Actually it was not subtle at all, not even the teensy weeniest.

Tell me again why Charlie Manson is in jail? He never did nuthin'....himself.

@AnneWimsey Exactly, he merely 'incited' his followers to commit murder, etc, etc, ergo, and in my opinion and that of Laws of the Land, he IS guilty of all Charges lain against him.
I.e. An Accessory Before and After the Fact.

@Triphid so compare him to drump......

@AnneWimsey In some ways, yes I do.
After all did NOT Hitler incite the German Peoples to hate Jews, etc, etc?

Please forgive the unnecessary commas .

I know. What must your moral compass be like when you look to the Kremlin to defend democracy?

Ah you mean like this?

@Admin , Like that in reverse. The BLM protesters are not the ones dressed in riot gear, carrying guns and flexi cuffs here. But they were the ones to be pepper sprayed and taken to jail. At the capitol the rioters had the guns, pepper spray and weapons while the police were mysteriously not called in by the white house for several hours. While the rioters chanted 'hang mike pence' and were actively searching for him and congress.

There were no questions that needed answer .
Except if he is 5 and partially to totally blind .

Another survey to see what democrats have on their hands and minds , and especially web site users .
It’s always good idea to know .

Yeah, this is what I thought... he didn't directly promote violence... but why is CNN, NYtimes, Washington Post all pushing a narrative that he did? Especially to warrant the protestors to be called domestic terrorists?

@Admin . . . sure. the media is selling the media.

Isn't domestic terrorism regarded as the biggest threat in the US ?
How did the panic buttons get removed a priori ?

[thehill.com]

Seems like there were at least some 'bad apples' in the crowd.

"Because you'll never take back our country with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong." Coupled with the circumstances (citizens chance to "take back" a country in a peaceful way is impossible on that day or at the Capitol) to me is a very clear incitement. Especially considering other things that were said before the insurrection like having a "trial by combat". I mean, if it's pretty clear what someone means, exactly what they say shouldn't be the only consideration. For instance, if Trump had made air quotes while saying the word 'peaceful' in a sentence, "I want you to remain peaceful" would you still say his words strictly did not advocate violence? Technically that's true, but I think it's horribly disingenuous to hold that position.

@Admin gee, I dunno, you could watch his speech to the mob just before they marched to the Capitol. Or histweets calling them to DC...for a weenie roast?!?
Your disingenuous "playing stupid" isn't cutting it!

@JeffMurray I value your opinion. How would a possible quote by a progressive, "Because you'll never make social progress with weakness. You have to show strength and you have to be strong." be considered? Does it matter ones political views?

@Admin 45 started promoting violence during the 2016 campaign, and never let up.
The media has not had to "promote" anything.
All they've had to do is turn on the cameras and microphones.
All they've had to do is put his tweets up on the screen.

Implying that the media is somehow to blame for 45's downfall is wholly disingenuous, at best.

@Admin No, political view doesn't matter. What matters are the circumstances, like I said. Was it a progressive that has advocated violence countless times like Trump ("knock the crap outta him" "When [cops] put somebody in the car and you're protecting their head... you can take the hand away" "Trump warned he’ll 'be a little more violent' next time when addressing protesters" “Maybe he should have been roughed up, because it was absolutely disgusting what he was doing. I have a lot of fans, and they were not happy about it. And this was a very obnoxious guy who was a troublemaker who was looking to make trouble" etc. etc. etc.) or never, like Sanders. Was it a speech at a time when the only way to show strength was in an illegal way, or was it before an election or vote where you have to risk a pandemic or death threats from insurrectionists to carry out your duty? Did AOC speak before that progressive calling for combat or that Kamala Harris better do what we need her to do?

Are you really confused by these differences, haven't really thought about then much yet and are mostly influenced initially by conservative media, or are you just a Trump loyalist equivocator? These concepts don't seem like they'd be very difficult to understand by someone who had the capacity to grasp them which I assume you do.

@KKGator I just added this thought too.
That in the past, he has often promoted a violent culture. For example in his famous "You can get away with anything, grab them by the pussy.", quote about women, and many other similar, which certainly show open approval of a violent culture, and therefore have to share in the blame if there is a rise in violence under his administration.

I agree with the China part, and somewhat with the immigration issues, but seriously who do you think is picking all the green beans and chops up the chickens we eat. Some "mericans fer sure, but way way more immigrants. And SS IS a ponzi sceme, and we need more young people to make it work. And if we didn't have it it would be way way way worse.

Good points to you !

The bad news is, Trump's trade war also weakened us against China. So...

Well his presidency was just a little too short. Remember his big, beautiful healthcare plan is going to be unveiled in about two weeks...

When I say his last statement, I mean the one not condoning the rush to the white house.

Off the top of my head I can't recall a single time I disagreed with you. I took it as a good sign that we were right, I mean, what are the chances we were both wrong? Yet here we find ourselves in disagreement. I'm wondering, considering your position has evolved slightly since your first comment, if I'm not wrong in my stance and perhaps you just didn't give this as much thought as you usually dedicate to your comments or if there's something I'm missing.

You stipulate to the facts:
-Trump invited his supporters to DC, some of whom are white supremacists he told to "stand back and stand by" in a nationally televised presidential debate
-Trump has promoted violence in the past, even offering to cover legal fees for people who commit violent acts on his behalf.
-Trump said, "you can't take our country back with weakness. You have to show strength, and you have to be strong."
-Trump told them to go to the Capitol.

Additionally, you have now admitted that he is to share in the blame. I just don't understand how you can be partially to blame without being at least partially at fault, especially as you shrink the period of time between his words and the subsequent violence.

Furthermore, Trump has resources that most people don't have. Intelligence briefings and data that can (and has) clearly shown a link between his words and actions and the violence we see. This, coupled with the fact that he is the most powerful person on the planet, with followers he personally claims are so loyal to him he could shoot someone in the middle of the street and they wouldn't stop supporting him, should definitely be considerations when trying to determine if the intent and meaning of his words go further than the exact text of them.

Careful consideration of these things against the backdrop of historical cases of incitement have lead me to conclude that his words and actions in this circumstance absolutely meets the standard for the charges filled by The House.

@JeffMurray Yes I think you are quite right. The more I think about it the more I am sure he is guilty. The trouble of course is finding evidence to courtroom benefit of the doubt standard.

@Fernapple Sure, if he was going to a court with an impartial jury of his peers. But he's not. He's going to the Senate where there's near 50 of the most spineless fucking pussies that have kissed his ass for four straight years waiting to acquit him... even if he shot someone on 5th Avenue.

For normal, rational, intelligent people, I think the argument I laid out should be sufficient.

@JeffMurray
A premeditated murderer would commit a murder and go back to his room as if nothing happened.

Trump walked back to "his room" to watch the violent storm on capitol hill play out. I don't believe he was remorseful. ...was like mission accomplished - but not fully damnnn

His "condemning speech" was perhaps brought on by Biden and members of the Republican Party.

The world got wind of his meetings in Trump Tower before this happened

Also, JP Sears shouldn't be taken seriously about anything.

Nor could he stand again. Get this sickness out of America.

@Gareth Yes, that too.

Hey now he did NOT win the election. He lost the popular vote by about 3 million. The 75M number they keep on throwing around is less than 23% of the population.

@TheGreatShadow umbrageous behaviour!

@FrayedBear Piss off you wank! Jokes aside, you'd be pretty fucking mad if you were in the middle of this shit show. You (and the rest of the world) can sit back and laugh. It was hard enough trying to explain GWB!

@TheGreatShadow at least masturbation is fulfilling. Your GWB comment is hilarious but many will say "you mean that you managed to explain Nixon, the Clintons, Reagan, Obama & the other Bush? ROFL. Perhaps you should revisit "self fulfilling prophecy".[britannica.com]

@FrayedBear Thanks for the link, but my minor for my second degree is Sociology. I am quite familiar with the term.

I have no idea what you are getting at with the other presidents.

@TheGreatShadow Shrugs.

I take accusations that we ban people based on their last name seriously... especially as don't ask for last names.

Here are the disabled(removed) counts for comments in the last 30 days:

+--------------+----------+
| state | count |
+--------------+----------+
| not_reviewed | 5 |
| enabled | 9822 |
| disabled | 27 |
| deleted_by_member | 123 |
+--------------+----------+

@Admin
Thanks ... no last names is very good news. Is there any way of knowing (without any names) when they were deleted, and to know know why, and whether they may be reinstated?

For what it's worth, Trump's denial of global warming... even confusing it with air quality... is abhorrent to me. Then again, so is AOC's understanding.

As far as deletions, let me check in with the people who are doing it... they're outside the US and I wouldn't consider them religious types. I really don't have time to do much more than give them civility guidelines. Again, this is just a little free site community so it's hard to expect much.

@creative51
Yes, true. My question still is: How can they be removed from this website? Is it by some governmental agreement to scan the internet for anyone with of Muslim ethnicity who disagrees with the U.S. President? That is what I would truly like to know. I guess I'm asking if the government is hacking websites and blocking communication based on bias and unsubstantiated suspicion.

@Admin
Thanks for your reply.
Intriguing that the ability to delete accounts is afforded to people from outside the U.S.
I wonder what they base their decisions upon, and whether someone like me can ask them that question.

@AnonySchmoose I wasn't aware that we are deleting muslims here... but, what would you think their intentions would be being on an atheist-oriented website?

@Admin
Since they don't identify with the Muslim religion, but rather as atheist, I think their intentions are to find like-minded people with whom to chat. Many of them wish to immigrate to a western nation ( i.e. Europe, Canada, U.S., etc. ) to escape the dogmatism of eastern religions. Some eastern religion followers can be biased and domineering. Those with family members they wish to protect would rather have freedom away from religion for themselves and their family members.

@TheMiddleWay
I don't know how you are sure I made an accusation, however I will defend the point I tried to make about bias.
A friend of mine was just deleted after expressing a non-violent opinion about Trump. I don't know if that was why they were deleted though.
I made no accusation against anyone in particular about that. It could even have been an external hacker that did it. I inquired about it to gather more information about what constitutes valid reasons for deleting some people's accounts, because I feel it is important to learn what is happening (since some of us wonder what those reasons are) in regard to others who have been deleted.
That you assumed I made an outright accusation, rather than an expression of my skepticism about the subject of bias, by reference to what happened to my friend, suggests bias against those of us who ask questions about actions that may or may not constitute bias. Whew ... my point exactly.

@creative51
I reacted to the bias toward some members who get deleted. The deleted members struggle to use the English language in hopes of immigrating from the country where they feel unfree to be themselves and to make a decent living. Like anyone born in western countries they wish to realize their dreams of a happy life free from the bias of religious and cultural domination and from being stereotyped constantly and denied equal access and payment in jobs.

Censorship and control starts slowly and finishes quickly once reaches critical power levels (e.g., can censor opposition to censors)

@Admin . . . a fair point, but capitalism, 'free' press, and the internet are all good counterbalances.

@FearlessFly how long do you think those counterbalances will last with Big Tech control of what can be said?

@Admin Big Tech is not in control of capitalism, newspapers, and the internet itself.

Also :

[wsj.com]

[nytimes.com]