Grifman wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:24 pm
I am offended and as upset as you are, and I would love to see some consequences for what I consider to be a violation of their oaths to the Constitution. But you have as of yet not stated a realistic way for those consequences to take place of what those consequences realistically should be. Charging sedition is not going to work.
I'd need a Constitutional scholar to tell me what it means to violate your oath of office. I refuse to believe there aren't consequences.
For the Texas AG, his own state would need to figure out how to address how he has clearly abused his power. If there is no way that will happen, then I'm out of ideas.
I get what everyone is saying - believe me. But to have zero push back on this? We're going to collectively pay for it later.
Smoove_B wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:01 pmWe can quibble over the details, but I'm going to say signing documents trying to invalidate the votes of millions of Americans is magnitudes of order worse than what Franken answered for.
And maybe it is, but it's not illegal.
It's not illegal to believe crazy things. It's not illegal to say crazy things. It's not even illegal to ask a court to rule on your crazy thoughts...it's just a very expensive way to get laughed at.
And Trump and his lawyers HAVE been laughed at. Every time. The system is holding.
But you SHOULD be offended. Never vote for one of these clowns again.
Laughter is not punishment. The majority of voters have been laughing at Trump since the 2016 primary. The educated class has been laughing at him since the 1980s.
All the same, Trump has gained control of half the political culture and its base, all of whom seem more than willing to reject the Constitution in favor of authoritarian dictatorship. If a few states had tilted slightly otherwise or a few schemes had more fully succeeded, that result would be the one we'd be certifying now.
Coming together as Americans. ya that will never happen again until a new civil war is fought.
--------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake. http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk
"Has high IQ. Refuses to apply it"
When in doubt, skewer it out...I don't know.
Kraken wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:59 pmI wonder if the Union would try to preserve itself again, or just say good riddance to bad trash. Enjoy your Gilead.
No one gets to leave, no matter how happy some people would be to see others go. We're all in this together.
How the hell do we run a country where half of the people refuse to believe in the same objective reality? It's like one team playing football and the other playing Calvinball.
Kraken wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:59 pmI wonder if the Union would try to preserve itself again, or just say good riddance to bad trash. Enjoy your Gilead.
No one gets to leave, no matter how happy some people would be to see others go. We're all in this together.
Secession has been settled, but can states be kicked out?
Someone in my news feed suggested that the Republican representatives who signed on to this thing should not be seated in the next House.
Holman wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:24 pmHow is the system holding again?
Judges are not allowing any of the extra-legal shenanigans to move through. That's all the system can do. If voters are determined to elect idiots, well, that's a failure no democratic system can be proofed against.
/. "She climbed backwards out her
\/ window into Outside Over There."
The die hards still clinging to the Trump legal efforts are resting their hopes on the fact that the SC denied TX due to lack of standing. The plan now is to somehow as get the states to sue themselves since another state doesn’t have standing. Not sure how that is going to happen or get to the SC even if it were. But such is the quality of legal thought on the other side.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
Grifman wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:37 pm
No real difference between the lawyers and those that hire them. Seriously, if this was so legally clear and could be done so easily, then why isnt it being done? Ask your self that question.
Because in the age of Trump, no politician is held to account? I guess I could start there. Remember what they did to Al Franken? Not saying it it was good or bad, but I'm pretty confident in saying this is demonstrably worse. He should have just simply re-registered as a (R) - he would have been fine.
Kraken wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 9:59 pmI wonder if the Union would try to preserve itself again, or just say good riddance to bad trash. Enjoy your Gilead.
No one gets to leave, no matter how happy some people would be to see others go. We're all in this together.
How the hell do we run a country where half of the people refuse to believe in the same objective reality? It's like one team playing football and the other playing Calvinball.
It’s going to be very difficult. I never thought I would say this but my short term hope is that all those believing in Trump and election fraud are so discouraged that they stop voting so rational people can take charge. No amount of reason or explaining can placate them - Lord knows I’ve tried with some of my friends and it is hopeless. So since discussion and reason won’t work, there aren’t a lot of other options.
Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions. – G.K. Chesterton
Smoove_B wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:17 pm
I get what everyone is saying - believe me. But to have zero push back on this? We're going to collectively pay for it later.
After four years of Trump, I think a lot of people have given up on push back. They've been conditioned that it simply doesn't do anything. I think they're just hoping for a reset starting in January, and I think they're going to be disappointed.
The court rejected the Texas case for lack of standing, but Alito and Thomas issued a statement (not a dissent) saying they would have heard the case and *then* rejected it entirely. They were making a point that the SC ought to hear cases between states (no matter how frivolous, apparently).
Today the Right is trying to spin Alito and Thomas as heroes for some reason.
Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) on Friday urged House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to refuse to seat any of the 126 Republican House members who signed an amicus brief supporting a lawsuit aimed at overturning the results of the presidential election.
Pascrell, who has been among the most vocal proponents in Congress of investigations into President Trump, called on Pelosi in a letter to “exclude” any members who signed the brief, claiming they want to “tear the United States government apart.”
Pascrell cites Section 3 of the 14th amendment – which states that anyone who “engaged in insurrection or rebellion” cannot serve in federal office – claiming the lawsuit seeks to “obliterate public confidence in our democratic system” and that those who signed it committed “unbecoming acts that reflect poorly on our chamber.”
Holman wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 11:23 am
The court rejected the Texas case for lack of standing, but Alito and Thomas issued a statement (not a dissent) saying they would have heard the case and *then* rejected it entirely. They were making a point that the SC ought to hear cases between states (no matter how frivolous, apparently).
Today the Right is trying to spin Alito and Thomas as heroes for some reason.
Popehat covered that during All the President's Lawyers this week. Those two justices have a different interpretation than the rest of the court of the clause saying that SCOTUS is the place for states to file suits. Their stance was totally expected. It's interesting that the two new ones didn't join them.
How inane is it that a black man is frothing at the mouth for Agolf, who is at this very moment trying to negate the vote only in the 2 predominantly non-white counties in Wisconsin. Uncle Tom on steroids.
The Proud Boys leader is claiming he was invited to the White House. The WH says he was on the 'Christmas tour'. Bullshit.
Anyway, there are accounts that the Proud Boys are wandering the streets and starting fights with counter protesters. On that basis alone, he shouldn't be in the White House. End of story. This is not ok.
Edit: Several people have noted that one phone call to the White House visitor's center indicates that there are no WH tours due to COVID-19. This was a special tour at the very least. As usual they are probably lying.
malchior wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 5:07 pm
The Proud Boys leader is claiming he was invited to the White House. The WH says he was on the 'Christmas tour'. Bullshit.
Some people have noted that his picture is in exactly the spot where people stand to be photographed as they leave public WH tours. I don't know, but it seems likely that invited visitors with POTUS appointments don't use the tourist route.
Holman wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 5:12 pmIt's possible that he's the liar here.
I just edited. Apparently there is a tour if you get signed off by a member of Congress's office. Still, he is the leader of a neo-Nazi militia. Tour or not he shouldn't be in the White House.
If thats the proud boys leader he looks kinda black.
--------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake. http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk
"Has high IQ. Refuses to apply it"
When in doubt, skewer it out...I don't know.
Daehawk wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 5:21 pm
If thats the proud boys leader he looks kinda black.
He isn't 'white' yet they still are mostly a neo-Nazi white supremacist organization. The organization is ... not the most well-ordered thing to say the least. It more structured than say anti-fascist groups but not a well-trained militia. It is a messy confederation of groups. He is more like the interface between people like Roger Stone and the individual groups rather than an actual leader.
Last edited by malchior on Sat Dec 12, 2020 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Daehawk wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 5:21 pm
If thats the proud boys leader he looks kinda black.
It's Enrique Tarrio , who identifies as Afro-Cuban. There are lots of right-wingers among Cuban-Americans.
The Proud Boys are pro-"Western" neo-nazi Islamophobes, but they're usually not classified as strictly white supremacist (although many of them certainly are). They have some black members that they trot out for show, at least.
Daehawk wrote: Sat Dec 12, 2020 5:21 pm
If thats the proud boys leader he looks kinda black.
It's Enrique Tarrio , who identifies as Afro-Cuban. There are lots of right-wingers among Cuban-Americans.
The Proud Boys are pro-"Western" neo-nazi Islamophobes, but they're usually not classified as strictly white supremacist (although many of them certainly are). They have some black members that they trot out for show, at least.
I'd agree mostly with this but they aren't White Hate in the sense that they claim they aren't white supremacists but they act like it 99% of the time and as you say have some minority representation.
--------------------------------------------
I am Dyslexic of Borg, prepare to have your ass laminated.
I guess Ray Butts has ate his last pancake. http://steamcommunity.com/id/daehawk
"Has high IQ. Refuses to apply it"
When in doubt, skewer it out...I don't know.
Grifman wrote: Fri Dec 11, 2020 3:36 pmThe only medium term hope is that Trump at some point in the next 4 years either dies or is indicted for some sort of tax/financial fraud which then will absorb most of his limited intellectual capacity. Otherwise, he will continue his grip on the party.
Or - hear me out on this - we start jailing and hanging seditious politicians. Aggressive, sure. But this is getting absurd. Calling for the invalidation of votes for "political expediency" is unacceptable and even flirting with the idea should be hammered down. I'm confident in saying revolutions have started over less. That these morons want to casually toss out ideas antithetical to their sworn oath and our democracy cannot stand. If we allow this to go unchecked, we're just punting to the next crisis and I'm confident the next one will be worse.
The legal theories here are of course ridiculous but are not in and of themselves “seditious” because the Republicans are using the courts, which is an entirely legal manner in which to proceed. It would only be sedition if they started operating extra legally, setting up their own courts or laws, or using armed force to oppose the legal authorities. As long as they go to court and abide by the court decision, you can’t legally say they are guilty of sedition, even though “in spirit” they are.
Who says a legal act can't be seditious?
Sedition is the content of the act, not the mechanism. Speech is legal, but speech can be seditious, so why not joining a case that seeks to thwart democratic processes?
"I love his pillows. I love his sheets. I love his mattress topper. The Kraken has been released! You are part of the Kraken! So, for the best deals to support this patriot, use the code Kraken at my-pillow-dot-com."
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
