US Politics: Cancelling Democracy

[Larry of the Lawn]

7 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

So a very good legal strategy being advocated for by Constitutional Law Professor Alan Morrison.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/14th-amendment-constitution-insurrectionist-ban-trump-lawsuit-alan-morrison_n_62d49f2be4b0f6913031334b#

Basicly Morris is pointing out that under the 14th Amendment Section 3, Trump is not eligible to run for President again due to his actions leading the Jan. 6th insurrection.

Morrison is saying the Democratic Party needs to sue for an immediate injunction.

Why do I get the sick feeling that not a finger will be lifted cuz reasons n seal flips n barking arf-arf-arf-arf-arrrrrf, it's so hard.

The Spin Doctors will be tripping over each other to give excuses why we CANNOT do this......he is the Royal King after all.

I mean they could but what do you think is going to happen?  This SC is going to say "oh yeah, good point"?

Eta: there's not going to be any legal or constitutional magic bullet for Trump when no one is playing by whatever alleged rules are in place.  

[Ormond]

15 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

Murkowski helps block a bill to protect abortion rights, drawing scorn from Democrats

https://alaskapublic.org/2022/05/11/murkowski-helps-block-a-bill-to-protect-abortion-rights-drawing-scorn-from-democrats/

Not to say this isn't bad, but I think it should be pointed out this is an article from May 22, a month and two days before the Dobbs decision was announced. So it is somewhat "old news" by now.

Meanwhile -- I haven't shared one of the Trumpist fundraising emails I get in quite a while. This is partly because the last couple of months I actually have been getting a lot fewer than before. Plus, about half of those I get aren't directly from the Trump organization but instead from the NRSC (National Republican Senatorial Committee). The Trumpists obviously sold their mailing list to the NRSC and the emails I get from them are designed to appeal to Trump fanatics. I just thought the following NRSC email I got was particularly over the top and so perhaps worth sharing:

Quote

 

Ck,

When will the POLITICAL WITCH HUNTS END?

Biden’s Communists Comrades in Washington HATE President Trump and will do ANYTHING to take him down. They’re coming after TRUTH Social with massive government POWER.

Big Tech, Joe Biden, and his socialist handlers in Washington HATE you and want to KEEP YOU QUIET – that’s why they’re coming after TRUTH Social. They think Conservatives DON’T HAVE FREE SPEECH RIGHTS.

Our team commissioned one of the most important polls to date so we can show the radical Leftists that the American people STAND WITH Trump, NOT Biden. The critical poll closes soon, and we’re counting on you to stand with President Trump. DON’T LET TRUMP DOWN.
 

DO YOU AGREE JOE BIDEN AND THE FAR-LEFT BIG TECH COMPANIES HATE PRESIDENT TRUMP?

 

YES >>
 

NO, I'M A DEMOCRAT >>
 

We’re printing a list of every patriot who submits their response to our critical poll SOON. If your name is NOT on the list, we’ll know you stand with Biden’s COMMUNIST regime CENSORING President Trump. What’s it going to be?
 

DO YOU AGREE JOE BIDEN AND THE FAR-LEFT BIG TECH COMPANIES HATE PRESIDENT TRUMP?

 

YES >>
 

NO, I'M A DEMOCRAT >>
 

Thank you,
 

NRSC Trump Polling Team

 

 

[Wilbur]

44 minutes ago, Ormond said:

...The Trumpists obviously sold their mailing list to the NRSC and the emails I get from them are designed to appeal to Trump fanatics...

The RNC sends lunatic stuff like that out, too.  You have to wonder what it was like in the office on the day when the change was made from dry, budget-oriented newsletters to FOnT cHOicE FAnTaSY mailers.

"Westwood and Festwick, we don't need your econometricians' viewpoints anymore - you are out.  Loop-O the Clown, you are the new chief editor of all media!"

[Week]

Predictable result thanks to the "pro-life" folks:

 

 

[DireWolfSpirit]

4 hours ago, Larry of the Lake said:

I mean they could but what do you think is going to happen?  This SC is going to say "oh yeah, good point"?

Eta: there's not going to be any legal or constitutional magic bullet for Trump when no one is playing by whatever alleged rules are in place.  

Larry you couldn't have read the link with that response.

It discusses how it would subject Trump to some additional legal ramifications and they alone make it worthwhile to pursue the course.

"He would also have to respond to discovery in the court action, “including being subjected to a deposition in which he would have to answer questions under oath,”

The alternative to throwing up arms and claiming nothing can be done.

Trump under oath, where we know he will perjure himself, I dont think that's a waste of time, nor will getting additional discovery be a waste because it will document more of his financial crimes.

[Larry of the Lawn]

43 minutes ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Larry you couldn't have read the link with that response.

It discusses how it would subject Trump to some additional legal ramifications and they alone make it worthwhile to pursue the course.

"He would also have to respond to discovery in the court action, “including being subjected to a deposition in which he would have to answer questions under oath,”

The alternative to throwing up arms and claiming nothing can be done.

Trump under oath, where we know he will perjure himself, I dont think that's a waste of time, nor will getting additional discovery be a waste because it will document more of his financial crimes.

I read the link.  We've seen him give depositions before.  It's not throwing up hands.  If they'd moved on this stuff last spring it might have had a little more bite.  This is over a year later and they have nothing.  I suppose there is nothing to lose over it, but I'm not going to hold my breath.  

[TormundsWoman]

 

3 hours ago, Week said:

Predictable result thanks to the "pro-life" folks.

 

I’m piggybacking on that Twitter feed, because it gets insane. 
 

In front of the house committee the CEO of the ProLife Americans United For Life organization is stating that the raped 10 year old abortion is not abortion. Apparently that’s “treatment” and “procedure”. Just insane.
 

This is the same person who was a witness in the May Dobbs hearing. At that time, when asked why no exception for rape, responded with a little smirk if that would make a difference to a Democrat. I’m paraphrasing but that’s the gist. Something like if we (Prolifers) accept exceptions would you (as a Democrat) vote for it.

 

[ThinkerX]

Idaho GOP doubles down - abortion criminal even if to save mothers life. 

Idaho GOP rejects platform change allowing abortion to save woman’s life (msn.com)

Delegates at the state’s GOP convention in Twin Falls approved changes to the party’s platform that went further than existing language classifying abortion as murder from the point of conception. The new language backs criminalization of all abortions in Idaho, according to the Idaho Capitol Sun.

Scott Herndon, who is running unopposed for a state senate seat, proposed the amendment, which he called a “declaration of the right to life for preborn children.”

Herndon said even in the cases where a woman’s life is endangered, doctors should not be giving priority to the woman over the unborn child.

[Zorral]

As I've mentioned here often, this is how the reichs have been dealing with uncomfortable or unpleasant realities at least since Reagan: they change the names of things.  So now an abortion isn't an abortion if committed on a uterus inside a 9-10 year girl's body.  What are they calling it now, by the way?  (Not that this is going to help the hundreds of other very young girls who get pregnant every year across the nation.)

Reichs are hostis humani generis. It is the old term for pirates and slavers, and means "enemy of all humanity."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

https://www.floridabulldog.org/2022/07/roger-stone-wife-agree-pay-2-1-million-settle-tax-case-where-will-money-come-from/

 

[Mindwalker]

On 7/17/2022 at 6:59 PM, Centrist Simon Steele said:

Yeah, it seems his trolling of the Dems has helped him significantly back home. That's why he keeps doing it.

While it's unlikely, Dems need to win other seats in the Senate and miraculously hold onto the house. I hear it's not impossible any longer for them to possibly win at least one side of Congress. We'll see. 

I don't think that's the main reason he's doing it tbh.

Yes, it does look like they might keep/ win  the Senate. However, that calculation only works if Manchin (& Sinema) are really the only ones who want to boycot Biden's alleged agenda, as opposed to that there are several other Dems who are hiding behind them, so to speak.

It looks bleak for the House though...

[DMC]

4 hours ago, Larry of the Lake said:

We've seen him give depositions before.

He was scheduled to give a deposition this week until Ivana died.  I'm sure James will try to reschedule it ASAP.

[Raja]

Quote

There was no way for the pregnancy to continue without putting the patient's health at risk, as the fetus was starting to deliver.

She was screaming--not from pain, but from the emotional trauma she was experiencing," the doctor wrote. After delivering the fetus, she hemorrhaged and lost close to a liter of blood before I could stop the bleeding. "There is absolutely no medical basis...to experience anything like this"

This was the first time in my 15 year career that I could not give a patient the care that they needed. This is a travesty.

Grim.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Missouri, yikes....

Quote

So why can’t a person get divorced if they’re pregnant?

The reasoning behind this archaic law is rooted in a stunning degree of hypocrisy. The actual statute doesn’t give a reason, it simply says that a woman involved in a divorce filing will have to state her pregnancy status along with other extremely basic facts like her name and address.

But Danielle Drake, the woman at the center of that Riverfront Times article, not only had to deal with the law personally and resubmit multiple divorce filings—one after learning she was pregnant and then again after she’d given birth—but she’s also a family law attorney, so she has a unique amount of insight here.

According to Drake, the reason why pregnancy will put divorce proceedings on hold is that courts can’t make custody rulings until the baby has been born. Why? Because, as she puts it, Missouri divorce law “does not see fetuses as humans.”

https://www.themarysue.com/missouri-law-ban-pregnant-divorce/

[Jace, Extat]

Nothing to see here; this too will pass. Don't be hasty. 

 

[HoodedCrow]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Missouri, yikes....

https://www.themarysue.com/missouri-law-ban-pregnant-divorce/

 Many abusers go at it when their wifeor partner is pregnant. Sad but true

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, HoodedCrow said:

 Many abusers go at it when their wifeor partner is pregnant. Sad but true

Yep, and the inability to access abortions in some areas will cause an increase in the number of women who are murdered. Pro-life my ass.

[DireWolfSpirit]

Wait so that Missouri bullshit about no divorce if your pregnant is just a Bill right?

I'm mean they weren't actually insane enough to pass that into law right?

We are becoming turn of the century (20th) S.Africa. We are being attacked by the state.

 

[Mindwalker]

"Election year sensitivities":

The important stuff is in the first 3 minutes (although I do agree with BTC here).

[Mindwalker]

On 7/17/2022 at 9:15 PM, LongRider said:

A question; it's reported that the SS deleted texts from their phones w/o backup.  Can these texts be found? 

I read they are reconstructing the messages for the committee.

[Ormond]

5 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

Wait so that Missouri bullshit about no divorce if your pregnant is just a Bill right?

I

This is really the law not only in Missouri but also in Texas, Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida. It was the law in Washington state but a court there declared it invalid due to gender discrimination. This guide to divorce seems to say that although there is no law specifically preventing divorce while pregnant in California and Ohio, judges in those states normally will not finalize a divorce until after a pregnant woman's child is born.

https://www.onlinedivorce.com/blog/getting-divorced-while-pregnant/

All of the discussion of this online is quick to point out that the law only deals with FINALIZING a divorce. In all these states women can file for divorce while pregnant and most of the proceedings can be conducted. It's just that the divorce will not be finalized until after a child is born and custody issues are dealt with.