[Action80]

How can a "100 percent fabricated," quote be "blatantly taken out of context?"

LMMFAO!!!

Jesus Christ, this is exactly the type of spook shit I am talking about.

[honk]

If you had actually read the article instead of just glancing at it, you would have known that "100% fabricated" was in reference to a different quote attributed to Raskin. The article discusses more than one thing that Raskin has allegedly said.

[Action80]

I did read the article and it is spook shit.

I did hear Raskin say exactly what he said.

He said that 9 justices did not want to do his job.

So, he was whining about bullshit.

At least he didn't have his gay badge on when he was whining.

[AATW]

That's been blatantly taken out of context. Raskin was talking about the possibility of passing legislation at the federal level that would prohibit someone like Trump from being on the ballot, which is no more than what the Supreme Court themselves said was the appropriate course of action. That last point deserves emphasis - the SC did not rule in Trump v. Anderson that Trump had a guaranteed right to run for president and nobody was allowed to stop him. They ruled that only Congress had the power to determine eligibility for federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the states. In any case, Raskin certainly wasn't saying that they were going to refuse to certify Trump's victory.

That is Tom's MO - to find someone saying a thing and taking it out of context and pretending it's the prevailing view of <insert group here>.
It's very dishonest.

In other news I see Trump refused to rule out actually invading Greenland. Sheesh!

[Lord Dave]

Why does he want Canada and Greenland so badly?

Because of climate change.  The melting ice is making Arctic waterways open.  Which is strategic.

[AATW]

Why does he want Canada and Greenland so badly?

Because of climate change.  The melting ice is making Arctic waterways open.  Which is strategic.

Hasn't he always denied climate change is even happening?
Trump may be many things but I've never really thought of him as strategic.

[Tom Bishop]

That's been blatantly taken out of context. Raskin was talking about the possibility of passing legislation at the federal level that would prohibit someone like Trump from being on the ballot, which is no more than what the Supreme Court themselves said was the appropriate course of action. That last point deserves emphasis - the SC did not rule in Trump v. Anderson that Trump had a guaranteed right to run for president and nobody was allowed to stop him. They ruled that only Congress had the power to determine eligibility for federal office under Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the states. In any case, Raskin certainly wasn't saying that they were going to refuse to certify Trump's victory.

Yeah, no. The argument you are presenting of "no no no, he is just working against someone who is theoretically just like Trump" is a very poor argument. Rep Jamie Raskin went on a media tour telling everyone that Trump should be disqualified.

MSNBC - Rep. Raskin: To know the law is to understand Trump is disqualified from office

Yahoo News - Jamie Raskin on how the 14th Amendment applies to insurrectionists seeking office

Brian Tyler Cohen - Jamie Raskin on constitutionality of Trump disqualification

Forbes - 'The Supreme Court Punted': Jamie Raskin Reacts To Supreme Court Ruling In Favor Of Trump

Here is a quote from the last one:

Transcript @0:34
in any event the Supreme punted and said
it's up to Congress to act and so um I
am working with a number of my
colleagues including uh Debbie W and
Schultz and Eric Swell to revive
legislation that we had to set a process
by which we could determine that someone
uh who committed Insurrection is
disqualified by section the 14th
Amendment

So this guy clearly thinks that Trump should be disqualified, and suggests that he was actively working against Trump becoming president.

[Action80]

This is the thing.

Raskin shows he is clearly on the side of Trump.

He claims Trump is absolutely guilty of insurrection, yet will not perform his sworn Constitutional duty in taking the necessary steps to remove him from office.

He is a fucking coward.

Where is Aaron Burr when we need him!?!?

[AATW]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckg9gvg3452o

Looking forward for future history classes teaching how World War III started because Trump invaded Greenland 

[honk]

I did read the article and it is spook shit.

I did hear Raskin say exactly what he said.

He said that 9 justices did not want to do his job.

So, he was whining about bullshit.

At least he didn't have his gay badge on when he was whining.

If you had read the article, or even just the first few paragraphs of the article, then you would have known that the "100% fabricated" alleged quote was Raskin supposedly saying, "Let folks cast their votes for Trump if that’s their choice. But mark my words, we won’t be certifying the election. He might win, but we’ll ensure he doesn’t step foot in the Oval Office," not the video clip that Tom posted which I was saying had been taken out of context.

Yeah, no. The argument you are presenting of "no no no, he is just working against someone who is theoretically just like Trump" is a very poor argument. Rep Jamie Raskin went on a media tour telling everyone that Trump should be disqualified.

MSNBC - Rep. Raskin: To know the law is to understand Trump is disqualified from office

Yahoo News - Jamie Raskin on how the 14th Amendment applies to insurrectionists seeking office

Brian Tyler Cohen - Jamie Raskin on constitutionality of Trump disqualification

Forbes - 'The Supreme Court Punted': Jamie Raskin Reacts To Supreme Court Ruling In Favor Of Trump

Here is a quote from the last one:

Transcript @0:34
in any event the Supreme punted and said
it's up to Congress to act and so um I
am working with a number of my
colleagues including uh Debbie W and
Schultz and Eric Swell to revive
legislation that we had to set a process
by which we could determine that someone
uh who committed Insurrection is
disqualified by section the 14th
Amendment

So this guy clearly thinks that Trump should be disqualified, and suggests that he was actively working against Trump becoming president.

That's not my argument, and there's no need to try and convince me or anyone else that Raskin wanted to disqualify Trump, because of course he did. When I said "someone like Trump," I meant "someone who has done what Trump has done," because of course they wouldn't be writing a bill that mentioned Trump by name and was all about him specifically. I wasn't saying that this was all a coincidence. My actual argument is that Raskin was not talking about doing what Trump tried to do - stage a coup to stop the rightful winner of the election from taking power. He was talking about using the legal process, in accordance with the Constitution, to disqualify Trump from being eligible to run for president, which no less a body than the Supreme Court said Congress had the constitutional right to do. Regardless of whether or not you feel that doing such a thing is fair or ought to be allowed, the fact is that it is objectively not the same thing as staging a coup with brute force and overturning the results of an election that has already happened.

[Action80]

I did read the article and as I wrote earlier, it is quite obvious Raskin is totally onboard with a Trump presidency...amirite?

Raskin said Trump was an insurrectionist. The 14th Amendment already covers this. No need for a new bill.

Just an action like Aaron Burr.

Which of course, has already been attempted twice.

[Tom Bishop]

That's not my argument, and there's no need to try and convince me or anyone else that Raskin wanted to disqualify Trump, because of course he did. When I said "someone like Trump," I meant "someone who has done what Trump has done," because of course they wouldn't be writing a bill that mentioned Trump by name and was all about him specifically. I wasn't saying that this was all a coincidence. My actual argument is that Raskin was not talking about doing what Trump tried to do - stage a coup to stop the rightful winner of the election from taking power. He was talking about using the legal process, in accordance with the Constitution, to disqualify Trump from being eligible to run for president, which no less a body than the Supreme Court said Congress had the constitutional right to do. Regardless of whether or not you feel that doing such a thing is fair or ought to be allowed, the fact is that it is objectively not the same thing as staging a coup with brute force and overturning the results of an election that has already happened.

You were responding to this:

Actually Congressional Democrat representatives were threatening not to certify Trump's victory

I was responding to this:

So... Was it here or the other forum someone said the election wouldn't be certified?

Because it is was.
And without a problem. Or a riot.  Or anyone dying.

You admit that Democrats in Congress were, in fact, threatening or attempting to stop the certification of Trump's victory. So there is nothing further to discuss on this matter.

[Tom Bishop]

The Greenland PM recently announced that Greenland wishes to go independent. Now yesterday Greenland issued a press release on Trump's recent comments stating that they are struggling for independence and would be happy to work with the Trump and his administration.

It's not looking good for the narrative that Greenland wants nothing to do with Trump. The likelihood is high that if Greenland goes independent that they will voluntarily become a US protectorate.

Cabinet Press Release on Recent Comments by President-elect Donald Trump

Greenland's independence
Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders – and the development and future of Greenland will only be determined by the Greenlanders. The struggle for independence is the responsibility of the Greenlanders. We must decide and shape our own future. We know our rights as independent people.

International cooperation
States and countries are welcome to express interest in further cooperation with Greenland. We are open to closer and more ambitious cooperation with our neighboring countries in the pursuit of Greenland's independence. Greenland looks forward to discussions with the United States on economic cooperation, in the field of mining in Greenland, and on other opportunities related to the development of the country's important mineral resources and sectors.

The Trump administration
will work with Greenland today, today and in the future as one of the United States' closest partners. Greenland has had a defense cooperation with the United States for more than 80 years, and the cooperation has benefited both countries and their borders. The Cabinet is looking forward to building relations with President-elect Donald Trump and his administration. 

Political developments in the field of fisheries in the Arctic
Greenland is aware of the change in the political position in the field of fisheries in the Arctic. We understand and accept that Greenland is a decisive and important country in the US security interests. This is the reason why the Americans have an important military base in northern Greenland. Greenland looks forward to cooperating with the US government and NATO allies to ensure security and stability in the Arctic.

[Lord Dave]

The Greenland PM recently announced that Greenland wishes to go independent. Now yesterday Greenland issued a press release on Trump's recent comments stating that they are struggling for independence and would be happy to work with the Trump and his administration.

It's not looking good for the narrative that Greenland wants nothing to do with Trump. The likelihood is high that if Greenland goes independent that they will voluntarily become a US protectorate.

Greenland's independence
Greenland belongs to the Greenlanders – and the development and future of Greenland will only be determined by the Greenlanders. The struggle for independence is the responsibility of the Greenlanders. We must decide and shape our own future. We know our rights as independent people.

International cooperation
States and countries are welcome to express interest in further cooperation with Greenland. We are open to closer and more ambitious cooperation with our neighboring countries in the pursuit of Greenland's independence. Greenland looks forward to discussions with the United States on economic cooperation, in the field of mining in Greenland, and on other opportunities related to the development of the country's important mineral resources and sectors.

The Trump administration
will work with Greenland today, today and in the future as one of the United States' closest partners. Greenland has had a defense cooperation with the United States for more than 80 years, and the cooperation has benefited both countries and their borders. The Cabinet is looking forward to building relations with President-elect Donald Trump and his administration. 

Political developments in the field of fisheries in the Arctic
Greenland is aware of the change in the political position in the field of fisheries in the Arctic. We understand and accept that Greenland is a decisive and important country in the US security interests. This is the reason why the Americans have an important military base in northern Greenland. Greenland looks forward to cooperating with the US government and NATO allies to ensure security and stability in the Arctic.

So Greenland wants to be independent but also wants to be under the rule of the US.  And you don't see how this is contradictory logic?

[AATW]

It's not looking good for the narrative that Greenland wants nothing to do with Trump.

No-one has said that. They just don't want to be owned or ruled by the US. Do you know what "independence" even means? What do you think you're celebrating on 4th July?

[Action80]

The US certainly has a Day of Independence and Greenland (just like the Virgin Islands and Guam) can join that group in celebrating.

[Lord Dave]

The US certainly has a Day of Independence and Greenland (just like the Virgin Islands and Guam) can join that group in celebrating.

Oh yes, because because they really wanna stay in America.  They can vote for presidents (pointlessly).

[Action80]

Do you have any insight as to whether the Virgin Islands or Guam desire to remain a US protectorate or wish to leave?

I am going to take a wild guess and write: "No, you don't."

[Lord Dave]

Do you have any insight as to whether the Virgin Islands or Guam desire to remain a US protectorate or wish to leave?

I am going to take a wild guess and write: "No, you don't."

Do you?

[Lord Dave]

So, Trump has been sentence...


To nothing.  "Unconditional Discharge"
So, like all other rich people, he did something illegal and has had no penalty for it.  Not even a token fine.