Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com>
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: No, the FBI did *NOT* confirm there was no insurrection on Jan. 6
Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 18:45:08 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 38
Message-ID: <ut7dnj$3lt5a$1@dont-email.me>
References: <ut0kt5$abc$1@toxic.dizum.net> <P9mJN.578054$xHn7.497967@fx14.iad> <ut5m3v$3ak11$1@dont-email.me> <2LtJN.419401$vFZa.332846@fx13.iad> <slrnuve7kr.rje.oldernow@oldernow.jethrick.com> <cdFJN.373161$q3F7.30474@fx45.iad> <slrnuve8ce.rje.oldernow@oldernow.jethrick.com> <XyFJN.634506$xHn7.547703@fx14.iad> <slrnuvea1l.rje.oldernow@oldernow.jethrick.com>
Injection-Date: Sun, 17 Mar 2024 18:45:08 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="4c2b3c33245e85d02b14b1a2fd90b81a";
	logging-data="3863722"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+mcFD9WV+hWG7yd5NMbD4I"
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Cancel-Lock: sha1:431Qepuhqv/ZefCoVo8MIlEVqLQ=
Bytes: 2760

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.