Thanks to <keypusher> for this post from me too

<key> Finished the “illiberal democracy” piece. Lot’s of things to consider there. Do you think the US could ever sneak back over to a less-liberal democracy based, say, on Purely Protestant principles? Is it not too geographically and culturally diverse for that to happen now? Didn’t we try that and completely bungle it?

My own view is that the US Constitution and its implementation of Locke-ian principles is best captured through a Libertarian lens. It has ever seemed to be that the US was <supposed> to be a live and let live place - with individual rights, self-determination, being responsible for the results, all baked in.

The US failed though, mainly because it protected individual and group rights unevenly for far too long, and actively denies some of its impact to this day.

When I write this, I’m not thinking about slavery itself, which historically, as egregious as we see it now, was likely an impossible institution to abolish considering the needs of the fledgling colonies trying to separate from the UK.

Yet after the Civil War, and Lincoln’s assassination, it was clear that the country through the subsequent years saw a great opportunity squandered. After Jim Crow, redlining, and other unlawful activities carried out for decades, the lasting damage is seemingly impossible to overcome.

New Years eve was fine. They have tightened the COVID restrictions here, so it was just me and my wife. We are also back to having office at home. A challenge I'm not well suited for. Half the work done in twice the time.

A few days into the new year my father in law had a heart attack, so Mrs Diademas had to travel north to Ålesund to see to him. When she got there she couldn't even visit him because of restrictions, but he seems to be on the road to recovery.

It's rather cold here now, so I just looked up the weather in Nashville. To my surprise it was just a few degrees warmer than here.

At least we got a stable democracy. You guys have gotten a lot of press over here lately, and not much of it good. The images from the rally, the events at Capitol Hill and the Presidents behavior seemed like something from Belarus or Zimbabwe.

Wishing you and your family health and fortune in 2021.

Are you kidding me? Actions have consequences. Arrest his ass, he can write a book in jail if he likes.>

Interesting post , <nok>

It got me thinking - leave aside subjective opinions , emotions, sentiments , question is : did trump break some law , can he be charged , if yes then under which section of criminal penal code ?

A lazy google search gave me the following article ,(perhaps , <keypusher> may tell us more )

<The top federal prosecutor in Washington, D.C., on Thursday pointedly did not rule out charging President Donald Trump in connection with inciting a riot after his supporters invaded the U.S. Capitol complex a day earlier. Acting U.S. Attorney Michael Sherwin said the Department of Justice will consider lodging criminal charges against anyone who played a role in the riot. The New York Times reported that White House counsel Pat Cipollone had warned Trump that he could face legal exposure for the riot given his remarks at the rally, where he urged his fans to march to the Capitol.>

From the same article

<If you incite someone to commit a crime, you’re just as responsible as they are for committing the crime,” said Jens David Ohlin, interim dean of the Cornell Law School and an expert on criminal conspiracy law.

Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani’s statement during the same rally calling for a “trial by combat” to resolve fraud disputes was particularly egregious and could make him especially vulnerable to charges, said Frederick Lawrence, author of "Punishing Hate" and ex-dean of the George Washington University School of Law.>

But as you probably know I am no great fan of democracy, at least its voting aspects. Why were a few hundred mostly unarmed goons able to take over the US Capitol? (*Think of all the money that’s been blown since 9/11 on making the Capitol “secure”!*) Because power is elsewhere. I don’t mean that in some kind of sinister QAnon sense, I just mean that power is diffused in our society. Millions of government workers went about their business on 1/6 at their normal levels of inactivity. The stock market went up.

I'm not dismissing what happened. Lots of people committed serious crimes and should go to jail, quite possibly including the president -- though, Ybr, to (not) answer your question, to offer an informed opinion whether the president committed criminal incitement would take a greater effort than I plan to make. Lots of smart lawyers are already on top of that.

But as you probably know I am no great fan of democracy, at least its voting aspects.>

<Tomlinsky> , <johnlspouge> , <pawn to qb4> , <keypusher> and others - having learned from you , this is my first original thought on politics , earlier , when it comes to politics , i formed my opinions after studying different points of view from various experts , my original thoughts before now have been limited to areas of maths , physics , psychology, spirituality.

Let me know what you guys think, if you please . Here :

1) "we need to separate message from messenger ", says chris christie , former governor of new jersey.

So , he is trying to distamce himself from trump and yet trying not to alienate far right crazies like <big pawn> and <gezafan> among republican voters.

And that is what all those republicans doing who are not supporting trump but not voting against him either.

And that is why trump won't be convicted.

2)and in next presidential election , same strategy will be followed by all republicans, so we not going to see another crazy republican president like trump anytime soon. Trump has made sure of that. Thinking would be like "barring far right crazies like <big pawn> , <gezafan> , voters are very antagonistic of someone like trump . Trump was beaten even by biden , so a crazy like trump stands no chance against a better candidate. So , shut down crazy , act sane . Deliver on the concerns of far right crazies (as well as on the concerns of others) without stirring up passion/hate/divisiveness/anger/hatred and such ". That is how all republican candidates will think.

What do you think , guys ? Any input , if you please.

But I continue to be more concerned about the erosion of free speech and the outsourcing of censorship to mega-corporations like Google, Apple, Twitter etc. The pseudo-coup will lead to more of that -- in fact, it already has.>

Thank you for this post <keypusher>

It raises some very derp , insightful and urgent questions , though without answering them - perhaps , because there are no easy answers yet and they would emerge over the time.

<Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act was passed in 1996 and provides legal immunity to internet companies for content that is shared on their websites

According to the regulation, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.”

This means that online companies, including social media platforms, are not liable for the content shared on their website by its users. So if a user posts something illegal on the website, the company is protected from lawsuits. In addition, the regulation also states that private companies have the right to remove content that violates their guidelines and values. Thus, the big tech companies were well within their rights when they decided to suspend Trump’s accounts.>

<WHAT CRIMES COULD TRUMP BE CHARGED WITH? There is a chapter of U.S. law dealing with 都ubversive activities.�

One federal law makes it a crime to engage in 途ebellion or insurrection� against the federal government.

Another statute, known as seditious conspiracy, prohibits conspiracies to 登verthrow� the U.S. government or seize government property by force.

The District of Columbia has its own criminal code, which says anyone who 努illfully incites or urges other persons to engage in a riot� shall face a fine or up to 180 days in prison.

WHAT WOULD TRUMP担 DEFENSE BE?
Trump would have a strong argument that he engaged in free speech protected by the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, legal experts said.

Trump can argue that his rhetoric was sufficiently ambiguous, and that when he said 吐ight� he did not mean attack the Capitol, they said.

In a seminal 1969 case, the Supreme Court overturned the conviction of an Ohio Ku Klux Klan leader, Clarence Brandenburg, for his brief speech at a rally urging a dozen followers to go to Washington and attack politicians.

The court said prosecutors have to prove speech is directed at inciting 妬mminent lawless action� and it has to be likely to produce that action.

My own tentative view is that it was First Amendment protected speech and therefore it should not be subjected to criminal liability,� said Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, adding that Trump痴 rhetoric was still grounds for impeachment by Congress, considering his position as an elected official.

Paul Smith, a lawyer who has argued for liberal causes at the U.S. Supreme Court, said the Brandenburg case shows Trump痴 speech was constitutionally protected.

的f he was there with a bullhorn in the outside yard of the Capitol and urging people to charge the windows and break them and take Congress hostage, in that situation he would be responsible for what the crowd did,� said Smith.>

<An FBI office in Virginia warned that extremists planning to travel to Washington were talking of “war,” according to a report in the Washington Post.

If Trump knew of the report or recklessly ignored it, it would increase the likelihood a prosecutor would charge him, said Alexander Tsesis, a professor with Loyola University School of Law in Chicago

Prosecutors would still need to prove beyond a doubt that Trump intended to incite the crowd to violence and that illegal activity was imminent and likely.

To bring a seditious conspiracy case, prosecutors would need more information about the activities of the president leading up to, during and after the violence to determine whether he had knowledge of a planned attack or provided assistance, said legal experts.>

Correct ?>

<Boomie: <Ybr: Well, the way i see it - trump did not give that speech on behalf of government , so it was not government speech and therefore brandenburg would apply. Correct ?> 
I don't know. The courts have not hammered out the differences yet. The general gist is government officials have to be more careful about their speech. The President is always a government official. We saw what can happen when he speaks irresponsibly.>

Inyeresting point by <boomie> that even though speech given by trump was not on behalf of government , he was a goverment official (president) and hence speech was irresponsible and caused harm and court may rule that brandenburg does not apply to such cases of government officials , it has not been hammered out by courts yet.

I find it difficult to grasp , however , how it is different - i mean that klu klax klan leader had influence over some idiots and he incited them , trump had influence over some idiots like <big pawn> and he incited them . What is the difference? When first amendment saved klu klax klan leader, why would it not save trump?

2) i would appreciate inputs that broaden/deepen my perspective.

2) trump incited and that incitement caused death of 5 people - no two ways about it.

But was that incitement of kind (i) or kind (ii) - that is the question.

trying not to alienate far right crazies like <big pawn>>

Poor broken emotional train wreck Ybr.

BP owns a:

Loft
Petting zoo
Apartment complex
Sports stadium
Jai alai court
Town pool
Movie theater
14 fine dining restaurants
6 fast food restaurants
in the dead space between Ybr's right/left ears.

<2) trump incited>

Ybr has it from his trusted source: Goebbels media

2 mostly unremarked reasons:

1. The general Defund the Police mindset among DC's political leadership caused them to turn down multiple offers of help.

2. Republicans don't riot.