The Supremes

[BHMCruiser 1814]

2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

Wickard and Roe were correct and the only problem with the Obamacare decision (I'm assuming he's referring to the first one) is it unnecessarily analyzed and reached a conclusion on the interstate commerce argument and invalidated the Medicaid expansion with what can't even charitably be called legal reasoning. 

Wickard was clearly wrong. Roe was laughably wrong. Dobbs was wrong because stare decisis is critical to ordered liberty. Obamacare was wrong because you cannot call something a "tax" unless it originates in the House. That's my only beef with that decision. They should have addressed the interstate commerce issues more squarely. It was a sleight of hand. 

[wildcat09 29355]

4 minutes ago, Captainant said:

We have so many other pieces of evidence and text messages and emails and all the receipts of them knowingly pushing the lie that "the election was stolen from trump". How is fabricating that story, working with multiple billion dollar media empires to amplify that message, coordinating a funding a rally to bring all the rioters to the capital on J6, SPEAKING AT THAT RALLY AND TELLING THEM TO MARCH AND THAT HE WOULD FOLLOW THEM, and then actively preventing the military from taking substantive action against the fascists as they attacked?

 

You didn't think ....... THAT was insurrection?

What, did he have to be shouting "IM DOING AN INSURRECTION" as he did it for it to count?

What the fucking fuck?

Don't forget the most damning fact (at least the most damning absent direct evidence of him scheming through Roger Stone with the Proud Boys, which I do think likely happened): that Trump tried to use the delay caused by the violence to stop the certification. He called Mike Lee (meaning to call Tuberville) during the attack and pressured Tuberville to delay the certification. He didn't just fail to do his duty, he actively betrayed his duty by trying to use the violent attack to his personal advantage. 

[Red Five 40862]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Don't forget the most damning fact (at least the most damning absent direct evidence of him scheming through Roger Stone with the Proud Boys, which I do think likely happened): that Trump tried to use the delay caused by the violence to stop the certification. He called Mike Lee (meaning to call Tuberville) during the attack and pressured Tuberville to delay the certification. He didn't just fail to do his duty, he actively betrayed his duty by trying to use the violent attack to his personal advantage. 

... while at the same time doing nothing to actually stop the attack. It took 3-4 hours to get him to say "We love you, but go home". And that was only after the jig was up. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

10 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Don't forget the most damning fact (at least the most damning absent direct evidence of him scheming through Roger Stone with the Proud Boys, which I do think likely happened): that Trump tried to use the delay caused by the violence to stop the certification. He called Mike Lee (meaning to call Tuberville) during the attack and pressured Tuberville to delay the certification. He didn't just fail to do his duty, he actively betrayed his duty by trying to use the violent attack to his personal advantage. 

Your last sentence was what drove Adam Kinzinger to vote for the second impeachment, only one of ten Republicans to do so. (Just finished his book that came out last year). Kinzinger served in the military and was aghast at the betrayal of the oath of office. He paid for his vote by being shunned, but it was the right thing to do.

Edit addition: that was not the only reason for the vote, but the entire event resonated with him because of the significance of the certification.

Edited March 5 by Mrs Whiggins

[BHMCruiser 1814]

9 minutes ago, Captainant said:

We have so many other pieces of evidence and text messages and emails and all the receipts of them knowingly pushing the lie that "the election was stolen from trump". How is fabricating that story, working with multiple billion dollar media empires to amplify that message, coordinating a funding a rally to bring all the rioters to the capital on J6, SPEAKING AT THAT RALLY AND TELLING THEM TO MARCH AND THAT HE WOULD FOLLOW THEM, and then actively preventing the military from taking substantive action against the fascists as they attacked?

 

You didn't think ....... THAT was insurrection?

What, did he have to be shouting "IM DOING AN INSURRECTION" as he did it for it to count?

What the fucking fuck?

The civil war was an insurrection. I do not think Trump was trying to overthrow the government. If you want to persecute every candidate who has pushed the lie that an election was stolen from them, you will have a tough row to hoe.

[BHMCruiser 1814]

I think the fact that a large minority, enough to win, want to vote for Trump is far more concerning than his actions on January 6. 

[Captainant 27680]

6 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

The civil war was an insurrection. I do not think Trump was trying to overthrow the government. If you want to persecute every candidate who has pushed the lie that an election was stolen from them, you will have a tough row to hoe.

He didn't just push the lie. He submitted fraudulent documents to states. He actively conspired and planned to get the false documents accepted into federal proceedings. They wanted to hang Mike Pence because he would not accept the fraudulent documents. 

THEY BROUGHT FUCKING GALLOWS TO THE CAPITAL 

 

That's not just talking about things, man. That's conspiracy and insurrection.

[wildcat09 29355]

8 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

The civil war was an insurrection. I do not think Trump was trying to overthrow the government. If you want to persecute every candidate who has pushed the lie that an election was stolen from them, you will have a tough row to hoe.

It's very hard to treat you as a good faith interlocutor when you say shit like this. 

[DigglerontheHoof 21204]

8 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

The civil war was an insurrection. I do not think Trump was trying to overthrow the government. If you want to persecute every candidate who has pushed the lie that an election was stolen from them, you will have a tough row to hoe.

Just what the fuck was he trying to do, in your opinion?

[Red Five 40862]

He's on tape trying to do it. 

[BHMCruiser 1814]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

He didn't just push the lie. He submitted fraudulent documents to states. He actively conspired and planned to get the false documents accepted into federal proceedings. They wanted to hang Mike Pence because he would not accept the fraudulent documents. 

THEY BROUGHT FUCKING GALLOWS TO THE CAPITAL 

 

That's not just talking about things, man. That's conspiracy and insurrection.

So when did it become an insurrection. At what point exactly? The ACLU has publicly stated Trump's comments at the rally are protected speech (I'm not saying they're right). And a lot of this stuff is the same shady election fraud that happens all the time - and which should be prosecuted when it can be - but that does not make it an insurrection. Sending false documents somewhere is not even in the same universe as using force to overthrow a government. 

[BHMCruiser 1814]

1 minute ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

Just what the fuck was he trying to do, in your opinion?

Trying to press his claim that the election had been stolen from him. And it spun out of control on him because he's an idiot surrounded by morons and schemers who blew smoke up his ass about what he could and couldn't do. 

 

2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

He's on tape trying to do it. 

Where? 

[RomaVicta 29932]

Interesting posts, @BHMCruiser. I'm in the camp that believes the actions of Jan 6 were obviously efforts to seize the government illegally. It matters to lawyers and judges if you can define it under a certain legal code. Whether they can or not doesn't alter my opinion of what I saw and what I have read.

I've been kicking around the stange notion that the obvious doesn't mean so much anymore. That someone who did what Trump did, which we saw, and not be eliminated out of hand from holding office is just plain bizarre. Trump may not fit the narrow definition of an insurrectionist or traitor, but he is clearly a dangerous enemy of the republic.

He has invited whatever a loyal citizen of the US might do to him.

We have the same opinion of the real problem being the electorate. Trump's presence on the ballot supported by that electorate is a combination that is both shocking and dangerous.

Edited March 5 by RomaVicta

[Captainant 27680]

2 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

So when did it become an insurrection. At what point exactly?

I don't think there's anything I could say to convince you that trump did anything wrong, but I would argue that the brightest red line was crossed when they had to evacuate both chambers of congress, and when trump was ignoring their calls while they were actively under siege, and acting against his military commanders repeated requests to go quell the situation

Edited March 5 by Captainant

[wildcat09 29355]

It became an insurrection when his criminal conspiracy to remain in power despite losing led him to incite a violent assault upon the Capitol as his method of pressuring allied members of Congress to refuse to certify the electoral votes.

This isn't a hard question. There's no gray here. It's entirely black and white, and you're just pretending otherwise.

[BHMCruiser 1814]

If somebody had recorded HRC's response to losing to Trump, I wonder what she was saying? Probably something about "accepting the results" and "oh well fair is fair"

[BHMCruiser 1814]

1 minute ago, RomaVicta said:

Interesting posts, @BHMCruiser. I'm in the camp that believes the actions of Jan 6 were obviously efforts to seize the government illegally. It matters to lawyers and judges if you can define it under a certain legal code. Whether they can or not doesn't alter my opinion of what I saw and what I have read.

I've been kicking around the stange notion that the obvious doesn't mean so much anymore. That someone who did what Trump did and which we saw and not be eliminated out of hand from holding office is just plain bizarre. Trump may not fit the narrow definition of an insurrectionist or traitor, but he is clearly a dangerous enemy of the republic.

He has invited whatever a loyal citizen of the US might do to him.

We have the same opinion of the real problem being the electorate. Trump's presence on the ballot supported by that electorate is a combination that is both shocking and dangerous.

Very valid points. Of course I am shocked that an electorate would choose Trump OR Biden but then again what the fuck do I know

[Stilicho 1397]

TIL that when a violent mob storm the United States fucking Capitol in the name of, and at the behest of, a political candidate to protect his incumbency and reverse a legally-recognized election result, it is not an insurrection.

 

Edited March 5 by Stilicho
for the purely fucking pedantic

[DigglerontheHoof 21204]

3 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Trying to press his claim that the election had been stolen from him. And it spun out of control on him because he's an idiot surrounded by morons and schemers who blew smoke up his ass about what he could and couldn't do. 

 

Where? 

It's because of obtuse cunts like you that we're going to end up with a regarded dictatorship.  Fuck you. 

[Captainant 27680]

Just now, BHMCruiser said:

what the fuck do I know

apparently, less than a box of fucking rocks if you think that trump and HRC are equivalent in their behavior post-electoral loss

[RomaVicta 29932]

6 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

If somebody had recorded HRC's response to losing to Trump, I wonder what she was saying? Probably something about "accepting the results" and "oh well fair is fair"

The difference is that had HRC acted as Trump has, we'd want her under the jail in the same way we hold that opinion about Trump. Your argument drifts into speciousness by raising hypotheticals and granting equivalence to things that are not equivalent. 

Your later statement about the poor choice of candidates between Biden and Trump needs illumination. How are they equivalent? Does either represent a threat to the election process? Which candidate could we best expect to protect the Constitution?

Serious questions.

Edited March 5 by RomaVicta

[BHMCruiser 1814]

1 minute ago, Captainant said:

I don't think there's anything I could say to convince you that trump did anything wrong, but I would argue that the brightest red line was crossed when they had to evacuate both chambers of congress, and when trump was ignoring their calls while they were actively under siege. 

Oh he did plenty of shit that was wrong. I think there's all sorts of stuff he could be nailed on. I am just skeptical that "insurrection" is one of them. 

I do not think Trump is competent to be president. I think he is selfish, stupid and vain. I think he is dangerously egotistical. But I think he cratered when his rally spun out of his control. 

6 minutes ago, Stilicho said:

TIL that when a violent mob storm the United States fucking Capitol in the name of, and at the behest of, a political candidate to protect his incumbency and reverse a legally-recognized election result, it is not an insurrection.

 

I prefer "totally fucking pedantic" but thanks

[Foosters 17858]

7 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

If somebody had recorded HRC's response to losing to Trump, I wonder what she was saying? Probably something about "accepting the results" and "oh well fair is fair"

Please read pages 3-10. When done, I'd be interested to hear how that compares to Hillary's hypothetical statements that you assume are equal.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.260.0.pdf

[BHMCruiser 1814]

5 minutes ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

It's because of obtuse cunts like you that we're going to end up with a regarded dictatorship.  Fuck you. 

compelling

[VivaNaranja 466]

9 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

If somebody had recorded HRC's response to losing to Trump, I wonder what she was saying? Probably something about "accepting the results" and "oh well fair is fair"

Fortunately someone did just that.

[BHMCruiser 1814]

3 minutes ago, Foosters said:

Please read pages 3-10. When done, I'd be interested to hear how that compares to Hillary's hypothetical statements that you assume are equal.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840/gov.uscourts.cacd.841840.260.0.pdf

She is on record publicly claiming Trump stole the election, that there was hacking, and voter suppression, and he's an illegitimate president. 

[Stilicho 1397]

2 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Oh he did plenty of shit that was wrong. I think there's all sorts of stuff he could be nailed on. I am just skeptical that "insurrection" is one of them. 

I do not think Trump is competent to be president. I think he is selfish, stupid and vain. I think he is dangerously egotistical. But I think he cratered when his rally spun out of his control. 

I prefer "totally fucking pedantic" but thanks

Serious question, what would qualify as an insurrection to you?

Diplomatic cables exchanged between Trump and Biden that he intended to remain in office? 

[VivaNaranja 466]

She is on record conceding the election

[wildcat09 29355]

Nobody serious thinks there's any equivalence between how Hillary responded to her loss and how Trump responded to his. BHM is clearly not serious. 

1 minute ago, Stilicho said:

Serious question, what would qualify as an insurrection to you?

Diplomatic cables exchanged between Trump and Biden that he intended to remain in office? 

Donald putting on a confederate uniform, picking up a musket, and actually shooting Biden. And only that, probably. 

[Foosters 17858]

1 minute ago, BHMCruiser said:

She is on record publicly claiming Trump stole the election, that there was hacking, and voter suppression, and he's an illegitimate president. 

Ok. Strange then for you to say "I wonder what she was saying? Probably something about "accepting the results" and "oh well fair is fair""

Which is all I was responding to.

That said, now that you've corrected the record, please read pages 3-10 and compare Trump's actions to Hillary's remarks.

 

[BHMCruiser 1814]

1 minute ago, VivaNaranja said:

Fortunately someone did just that.

Ha ha ha that's the next day. 

Here's her talking to CBS about why she lost:

 

4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Nobody serious thinks there's any equivalence between how Hillary responded to her loss and how Trump responded to his. BHM is clearly not serious. 

Donald putting on a confederate uniform, picking up a musket, and actually shooting Biden. And only that, probably. 

Yes but shooting him WHERE?

[Red Five 40862]

22 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Where? 

Georgia

[Foosters 17858]

Here's a clip of someone saying we should "kick ass and take names"

here's a clip of a violent assault. 

Obviously the two are equal.

[VivaNaranja 466]

1 minute ago, BHMCruiser said:

Ha ha ha that's the next day. 

Here's her talking to CBS about why she lost:

 

Yes but shooting him WHERE?

Right. She conceded the next day.

Trump

Never

Did

 

See the difference?

[Red Five 40862]

She called him that evening to concede. 

[Foosters 17858]

Quote

The next day, President Trump attempted to elevate Jeffrey Clark to Acting Attorney General, based on Mr. Clark’s statements that he would write a letter to contested states saying that the election may have been stolen and urging them to decertify electors. The White House Counsel described Mr. Clark’s proposed letter as a “murder-suicide pact” that would “damage everyone who touches it” and commented “we should have nothing to do with that letter.” President Trump eventually did not promote Mr. Clark after multiple high-ranking members of the Department of Justice threatened mass resignations that would leave the Department a “graveyard.”

In the months following the election, numerous credible sources–from the President’s inner circle to agency leadership to statisticians–informed President Trump and Dr. Eastman that there was no evidence of election fraud. One week after the election, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency declared “[t]he November 3rd election [] the most secure in American history” and found “no evidence that any voting system deleted or lost votes, changed votes, or was in any way compromised.” An internal Trump Campaign memo concluded in November that fraud claims related to Dominion voting machines were baseless. In early December, Attorney General Barr publicly stated there was no evidence of fraud, and on December 27, Deputy Attorney General Donoghue privately told President Trump that after “dozens of investigations, hundreds of interviews,” the Department of Justice had concluded that “the major allegations [of election fraud] are not supported by the evidence developed.”

Still, President Trump repeatedly urged that “the Department [of Justice] should publicly say that the election is corrupt or suspect or not reliable.” By early January, more than sixty court cases alleging fraud had been dismissed for lack of evidence or lack of standing.

2. Plan to disrupt electoral count

In response to alleged fraud, Dr. Eastman researched and planned a strategy for President Trump to win the election. Just after Christmas, Dr. Eastman wrote a now-public twopage memo proposing that Vice President Pence refuse to count certified electoral votes from states contested by the Trump campaign: Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

The memo outlines the two ways in which Dr. Eastman’s plan ensures “President Trump is re-elected.” If Vice President Pence refused to count electoral votes from all seven contested states, President Trump would win 232 votes to 222. Alternatively, if Congress claimed that a candidate could not win without reaching 270 votes, Vice President Pence could send the election to the Republican-majority House of Representatives, which would then elect President Trump. The memo emphasizes that “[t]he main thing here is that Pence should do this without asking for permission – either from a vote of the joint session or from the Court.”

On January 4, President Trump and Dr. Eastman invited Vice President Pence, the Vice President’s counsel Greg Jacob, and the Vice President’s Chief of Staff Marc Short to the Oval Office to discuss Dr. Eastman’s memo. Dr. Eastman presented only two courses of action for the Vice President on January 6: to reject electors or delay the count. During that meeting, Vice President Pence consistently held that he did not possess the authority to carry out Dr. Eastman’s proposal. The Vice President’s counsel and chief of staff were then directed to meet separately with Dr. Eastman the next day to review materials in support of his plan. Dr. Eastman opened the meeting on January 5 bluntly: “I’m here asking you to reject the electors.”

Vice President’s counsel Greg Jacob and Dr. Eastman spent the majority of the meeting in a Socratic debate on the merits of the memo’s legal arguments.  Over the course of their discussion, Dr. Eastman’s focus pivoted from requesting Vice President Pence reject the electors to asking him to delay the count, which he presented as more “palatable.” Ultimately, Dr. Eastman conceded that his argument was contrary to consistent historical practice, would likely be unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court, and violated the Electoral Count Act on four separate grounds. Despite receiving pushback, President Trump and Dr. Eastman continued to urge Vice President Pence to carry out the plan.

bUT hILLarY!

[BHMCruiser 1814]

14 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Georgia

Those phone calls are no different than happen in every presidential election. Don't kid yourself. Read Caro's books on LBJ

13 minutes ago, VivaNaranja said:

Right. She conceded the next day.

Trump

Never

Did

 

See the difference?

Yes. One conceded. One did not. Neither one is an insurrection. 

[BHMCruiser 1814]

9 minutes ago, Red Five said:

She called him that evening to concede. 

And?

[wildcat09 29355]

And she didn’t incite a violent assault on the Capitol in an effort to have her installed as president despite the results of the election. You fucking clown.

[VivaNaranja 466]

6 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Those phone calls are no different than happen in every presidential election. Don't kid yourself. Read Caro's books on LBJ

Yes. One conceded. One did not. Neither one is an insurrection. 

are you claiming that LBJ called a state SoS attempting to flip it when he won the election by 400+ EV's?

 

Which state? Goldwater only win six so it should be easy

Edited March 5 by VivaNaranja

[SydneyCarton 48111]

Where do we have Trump on tape trying to overthrow the government? Uh, in Atlanta. 

[Satchel 6938]

16 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

And?

And that’s how it’s done when you lose a presidential election. One calls and graciously concedes.

[Nivek 16945]

56 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

So when did it become an insurrection. At what point exactly? The ACLU has publicly stated Trump's comments at the rally are protected speech (I'm not saying they're right). And a lot of this stuff is the same shady election fraud that happens all the time - and which should be prosecuted when it can be - but that does not make it an insurrection. Sending false documents somewhere is not even in the same universe as using force to overthrow a government. 

Please provide proof of this.   Voter fraud and fake ballots are not just 'shady shit that happens all the time.   

[YGIFS 19452]

Still blows me away that I know for a fact that some close advisers were encouraging him to make the Georgia call but that he shouldn’t be so overtly specific. And he goes and breaks rule number one, you never ever mention specific numbers on a phone call or number.  I’ve delivered bags of cash, bribed bent politicians, and swayed union officials.  The first thing you know, as David Mamet would say, if you ever spent a day in our life…you never talk numbers until you know what the shot is.  

[Js1 85424]

Yall are arguing with someone who does not want their mind changed. Channel your energy elsewhere. 

[The Original Greaser Bob 2841]

1 hour ago, BHMCruiser said:

If somebody had recorded HRC's response to losing to Trump, I wonder what she was saying? Probably something about "accepting the results" and "oh well fair is fair"

We know Trump raped a woman. To be fair, Biden maybe one time probably thought about raping a woman, so they are both the same. 

[elfenix 34322]

47 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Ha ha ha that's the next day. 

Here's her talking to CBS about why she lost:

 

Yes but shooting him WHERE?

Its a hundred for the plum shot 

 

[YGIFS 19452]

Well to be fair to old man Biden; he was gonna rape her.  But then he forgot.  
 

and BHM, you’re correct.  I should switch to decaf.  But I need the energy because the people trying to install a dictator aren’t taking a day off so I can’t either.  

[Red Five 40862]

34 minutes ago, BHMCruiser said:

Those phone calls are no different than happen in every presidential election. Don't kid yourself. Read Caro's books on LBJ

 

It's typical for a sitting president to make calls telling states to find the exact number of votes that president needs to win, and to "just say you miscounted", while tossing in some vague threats about what will happen if they don't do it? 

[Longhorn_Fan68 33874]

neg and move on. fuck this guy