Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
I think it's ambiguous, but I think Trump is intentionally ambiguous. He's not going to directly ask his supporters to be violent, but he hopes they will be. He leaves them ambiguous statements so that they may read between the lines. He will ofc denounce them afterwards, less ambiguously, to save himself.
The guy is a despicable human being. He's proven this over and over. I have a hard time understanding how anyone with a moral sense can look at what he does every day and give him a pass. I wish someone would explain it to me.

Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
I think there is a bit of a difference between that and actually storming the capitol as though it's a hostile takeover, personally. That's why the word "insurrection" started being used--it went beyond riot and civil unrest.

This bothers me because I don't think it's good for these private entities to have this kind of power. I would rather the government have it. The constitution protects citizens from the government (I'm referring mainly to the 1st amendment) not from private entities that can more and more determine who is allowed to speak or not (be heard), which other smaller businesses are allowed to exist or not, who can have a bank account or not--they can basically outcast someone from society all on their own. They are not voted for. They have too much power.
The law says that you can't discriminate by race, color, creed, etc. It says nothing about having to give your business to people charged with insurrection.

Quote Originally Posted by inumbra View Post
If Trump is guilty of insurrection, it should not be up to them to deliver the repercussions imo.
The law distinguishes between criminal and civil penalties.