Kalbear Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: 91 indictments suggest otherwise. Even the Mueller found henkiness… they just couldn’t indict a sitting President… 91 indictments does not mean actual breaking of laws. Heck, it is still a matter of dispute whether or not he can even be charged legally for those things at the federal level. The next time Trump gets convicted of a crime will be the first time he'll have been convicted. And all he has to do is get elected and they'll all go away. Legally, via the system as designed. At the state level we're already seeing major pushback against the AD involved, so it's not clear if that'll go through - but even if it does it won't stop him from being POTUS, legally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 3 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said: Who are elected by the citizenry (and from it). Not necessarily. How many of the SCOTUSes were elected? Was Charles Koch elected? How many of the Federalist society was elected? How many of the fake electors were elected? I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue here other than the very basic idea that democracies have laws. I'm not that interested in arguing that point - the rule of law is not exclusive to democracies nor is it an indication of a more democratic place. My pushback then and now was that simply using 'did they break the law' as the benchmark for democratic behaviors is too limited. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Horse Named Stranger Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Just now, Kalbear said: Not necessarily. How many of the SCOTUSes were elected? Was Charles Koch elected? How many of the Federalist society was elected? How many of the fake electors were elected? I'm really not sure what you're trying to argue here other than the very basic idea that democracies have laws. I'm not that interested in arguing that point - the rule of law is not exclusive to democracies nor is it an indication of a more democratic place. My pushback then and now was that simply using 'did they break the law' as the benchmark for democratic behaviors is too limited. No, but a sufficient number of the American electorate has checked out and allowed/signed up to the Fed Society and their lackeys to hollow out Democratic institutions. Again, if nobody votes for him, Mitch stays burried in a cole mine in Kentucky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry of the Lawn Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 (edited) When is political violence ok? I humbly submit this explanation: Quote ."According to two reports, as pro-Trump rioters stormed the US Capitol in an attempt to stop Congress from certifying the presidential election on January 6, freshman GOP Rep. Nancy Mace tried to convince her staff to let her get attacked. The Washington Post reports Mace was so incensed at then-President Donald Trump that she brought up the idea of approaching rioters head-on in the hopes she would get punched in the face and become the "face of anti-Trump Republicans." https://news.yahoo.com/nancy-mace-said-she-wanted-160909332.html Quote Those sources told the Beast that Mace explicitly said she wanted to "get punched in the face" for "media attention." I'm seeing comments on Bluesky comparing this to a Tim Robinson skit or a Judy Gemstone scheme. Edited January 25 by Larry of the Lawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Also while we're talking about civil wars as ways to democratically enact change: https://www.inquirer.com/opinion/texas-border-abbott-biden-national-guard-20240125.html The standoff in Texas between Texas national guard and border patrol is escalating, with Abbott doubling down and essentially telling Biden to either back down or take the national guard away from Texas. As pointed out in the article one of the more amazing things is that SCOTUS backed the US government in only a 5-4 ruling despite absurd precedent that indicates the fed has supremacy about borders. My suspicion is that Biden will back down, but neither option is good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Abbott can't wait to secede. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 3 minutes ago, Zorral said: Abbott can't wait to secede. He sure loves that Federal money though… TrackerNeil, JGP and Prince of the North 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 15 minutes ago, Larry of the Lawn said: When is political violence ok? I humbly submit this explanation: https://news.yahoo.com/nancy-mace-said-she-wanted-160909332.html I'm seeing comments on Bluesky comparing this to a Tim Robinson skit or a Judy Gemstone scheme. She really is one of the strangest and most inconsistent creatures in Congress. Please don't judge me for thinking she's hot. Phylum of Alexandria and Ser Scot A Ellison 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 (edited) 1 minute ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said: She really is one of the strangest and most inconsistent creatures in Congress. Please don't judge me for thinking she's hot. She is almost as perfectly self interested as Trump. And she isn’t unattractive. Even if I find her finger in the wind personality pretty repulsive. Edited January 25 by Ser Scot A Ellison Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: She is almost as perfectly self interested as Trump. And she isn’t unattractive. Even if I find her finger in the wind personality pretty repulsive. Most politicians are. Her decisions just seem so random. It's like she has a skee-ball machine in her house with each hole having a different decision and rolls blindfolded. Or maybe she uses a pinball machine. Who knows. Ser Scot A Ellison 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorral Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 1 hour ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: He sure loves that Federal money though… He grabs all federal assets in the state and sells them off to the highest bidder. This includes airforce and army assets, along with nuclear missiles and warheads. We really do not want a secessionist state in our borders. We really do not. Ser Scot A Ellison 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chatywin et al. Posted January 25 Share Posted January 25 Not creepy at all: Quote A draft resolution circulating among the Republican National Committee would formally declare Donald Trump the Republican Party’s 2024 presumptive nominee. While the former president would still need to reach the delegate requirements necessary to win the nomination, if the resolution is approved, he would have access to the RNC’s data operation, benefit from fundraising with the RNC, and have the support of all of the committee’s ground operations. It would also mean the committee would be supporting Trump and effectively opposing former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley – an unprecedented break from the party’s past approach to the nominating process. https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/25/politics/rnc-trump-presumptive-nominee-resolution/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 (edited) The AP is reporting that the RNC is considering a resolution next week to declare Trump the presumptive 2024 nominee....which I guess they can do if they want, but surely this would tick off some voters? Heh, I kid, no conservative will bat an eyelid at this. At the same time, Senate Republicans are still negotiating the immigration bill, contrary to prior reports. It is possible we may have something soon. Edit: Oh, I didn't see the post....right above me, but it bears repeating. Edited January 26 by IheartIheartTesla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 Per reports I heard there is likely to be no immigration bill because Trump doesn't want it and senate r are not going against him. That goes for any legislation that would give Biden a win. It would also kill Ukraine aid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThinkerX Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 1 hour ago, Kalbear said: Per reports I heard there is likely to be no immigration bill because Trump doesn't want it and senate r are not going against him. That goes for any legislation that would give Biden a win. It would also kill Ukraine aid. Might be interesting to see how many R's vote for the bill despite Trump's objections. The desire to appease their base overcoming their fear of Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fionwe1987 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 @Kalbear Good call on not doing the quoting too much. I'll do the same. I will cut short the FDR discussion by saying this: I totally agree that just "following the law" doesn't make a democracy, and can serve despotic ends. It does not, however, follow, that we should therefore skip the law and democracy and just have a despot! FDR doing what he did, however we interpret it, is not the same as what Trump is proposing to do on Day 1 of his 2nd term. This whole conversation began as an explainer by you of the mindset of the "burn the system" Trump fans. And the flaws in the system do NOT justify a Trump dictatorship, or any dictatorship. I reject the notion that the need for a little norm violation, in the past or as conceived solution to current gridlock, automatically justifies handing over power to a despot who is open about his desire to obliterate democracy, self-deal, and excuse himself from any and all past crimes. If you want to make that case, you're going to have to try harder. On the design of American democracy: I'm right with you on its serious flaws. In fact, a lot of its design was based on the terrible assumption that political parties wouldn't form or have the kind of power they do, and that obviously didn't pan out. But nevertheless, in practice, American democracy hasn't been anywhere close to the worst. I think it's fair to say it's one of the worst among developed nations, but that's indeed, almost by definition, a First World problem. As for organization, protests, etc... my point wasn't about slavery, but segregation. When it comes to slavery, the means to end it obviously wasn't a peaceful democratic process, but I'd argue pre-slavery America barely qualifies as a democracy. Lastly, all I'll say is, merging the conversation about "what Trump fans may be thinking", with your own thoughts on the deficiencies of American democracy, leads to some weird results. Perhaps these should remain separate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fionwe1987 Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 2 hours ago, ThinkerX said: Might be interesting to see how many R's vote for the bill despite Trump's objections. The desire to appease their base overcoming their fear of Trump. What should happen is a national and campaign from Biden and the DNC saying that Trump and the GOP are for open borders, and not doing anything to stem the tide of immigrants at the southern border. Flip the script, quote these morons saying Trump is blocking the bill, make the case that they want to have a defeat for Biden more than they want to solve the border problem. Doubt they'll do it, though. Phylum of Alexandria and Prince of the North 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartIheartTesla Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 9 hours ago, Kalbear said: Per reports I heard there is likely to be no immigration bill because Trump doesn't want it and senate r are not going against him. That goes for any legislation that would give Biden a win. It would also kill Ukraine aid. McConnell clarified that negotiations were still ongoing, Thom Tillis is still on board and Romney was quite vehement about not caring whether this impacted Trump or not. I think we may still see something from the Senate side. The House is of course another matter entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phylum of Alexandria Posted January 26 Author Share Posted January 26 16 hours ago, Mr. Chatywin et al. said: She really is one of the strangest and most inconsistent creatures in Congress. Please don't judge me for thinking she's hot. I really like to think that I can override my overgrown chimpanzee brain. And usually I can. But...Alina Habba! I hate myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted January 26 Share Posted January 26 7 minutes ago, Phylum of Alexandria said: I really like to think that I can override my overgrown chimpanzee brain. And usually I can. But...Alina Habba! I hate myself. Alina Habba is odd looking and seems to lack, in my opinion, a degree of intellectual curiosity. She seems very much Trump’s “type”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts