[honk]

The case was about whether or not the states had the right to take it upon themselves to remove Trump from the ballot, not whether or not Trump was guilty of insurrection. It was a perfectly reasonable decision, and I'm not surprised that it was unanimous.

Incidentally, I really don't care that Keith Olbermann said something stupid in response to the ruling, and I don't feel any need to defend him or otherwise take responsibility for what he said. If you want to play this tit-for-tat "look what someone on your team said!" game, I'd argue there are far more Republicans who say stupid shit publicly every day than Democrats, and unlike Olbermann, many of them are actual elected officials. For a recent example, here's GOP Congressman Mike Collins boosting an openly racist and anti-semitic Twitter account and agreeing with an openly anti-semitic tweet. This from the same Republican party that's so quick to label anyone who makes entirely justified criticisms of Israel as anti-semitic.

And not that it really matters, but the NYP's characterization of the article in question is deeply dishonest. The author only briefly mentions in passing that America was built on stolen land, and doesn't try to justify or excuse shoplifting at all.

[Rushy]

Trump can't be stumped. The Supreme Court knew better than to antagonize our greatest President.

[Action80]

You are correct, I am.

Well, thats a bad ruling.  Means insurrection is ok so long as your party controls congress.

Joe better get impeached, then, so he can be immune to legal issues later.

It means there was not enough evidence to convict Trump of inciting an insurrection.

It means the words incitement and insurrection don't mean what you think they mean.

Despite his party all saying they would vote no to remove before seeing any evidence?
Surely you're trolling.

Adding "his party all saying," doesn't help your post.

You can quit trolling.

[Tom Bishop]

The case was about whether or not the states had the right to take it upon themselves to remove Trump from the ballot, not whether or not Trump was guilty of insurrection. It was a perfectly reasonable decision, and I'm not surprised that it was unanimous.

Incidentally, I really don't care that Keith Olbermann said something stupid in response to the ruling, and I don't feel any need to defend him or otherwise take responsibility for what he said.

It's not only Keith Olberman projecting and shifting blame to the Supreme Court.

https://thefederalist.com/2024/03/05/democrats-project-their-election-interference-onto-the-supreme-court-and-everyone-else/

Democrats Project Their Election Interference Onto The Supreme Court And Everyone Else

When the Supreme Court smacks down Democrats’ election interference, Democrats claim the courts are a threat to democracy.

The Supreme Court reined in Democrats’ democracy-destroying lawfare with a unanimous decision to restore Trump to Colorado’s ballot on Monday, rejecting Democrats’ arguments that states can weaponize the 14th Amendment to kick their opponents — who have never been tried for nor convicted of “insurrection” — off the ticket.

Democrats have responded by absurdly claiming courts are the ones engaging in “election interference.”

“This is another example among many that are playing out right now, of the Supreme Court playing a huge role in American elections, and it’s not necessarily the case that that’s a good thing for the Supreme Court,” said Russia hoaxer and Democrat mouthpiece Ken Dilanian on MSNBC. This is “going to be seen by many people as the court essentially interfering in some sense in the election, and so this is all sort of playing out here in terms of how we assess the Supreme Court and its legacy.”

Former Democrat Rep. Donna Edwards advanced the same narrative on the same network, going after the Supreme Court for being “right in the middle of an election.”

“Not since Bush v. Gore have we seen a court that’s had this many opportunities to interfere in the election,” Edwards said. “This campaign is going to come down to whether voters want to choose somebody who either is facing criminal conviction or is convicted of a crime, and whether or not they want to preserve democracy.”

The Washington Post’s Ruth Marcus blasted the court’s “complicity” in “boost[ing]” Trump. Meanwhile, a member of The New York Times editorial board explicitly called the whole ordeal “election interference” and said, “[T]he court is putting itself in the middle of politics.” Former CNN commentator Keith Olbermann’s brain worms got the better of him, leading him to write that the “corrupt and illegitimate” Supreme Court “betrayed democracy” and “must be dissolved.”

Here’s how it goes: Voters engaging in the democratic process prefer a candidate Democrats hate. So Democrats do everything in their power, including ignoring due process and the rule of law, to tarnish that candidate at best or remove him from the ballot at worst.

That candidate appeals Democrats’ unjust lawfare in court. The courts recognize the lawfare as such and smack it down. But then, according to Democrats, the courts are the ones engaging in election interference, the candidate is the threat to democracy, and the voters are rubes if they elect somebody who’s been convicted.

In Democrats’ telling, Democrats’ hands are clean.

[garygreen]

political partisans say politically partisan things omg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111

oh wow really you don't say

i am utterly shocked

[honk]

First of all, it wasn't Democrats who brought the case to kick Trump off the ballot; it was anti-Trump Republicans. That's a very basic fact about this case to get wrong, and it doesn't bode well for the rest of the article.

Dilanian and Edwards both offered entirely reasonable commentary about the role of the Supreme Court in the election and how public perception will likely regard it. Neither of them even said they actually disagreed with the ruling. The articles from the NYT and WaPo, meanwhile, were both written several days ago, which is kind of a giveaway that neither of them were criticizing this ruling. They were criticizing the Court playing along with Trump's insane "the president should always be immune from any and all criminal charges" argument and giving him the lengthy delay in his trials that he wants so he can wait out the clock and be reelected before he faces justice.

Even if this article had cited four excellent examples of prominent Democrats whining about the Court not kicking Trump off the ballot, it would still only be very weak anecdotal evidence, but it's interesting that this garbage website apparently couldn't even do that.

[Rushy]

First of all, it wasn't Democrats who brought the case to kick Trump off the ballot; it was anti-Trump Republicans.

It was "Republicans" backed by a Democrat activist organization. While it's a common clever tactic to say "uhm ackshully it was Republicans that brought the case", it's transparent to anyone who has bothered looking more into it that it was a bunch of Democrats searching for someone to mask their tactics.

[Action80]

It was Democrats seeking to kick a lifelong Democrat off the ballot. I mean, you guys should write the truth.

[honk]

No one here said election interference is okay

Yes, because instead you deflected from it by trying to talk about the DNC's corruption instead.

...it's just that the DNC did nothing about the corruption at all. They just let it slide, just as you are, because the bad people exposed it. Corruption is only bad if good people expose it!

...

That's called... not caring.

None of this is true. I don't have to discuss the subject of the DNC's corruption with you if I don't want to, just as I don't have to discuss any number of irrelevant subjects with you if I don't want to. You can't draw any meaningful conclusions about what I do or don't condone from me simply choosing not to discuss an irrelevant subject with you.

Here's the thing though, the "Putin wants Trump" propaganda is... a lie. It didn't happen. It doesn't exist. Hillary made it up as a smear and it persists despite a complete lack of evidence.

That's really interesting! Someone should tell this guy, because he seems to think differently.

Also, it's not a coincidence that Roe v Wade meets its end under a Catholic president, but I'm sure you think it's still Trump's fault!

You're going to have to put more effort into your bait than this.

It's like if someone doesn't explicitly explain every fine detail of politics to you, you miss the plot entirely! The concept of Biden being a conservative, which he is, probably doesn't compute because he keeps doing conservative actions while saying liberal words.

You say I am "both sides"'ing you, but surely you've noticed Biden is farther right than Obama, who was already a centrist! You've been tricked into voting between two conservatives and you don't even mind!

There is no conflict between acknowledging that Biden is far from a leftist - or even a liberal - and arguing that he is vastly preferable to Trump. There might be more validity to what you were saying if it were a standard Republican rather than Trump who was running against Biden, although Roe being overturned would almost certainly have happened with any Republican in office - there's no way a lifelong womanizer like Trump really has any kind of special animosity towards abortion, after all. But Trump is a special breed who's uniquely unsuited for office, which he proved time and time again during his four years in office.

It was "Republicans" backed by a Democrat activist organization. While it's a common clever tactic to say "uhm ackshully it was Republicans that brought the case", it's transparent to anyone who has bothered looking more into it that it was a bunch of Democrats searching for someone to mask their tactics.

I haven't seen any mention of this organization in any of the media coverage of this case. I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, only that this information definitely isn't so obvious or "transparent" as to not even merit being supported with a citation in an article blaming Democrats for pushing this case.

[Rushy]

Yes, because instead you deflected from it by trying to talk about the DNC's corruption instead.

It's not deflection to point out your idea of "Russians helped Republicans win" involved Russians releasing emails containing blatant DNC corruption. Had the DNC not been corrupt, it wouldn't have helped Republicans at all!

None of this is true. I don't have to discuss the subject of the DNC's corruption with you if I don't want to, just as I don't have to discuss any number of irrelevant subjects with you if I don't want to. You can't draw any meaningful conclusions about what I do or don't condone from me simply choosing not to discuss an irrelevant subject with you.

I can't force you to unbury your head, it can stay buried as long as you want!

That's really interesting! Someone should tell this guy, because he seems to think differently.

Unsurprisingly, you failed to specify why these two posts are conflicted.

You're going to have to put more effort into your bait than this.

Again with the head burying...

There is no conflict between acknowledging that Biden is far from a leftist - or even a liberal - and arguing that he is vastly preferable to Trump. There might be more validity to what you were saying if it were a standard Republican rather than Trump who was running against Biden, although Roe being overturned would almost certainly have happened with any Republican in office - there's no way a lifelong womanizer like Trump really has any kind of special animosity towards abortion, after all. But Trump is a special breed who's uniquely unsuited for office, which he proved time and time again during his four years in office.

Oh no, two candidates that don't believe in what they're saying, both are lifelong democrats and yet both are conservative. I guess you'll have to pick which one doesn't post mean tweets, since that's apparently the only difference now.

I haven't seen any mention of this organization in any of the media coverage of this case. I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong, only that this information definitely isn't so obvious or "transparent" as to not even merit being supported with a citation in an article blaming Democrats for pushing this case.

You mean you haven't seen it mentioned in any of the Reddit comments you've been reading. Don't try to tell me you read news articles. You don't.

[honk]

That's a great response. I like how you posted a bunch of facts and made some very reasoned arguments to support your position. I'm totally convinced.

[Action80]

Yes, I agree Saddam.

It was excellent that Rushy pointed out you don't read any news articles.

[Rushy]

That's a great response. I like how you posted a bunch of facts and made some very reasoned arguments to support your position. I'm totally convinced.

The important thing here is that you will vote for a corrupt party with a conservative candidate. But which one will you choose?

[Tom Bishop]

Here is a summary of Trump's next agenda provided by a nice young man who clearly wants to spread the hype.

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1766200580790268044

[Lord Dave]

Ssoo....
He wants to do a bunch of stuff he can't legally do.  Huh.
He also wants Russia to win.  I thought he was tough on Russia?
He also wants to remove vehicular choices by forcing onky gas powered cars.
He also wants to abolish the Department of Education while also creating a federal academy that everyone is legally required to treat as a bachelor equivilent even tho he returned all educational standards to the state.

Mass deportations sound great until you see we already have that Under Biden.  Record numbers.  Wonder how he'll find em?

Finally, he wants to build freedom cities on federal land?  Like... How would these be anything differenat than normal cities?  Because they'd be under the federal government, which means they can't vote and the feds have full, communist like control?

Me thinks he's a bit contradictory....

[Action80]

Well, bit by bit, the "two more weeks," is going to turn into four more years. Georgia is turning into a three-ring circus.

[AATW]

Sigh.



This is why democracy is a terrible idea.

[Action80]

Sigh.

video snipped because Jimmy Kimmel is a goddamn moron

This is why democracy is a terrible idea.

The very first question by "the "man in the street," to the layperson had to do with the issue of a "shining light cure," for respiratory illness, such as corona.

Since UV light is a safe and effective treatment, as anyone can see, can we just dispose of your nonsense now?

https://www.google.com/search?q=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&rlz=1C1GCEO_en&oq=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigAdIBCTEyOTQzajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[Lord Dave]

Sigh.

video snipped because Jimmy Kimmel is a goddamn moron

This is why democracy is a terrible idea.

The very first question by "the "man in the street," to the layperson had to do with the issue of a "shining light cure," for respiratory illness, such as corona.

Since UV light is a safe and effective treatment, as anyone can see, can we just dispose of your nonsense now?

https://www.google.com/search?q=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&rlz=1C1GCEO_en&oq=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigAdIBCTEyOTQzajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Nice find.

I mean, it was done after Trump said it but thats not the point.  If it was, why did they say Joe Biden had dimentia?  Surely the answers should have been the same regardless of who said it, no?

[Action80]

Sigh.

video snipped because Jimmy Kimmel is a goddamn moron

This is why democracy is a terrible idea.

The very first question by "the "man in the street," to the layperson had to do with the issue of a "shining light cure," for respiratory illness, such as corona.

Since UV light is a safe and effective treatment, as anyone can see, can we just dispose of your nonsense now?

https://www.google.com/search?q=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&rlz=1C1GCEO_en&oq=UV+light+treatment+for+respiratory+illness&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIHCAEQIRigATIHCAIQIRigAdIBCTEyOTQzajBqN6gCALACAA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Nice find.

I mean, it was done after Trump said it but thats not the point.  If it was, why did they say Joe Biden had dimentia?  Surely the answers should have been the same regardless of who said it, no?

What do you mean it was done after Trump said it?

A pharmaceutical company made mention of it three days prior to Trump stating it.

I suppose when anyone mentions Joe Biden has dementia, it is because the rackety old paedo has dementia.