Sheriff investigating Trump for Inciting a Riot in NC

hoops said:

springgreen2 said:

Between the unseemly, and perhaps unlawful offer to.Ben Carson of a cabinet position in exchange for his endorsement; the exhortations to fans to punch people in the nose at rallies; the slimy, insulting language spoken publicly; the expressions of bigotry, Trump trumps Hillary's emails as a reason not to vote him in as President.

well, ALL that and the fact that Trump is ignorant of every issue, has no platform other than build a wall, and is obviously  a snake oil salesman of the highest order.

Oh of course, that.

BCC said:
No.

Don't follow your logic in not being able to form an opinion.

And this is why I don't bother responding seriously to your posts anymore. What's the point of answering your questions if you're instantly dismissive of my answers?

Please continue to call out people for not "joining the conversation" which consists of people having opinions and you saying "no" or calling them schmucks, morons, dicks, and telling them "see you next Thursday" because that always entices people to converse. 

hoops said:

springgreen2 said:

Between the unseemly, and perhaps unlawful offer to.Ben Carson of a cabinet position in exchange for his endorsement; the exhortations to fans to punch people in the nose at rallies; the slimy, insulting language spoken publicly; the expressions of bigotry, Trump trumps Hillary's emails as a reason not to vote him in as President.

well, ALL that and the fact that Trump is ignorant of every issue, has no platform other than build a wall, and is obviously  a snake oil salesman of the highest order.

+10

ridski said:

BCC said:
No.

Don't follow your logic in not being able to form an opinion.

And this is why I don't bother responding seriously to your posts anymore. What's the point of answering your questions if you're instantly dismissive of my answers?

Please continue to call out people for not "joining the conversation" which consists of people having opinions and you saying "no" or calling them schmucks, morons, dicks, and telling them "see you next Thursday" because that always entices people to converse. 

Asking you to explain your position is hardly being dismissive it is asking for your opinion.

Why won't you offer it? Is there something in it that is not 'enticing'?

People who drop by simply to insult and people who engage in personal attacks having nothing to do with the substance of the discussion deserve to be called out, and and if you don't like the way I do it, remember, I respond in kind.

nohero said:

BCC said:

EricH said:

ridski said:

I'm waiting until the final(?) Benghazi panel's report comes out so I can read what it says

There is no such thing as a Final Benghazi panel. So far they have spend more than $20 Million on investigations by 10 Congressional committees (not counting the 7 prior congressional investigations).

There have been 32 hearings and 11 published reports, totaling 784 pages.

ZERO of them have found any administration wrongdoing.

But Hillary is still running for president!!! What should they do?! 

Easy, answer: FORM ANOTHER COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE IT AGAIN!!

There already is another committee. It's called the FBI and it is investigating her e-mails during the Benghazi disaster.

The FBI isn't investigating the Benghazi communications.

The FBI is investigating all e-mails turned over by Hillary which include those posted during Benghazi.

BCC said:

nohero said:

BCC said:
There already is another committee. It's called the FBI and it is investigating her e-mails during the Benghazi disaster.

The FBI isn't investigating the Benghazi communications.

The FBI is investigating all e-mails turned over by Hillary which include those posted during Benghazi.

There is a big pile of emails, and two investigations.  The Benghazi investigation is looking at "her e-mails during the Benghazi disaster".  The FBI investigation is looking at other parts of the pile, with respect to allegations of classified information not being properly handled. 

I hope that clarifies my shorter statement for you.

I can picture the investigations into these emails going like this:

Investigation 1

GOP intern/pages huddled over printouts of all the emails reading through each one and pulling out of context sentences here and there to prop on the pile titled "Further Investigation" or dropped in the pile called "Much Further Investigation".

Investigation 2

FBI programming specialists called into search the database of emails for all the associated key words like "security", "secret", "Foster", "sex", "scandal".

BCC saidbr>You are sinking deeper into your fantasy and have exactly no evidence to back it up.  The fact is,Trump has said the same crap in venues across nation that he said in NC and in doing so has crossed every line of moral, ethical, and decent, behavior . In none of those venues was he indicted.

That makes it clear that in crossing all those lines he has not crossed the line wherein he lost his free speech privilege and the Sheriff in NC had no case.

Time to move on.

Well if there is anyone who knows Fantasy, it would be you so maybe you have a point.  Let's face it, according to you Hillary Clinton is guilty of multiple crimes even though she has been cleared in numerous criminal (political) investigations.

I however, just suggested that there are many reasons that the Sheriff may have decided not to continue.  I am not saying that I know of this happening, I'm just pointing out that it is a silly statement to say that since the Sheriff decided not to arrest him, that Trump did not incite violence.  We have all seen video of Trump encouraging violence.  The actual words coming out of his mouth were:

"Just knock the hell out of them…. I’ll pay for the legal fees, I promise.”

“I’d like to punch him in the face,”

"See, in the good old days this didn't use to happen, because they used
to treat them very rough," he said. "We've become very weak."

"Knock the crap out of them, would you?"

“In the good old days, they’d have ripped him out of that seat so fast.”

These are on video and we can see the lips moving to his voice.

Now the North Carolina law is shown below.

§ 14-288.2. Riot; inciting to riot; punishments. 

(a) A riot is a public disturbance involving an assemblage of three or more persons which by disorderly and violent conduct, or the imminent threat of disorderly and violent conduct, results in injury or damage to persons or property or creates a clear and present danger of injury or damage to persons or property.
(b) Any person who willfully engages in a riot is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
(c) Any person who willfully engages in a riot is guilty of a Class H felony, if: (1) In the course and as a result of the riot there is property damage in excess of fifteen hundred dollars (1,500) or serious bodily injury; or (2) Such participant in the riot has in his possession any dangerous weapon or substance.
(d) Any person who willfully incites or urges another to engage in a riot, so that as a result of such inciting or urging a riot occurs or a clear and present danger of a riot is created, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
(e) Any person who willfully incites or urges another to engage in a riot, and such inciting or urging is a contributing cause of a riot in which there is property damage in excess of fifteen hundred dollars (1,500) or serious bodily injury, shall be punished as a Class F felon.

So BCC, if you would like to explain why Trump's quotes and the violence that has followed at his rallies by his supporters does not meet the definitions in section (a) and (d), I would be glad to have an intelligent conversation with you about the actual facts.  I'm sure that you would be able to shock 90% of the people on this message board if you were to do this.  But if you want to just continue never defending your BS with any facts, maybe it is you who should move on.

By the way, this type of research takes about 5 minutes, we know that you have the time.

BCC said:

ridski said:

BCC said:
No.

Don't follow your logic in not being able to form an opinion.

And this is why I don't bother responding seriously to your posts anymore. What's the point of answering your questions if you're instantly dismissive of my answers?

Please continue to call out people for not "joining the conversation" which consists of people having opinions and you saying "no" or calling them schmucks, morons, dicks, and telling them "see you next Thursday" because that always entices people to converse. 

Asking you to explain your position is hardly being dismissive it is asking for your opinion.

Why won't you offer it? Is there something in it that is not 'enticing'?

Generally, when asking to explain something, there's a question mark in the sentence, or perhaps a "why" or some other word which usually forms a question. "Don't follow your logic in not being able to form an opinion." Where's the "ask" in that sentence?

Besides, I did explain myself. I haven't read up on the subject. I thought perhaps I would learn more by reading this thread, but by yesterday morning the Sheriff had decided not to investigate anything, so what position should I have when nothing is happening?

I never said he didn't incite violence. I said exactly the opposite so don't put words in my mouth to make a point.

Every comment you cited was said at Trump rallies else ware and incited violence in several venues, but didn't result in an indictment in any of them.

I don't have to explain anything. The FACT that there was no indictment, even in Rahm's Chicago, tells us all we need to know. Despite your legal opinion, no one, including
Rahm thought there was a case to be made.

jeffhandy said:

BCC saidbr>You are sinking deeper into your fantasy and have exactly no evidence to back it up.  The fact is,Trump has said the same crap in venues across nation that he said in NC and in doing so has crossed every line of moral, ethical, and decent, behavior . In none of those venues was he indicted.

That makes it clear that in crossing all those lines he has not crossed the line wherein he lost his free speech privilege and the Sheriff in NC had no case.

Time to move on.

Well if there is anyone who knows Fantasy, it would be you so maybe you have a point.  Let's face it, according to you Hillary Clinton is guilty of multiple crimes even though she has been cleared in numerous criminal (political) investigations.

I however, just suggested that there are many reasons that the Sheriff may have decided not to continue.  I am not saying that I know of this happening, I'm just pointing out that it is a silly statement to say that since the Sheriff decided not to arrest him, that Trump did not incite violence.  We have all seen video of Trump encouraging violence.  The actual words coming out of his mouth were:

"Just knock the hell out of them…. I’ll pay for the legal fees, I promise.”

“I’d like to punch him in the face,”

"See, in the good old days this didn't use to happen, because they used
to treat them very rough," he said. "We've become very weak."

"Knock the crap out of them, would you?"

“In the good old days, they’d have ripped him out of that seat so fast.”

These are on video and we can see the lips moving to his voice.




Now the North Carolina law is shown below.


§ 14-288.2. Riot; inciting to riot; punishments. 

(a) A riot is a public disturbance involving an assemblage of three or more persons which by disorderly and violent conduct, or the imminent threat of disorderly and violent conduct, results in injury or damage to persons or property or creates a clear and present danger of injury or damage to persons or property.
(b) Any person who willfully engages in a riot is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
(c) Any person who willfully engages in a riot is guilty of a Class H felony, if: (1) In the course and as a result of the riot there is property damage in excess of fifteen hundred dollars (1,500) or serious bodily injury; or (2) Such participant in the riot has in his possession any dangerous weapon or substance.
(d) Any person who willfully incites or urges another to engage in a riot, so that as a result of such inciting or urging a riot occurs or a clear and present danger of a riot is created, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
(e) Any person who willfully incites or urges another to engage in a riot, and such inciting or urging is a contributing cause of a riot in which there is property damage in excess of fifteen hundred dollars (1,500) or serious bodily injury, shall be punished as a Class F felon.



So BCC, if you would like to explain why Trump's quotes and the violence that has followed at his rallies by his supporters does not meet the definitions in section (a) and (d), I would be glad to have an intelligent conversation with you about the actual facts.  I'm sure that you would be able to shock 90% of the people on this message board if you were to do this.  But if you want to just continue never defending your BS with any facts, maybe it is you who should move on.

By the way, this type of research takes about 5 minutes, we know that you have the time.

nohero said:

BCC said:

nohero said:

BCC said:
There already is another committee. It's called the FBI and it is investigating her e-mails during the Benghazi disaster.

The FBI isn't investigating the Benghazi communications.

The FBI is investigating all e-mails turned over by Hillary which include those posted during Benghazi.

There is a big pile of emails, and two investigations.  The Benghazi investigation is looking at "her e-mails during the Benghazi disaster".  The FBI investigation is looking at other parts of the pile, with respect to allegations of classified information not being properly handled. 

I hope that clarifies my shorter statement for you.

ridski said:

BCC said:

ridski said:

BCC said:
No.

Don't follow your logic in not being able to form an opinion.

And this is why I don't bother responding seriously to your posts anymore. What's the point of answering your questions if you're instantly dismissive of my answers?

Please continue to call out people for not "joining the conversation" which consists of people having opinions and you saying "no" or calling them schmucks, morons, dicks, and telling them "see you next Thursday" because that always entices people to converse. 

Asking you to explain your position is hardly being dismissive it is asking for your opinion.

Why won't you offer it? Is there something in it that is not 'enticing'?

Generally, when asking to explain something, there's a question mark in the sentence, or perhaps a "why" or some other word which usually forms a question. "Don't follow your logic in not being able to form an opinion." Where's the "ask" in that sentence?

Besides, I did explain myself. I haven't read up on the subject. I thought perhaps I would learn more by reading this thread, but by yesterday morning the Sheriff had decided not to investigate anything, so what position should I have nothing is happening?

Trying to parse your way out of it with question marks? My comment was clearly asking for your reason for having no opinion and you have now had plenty of time to read up on it. Do you now have an opinion and if so what is it?

While we are at it perhaps you can also explain this, when the first 3 comments were about Trump and free speech and when charges would be brought against him for something he
said.?

'One notes that the 4th post in this thread was made by BCC, so by his own admission this thread was not about Trump and free speech until BCC posted about it, which is again
typical for BCC. '

hoops said:

springgreen2 said:

Between the unseemly, and perhaps unlawful offer to.Ben Carson of a cabinet position in exchange for his endorsement; the exhortations to fans to punch people in the nose at rallies; the slimy, insulting language spoken publicly; the expressions of bigotry, Trump trumps Hillary's emails as a reason not to vote him in as President.

well, ALL that and the fact that Trump is ignorant of every issue, has no platform other than build a wall, and is obviously  a snake oil salesman of the highest order.

...which says what about a few million Americans? Scary to see the numbers, even if they fall far short of anything near a majority of GOP. "He tells it like it is" is the recurring remark even though he repeatedly tells it like it isn't. Who are these people?

BCC said:
Trying to parse your way out of it with question marks? My comment was clearly asking for your reason for having no opinion and you have now had plenty of time to read up on it. Do you now have an opinion and if so what is it?

On what? Seriously, tell me what am I supposed to have an opinion about? This sheriff thing? Why should I waste my time reading up on a story which goes absolutely nowhere?

And kindly stop trolling me with this "parsing" nonsense, it's exactly the reason I can't treat you as a grown up, despite the fact you're twice my age. I mean, Jesus.

BCC said:

nohero said:
There is a big pile of emails, and two investigations.  The Benghazi investigation is looking at "her e-mails during the Benghazi disaster".  The FBI investigation is looking at other parts of the pile, with respect to allegations of classified information not being properly handled. 

I hope that clarifies my shorter statement for you.

IOWs you agree the FBI is investigating Hillary's  Benghazi e-mails.

No, "IOW" I agree with the plain meaning of what I wrote, which is not the same as your "IOW".

I don't understand your need to restate what someone else wrote, instead of making a simple reply to explain your disagreement.  You seem to be fishing for an insult as a reply to you.  That would be a silly way for you to spend your time.

ridski said:

BCC said:
Trying to parse your way out of it with question marks? My comment was clearly asking for your reason for having no opinion and you have now had plenty of time to read up on it. Do you now have an opinion and if so what is it?

On what? Seriously, tell me what am I supposed to have an opinion about? This sheriff thing? Why should I waste my time reading up on a story which goes absolutely nowhere?

And kindly stop trolling me with this "parsing" nonsense, it's exactly the reason I can't treat you as a grown up, despite the fact you're twice my age. I mean, Jesus.

Goes nowhere? We were talking about free speech and it's limits. People have opinions on this and I was asking for yours. Apparently you have none.

This is the 3rd time I'm asking this, so humor an old man and answer it. You clearly had an opinion when you wrote it, as evidenced by your last comment.

'While we are at it perhaps you can also explain this, when the first 3 comments were about Trump and free speech and when charges would be brought against him for something he
said.?

'One notes that the 4th post in this thread was made by BCC, so by his own admission this thread was not about Trump and free speech until BCC posted about it, which is again
typical for BCC. '

BCC said:

While we are at it perhaps you can also explain this, when the first 3 comments were about Trump and free speech and when charges would be brought against him for something he
said.?


'One notes that the 4th post in this thread was made by BCC, so by his own admission this thread was not about Trump and free speech until BCC posted about it, which is again
typical for BCC. '

BCC said:

In case you and your ignorant friend haven't noticed, since the the 3rd post on this thread, except for the meaningless bull***t the two of you have provided, it has been about Trump and free speech,

In your words at least the first two posts can't have been about Trump and free speech. 

BCC said:
Goes nowhere? We were talking about free speech and it's limits. 

Here you are telling us what we were talking about again instead of actually talking about it just like every thread you join. You're just proving my point, BCC.

BCC, do you have conversations in person like you do online?

If so, could you sell tickets to them.

jeffhandy said:

BCC, do you have conversations in person like you do online?

If so, could you sell tickets to them.

It's free on the internet.

BCC said:
Goes nowhere? We were talking about free speech and it's limits. People have opinions on this and I was asking for yours. Apparently you have none.

Well, I was going based on the title of the thread involves a sheriff investigating Trump for inciting a riot in NC. He's no longer investigating this, so as I said, it goes nowhere so I don't see the need to read up on this story.

If you want to discuss freedom of speech in the abstract, I'm more than happy to. I have plenty of views about that. Why don't you start a new thread so we can discuss it like grown ups?

jeffhandy said:

BCC, do you have conversations in person like you do online?

If so, could you sell tickets to them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghj5V5cUo1s

ridski said:

BCC said:

While we are at it perhaps you can also explain this, when the first 3 comments were about Trump and free speech and when charges would be brought against him for something he
said.?


'One notes that the 4th post in this thread was made by BCC, so by his own admission this thread was not about Trump and free speech until BCC posted about it, which is again
typical for BCC. '

BCC said:

In case you and your ignorant friend haven't noticed, since the the 3rd post on this thread, except for the meaningless bull***t the two of you have provided, it has been about Trump and free speech,

In your words at least the first two posts can't have been about Trump and free speech. 

However kindly note, you are blaming me in the 4th post for changing the topic and saying this is typical of me, yet in the 3rd post to which I as also responding it was already about Trump and free speech.

In what way did I change anything?

jeffhandy said:

BCC, do you have conversations in person like you do online?

If so, could you sell tickets to them.

Your fantasy regarding why the Sheriff didn't charge trump was destroyed in a few sentences by ctrzrtaka. You can continue to post extensive parts of the legal code but your legal
expertise is nonexistent and FACT, every legal authority in every venue in which Trump has voiced his outrageous comments, and there has or hasn't been violence, have refused to charge him with any thing.

You cannot deny that, All you can do is change the subject with some snide remark.

You might also note, while there have been side discussions, and the usual dicks trying to ridicule me which is par for the course, no one has supported you.

It's like you discovered a new word and can't stop using it. I hope you aren't posting from the beach still.

BCC said:

ridski said:

BCC said:

While we are at it perhaps you can also explain this, when the first 3 comments were about Trump and free speech and when charges would be brought against him for something he
said.?


'One notes that the 4th post in this thread was made by BCC, so by his own admission this thread was not about Trump and free speech until BCC posted about it, which is again
typical for BCC. '

BCC said:

In case you and your ignorant friend haven't noticed, since the the 3rd post on this thread, except for the meaningless bull***t the two of you have provided, it has been about Trump and free speech,

In your words at least the first two posts can't have been about Trump and free speech. 

The first 3 were in fact about Trump and free speech but I misspoke when I left out the first 2. I take the blame for that.



However kindly note, you are blaming me in the 4th post for changing the topic and saying this is typical of me, yet in the 3rd post to which I as also responding it was already about Trump and free speech.

In what way did I change anything?

Sigh. If that's what the conversation was about, and your first post was in response to jeffhandy (comment 3), why did you have to remind him 9 posts later that it was about 'where is the line he has to cross before charges can be filed'? Surely jeffhandy knows what the conversation was before you responded, no? If not, then maybe you did change something.

But again, this isn't the conversation, is it? Because this about you, as always. Start a new thread and we'll discuss freedom of speech like grown ups.

This is the plain meaning of what you wrote.

It's plain English. You were wrong. Your convoluted response notwithstanding, you were wrong.

nohero said:

BCC said:

nohero said:
There is a big pile of emails, and two investigations.  The Benghazi investigation is looking at "her e-mails during the Benghazi disaster".  The FBI investigation is looking at other parts of the pile, with respect to allegations of classified information not being properly handled. 

I hope that clarifies my shorter statement for you.

IOWs you agree the FBI is investigating Hillary's  Benghazi e-mails.

No, "IOW" I agree with the plain meaning of what I wrote, which is not the same as your "IOW".

I don't understand your need to restate what someone else wrote, instead of making a simple reply to explain your disagreement.  You seem to be fishing for an insult as a reply to you.  That would be a silly way for you to spend your time.

dave23 said:

It's like you discovered a new word and can't stop using it. I hope you aren't posting from the beach still.

Oh, he's still there. He completely admitted to trolling us from afar a couple of days ago.

If true, that's horrifying.

BCC said:

The first 3 were in fact about Trump and free speech but I misspoke when I left out the first 2. I take the blame for that.


However kindly note, you are blaming me in the 4th post for changing the topic and saying this is typical of me, yet in the 3rd post to which I as also responding it was already about Trump and free speech.

In what way did I change anything?

In this thread?  Did you go back to page one of the thread?  I just did.  Free speech was not mentioned until the 13th post of this thread and it was mentioned by YOU!! 

So don't give us any of your BS regarding what this thread is about because you have no clue.  You did not start the thread, Springgreen2 did.  He is the one who truly knows why the thread was started.  Did he send you a PM that said, "hey I'm starting a thread about free speech but I won't mention it in the post, so do me a favor and insert free speech into the 13th post."?  My guess is no.  

But unless that happened, you have no effing clue what you are talking about.  So once once again BCC is telling everyone else what they can and can't talk about and chastising them if they are actually talking about the thread title or the comments of other people.  Does nobody listen to you in your real life?  Is that why you have to instruct everyone online?