Recent Posts

81
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by Rushy on March 06, 2024, 04:42:38 PM »
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.
82
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by honk on March 06, 2024, 04:31:35 PM »
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.
83
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by garygreen on March 06, 2024, 01:16:18 PM »
Quote from: Tim Bimbshop
political partisans say politically partisan things omg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111

oh wow really you don't say

i am utterly shocked
84
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by Tom Bishop on March 06, 2024, 02:57:31 AM »
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/

Quote
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.
85
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by Action80 on March 05, 2024, 07:44:40 PM »
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.
86
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by Rushy on March 05, 2024, 04:26:50 PM »
Trump can't be stumped. The Supreme Court knew better than to antagonize our greatest President.
87
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by honk on March 05, 2024, 04:17:34 PM »
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.
88
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by Lord Dave on March 05, 2024, 03:42:49 PM »
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.
89
Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Trump
« Last post by Action80 on March 05, 2024, 01:52:53 PM »
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.
90
Arts & Entertainment / Re: Now Playing (the Video Game Version)
« Last post by Crudblud on March 05, 2024, 01:24:35 PM »
Hot take since I finally got around to it. The only good thing about Dragon's Dogma is being able to pick up and throw people. That provided about ten minutes of solid entertainment.