Jump to content

Brisketexan

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    50188
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    284

Everything posted by Brisketexan

  1. And to that end, the Dems need to adopt another play from the GQP playbook: 1) purposefully inflict pain directly onto those people, and 2) just repeat over and over that it's the Republicans fault, they did this. "This is the effect of Trumponomics." Dems imposing legislation/executive orders that require all farmers to pay an extra 20% in taxes? "This is the effect of Trumponomics. That's a Trump tax."
  2. Then just call those sources fake news, use the power of the government to go after publishers' other businesses, threaten the owners and their family members personally. Those are the rules of the game now. Play by them, or get crushed.
  3. This. The only currency of any value to the "persuadable" voters is lies. Tell them lies, big lies, on repeat, hammering them with a firehose of lies. "Democrats will double your social security without raising taxes. Republicans want to take away your social security and are installing spy cameras on your computers right now, through Elon's Starlink, so China can see everything you do."
  4. Yeah, no....federal officers can be sued. It's technically NOT under Section 1983 -- it's called a "Bivens claim," which is quite similar. Sorry, I was sloppy there in my citation.
  5. So.... I have no idea what that sentence means. Of course federal agents can be sued - there is "qualified immunity" which can shield them from having to pay damages for past unconstitutional conduct if there was not "clearly established law" telling them their actions were unconstitutional (the 5th circuit LOVES that defense when it comes to cops beating the fuck out of a minority, they don't like it at all when it's a local official pursuing a "liberal" policy). But that really has no bearing on whether you can get an injunction against further unconstitutional action.
  6. Also, anyone and everyone who has had a dissenting post deleted/removed from Twitter should join together and file a Section 1983 suit against Elon for depriving them of their civil rights. Because the facts make it a pretty damned solid (and important) case. 1. Elon is a powerful, senior employee and officer of the US Government. Trump has admitted so, publicly. Further, Elon's public statements and tweets on the matter make it clear that he is. 2. That powerful, senior officer of the US Government controls a major site for the dissemination and public discussion of topics that include the operation of the US Government, specifically including the functions of that particular officer of the US Government. 3. That powerful, senior officer of the US Government actually USES that site for making statements directly connected to and relevant to his role and actions as a US Government official. 4. That powerful, senior officer of the US Government suppresses/drowns out dissenting speech by a) actively deleting/hiding dissenting posts and comments, b) creating/directing the creation of an algorithm that performs the same function. 5. Government suppression of speech, particularly on matters of public import and interest, is a plain violation of the First Amendment rights of the speakers. TLDR: Because Musk is an officer of the government and does not just use but CONTROLS Twitter in connection with and in furtherance of the performance of his duties as a government official, Twitter is -- for First Amendment purposes -- an arm of the US Government. Thus, it cannot suppress or favor any speech based on its content. Doing so violates the First Amendment, and Elon (in his capacity as the owner and controller of Twitter) should be enjoined from doing so. It is a good lawsuit. It is a VERY good lawsuit. It should be brought posthaste, seeking emergency injunctive relief, because the harm is real, ongoing, and there is no adequate remedy at law if it is allowed to continue.
  7. We are in the era of anti-empathy. And I don’t mean that empathy ain’t valued; it’s seen as an EVIL trait that must be crushed (that’s all being “woke” is, BTW - being aware of other people’s lived experiences). Empathy is evil, and must be stamped out and crushed. It’s beyond fucked up. It’s how you get to “the cruelty is the point.”
  8. See, back in the 90s, we “deregulated” the entire electric market, because making our system for-profit would lead to innovation, lower costs, and better service….and massive profits for the private enterprises. Also, only the last thing was true.
  9. “More desperate than wise” was always one of the key things I looked for in a woman…
  10. Yep. One peaceful summer morning a few years ago, I stood next to his grave and just sighed. Because his martyrdom was clearly in vain. Fucking hell.
  11. See, folks - that’s what wise parenting looks like.
  12. Those are all good questions. But 2 is the guarantee.
  13. I mean, we've reached the point in this timeline where I will be ridiculously overjoyed by the deaths of TWO people now, so....yeah. Fucking OD, Elon, and do the world the greatest service you could possibly do.
  14. CSB: my wife performed the marriage of one of the bandmembers and his wife, pretty sure she's still friendly with them. Said they were all cool as hell and pretty good dudes.
  15. And I think it is rapidly approaching the "more likely than not" level that we're going to find out if y'all are right. And the rest of us are going to have to pick a side. Not just to root for. When the elements of the military loyal to the Constitution call for aid, will we assist them? We're going to reach that fork in the road - every one of us.
  16. Well, see, as long as you're not the person who PERSONALLY exiles them to the camps, you're fine. Issuing directives and enabling the people who destroy their lives - well, that's just hunky-dory. Any moral responsibility is on the folks who actually take the final action.
  17. This is always the right answer. It's fucking beautiful, man....
  18. When a military commander receives an illegal order from the CINC, he has a duty not to obey that order. He also has a duty to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. So if the CINC insists on issuing an order to use military force against one of the 50 states because its government didn't do what he wants, that commander further has a duty to take action against the CINC. That is the crisis we are headed towards. It's like it's out of a terrible fucking movie starring Steven Seagal or some shit. But it's real.
  19. MAGA: "See, that's my thing! I hate and don't trust the gubmint! We gotta restrain it! And that's why we gotta empower a supreme dictator and king who is not bound by any laws or rules!"
  20. Or under threat of deployment of military force against the state. Some of y'all seem to think that Trump won't use military force against states that do not bend to his will. You have not been paying attention.
  21. yep, 200% certainty.
  22. Just posting this for the sheer Dan Marino of it.... I mean....this is a real thing. That actually happened. Imagine having a time machine, you go back ten years ago, and you tell everyone that 1) a Republican president will nominate 2) a person who willingly starred in Russian propaganda films to run the FBI, who also 3) openly stated that he wanted to dissolve the FBI, 4) wrote a book where that same president was portrayed as a king, and 5) he will be confirmed and will actually run the FBI. 100% of people out there would say you are insane....yet you would be the one who's right, and all of them would be wrong. This timeline is beyond satire and imagination.
  23. No worries. They'll vote for him again (and yes, he is "running" in 2028, accept that), because this one time, a dirty tranny played women's badminton at Upper Western Minnesota State Tech and Teacher's College.
  24. Da earf is Neo? Now it all makes sense, man.....
×
×
  • Create New...