can see that some of these people here are off the rails in what is unprecedented ways for a forum of this nature.

How do you know you're not the one deranged beyond belief?

Better watch out. I got reported for saying deranged. Remember?

If it results in nobody being allowed to reference this idiotic non-existent 'malady' of 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' it's worth it for me.

[136or142]

I don't know where the rules are.  Is it now acceptable to say to anyone on this board who still supports Trump that they are a traitor and should be convicted and executed?

[136or142]

I don't know where the rules are.  Is it now acceptable to say to anyone on this board who still supports Trump that they are a traitor and should be convicted and executed?

As long as the implication is that a necessary precondition is that Trump is first found guilty of treason through the justice system, and if found guilty, the penalty should be death, that is not a violation of either the TOS or the rules I fashioned here. If the implication is that Trump should be killed without the due process of law through extra-legal means, not only is that a violation of the rules here, and the TOS, that comment might well be the cause of a banning.

Oh, I misread the question. To answer the question actually posed (which seems more of a rhetorical than a real question, as to which the poster already knows the answer), I would support banning a poster who published that. Has somebody actually posted that? If so, please direct me to the post!

No, I'm asking.  I don't see anything wrong with it.  Anybody who continues to support Trump is complicit in his traitorous behavior.  As I've written before, this demand for 'civility' and following 'due process' while the Trump Administration and the Congressional Republicans continue apace to take the U.S down the road of authoritarian conservative dictatorship is extremely naive.

I remember a discussion in a military history class in which a leader of some country engaged in a war argued in favor of bombing civilian populations of the opposing country on the basis of 'in a democracy the civilian population is complicit in the decisions of that country' and our instructor responded that he's never heard an effective counter-argument to that.

Even, for instance, David Frum, now acknowledges that the Republican Party has or will soon abandon democracy in order to force a conservative America. Anybody who does not agree with this is, in my opinion, a naif who is suffering from an extreme case of normalcy bias (which unlike 'X Derangement Syndrome' is a real condition.)

Normalcy bias: a belief people hold when facing a disaster. It causes people to underestimate both the likelihood of a disaster and its possible effects, because people believe that things will always function the way things normally have functioned.

I believe pushing back on this normalcy bias and pointing out the complicity in Republican voters in enabling this corrupt, criminal and traitorous behavior is very important.