Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Senator Cotton and Kurt Schlichter 184

Journal by smittyoneeach
Senator Cotton notes:

Every time a Republican won the presidency this century, Democrats tried to stop the certification.
Yet none of them faced criminal charges over what is obviously First Amendment protected activity.

In defense of Fanni Willis, her charges are no more garbage than the rest of the piffle on offer from the Democrats.

Schlichter seems equally unimpressed:

Some people ask me my legal opinion of these frame jobs masquerading as criminal cases. Well, I have no legal opinion of them because these have nothing to do with the law. When not invented out of whole cloth, they consist of inapplicable statutes stretched tighter than Nancy Pelosi's lifted and Botoxed face to try to encompass perfectly legal activities by people whose real crime is opposing the ruling class. And the accused aggravated their crimes by having succeeded for a time.
Do you think these laws only go one way? Do you think this precedent canâ(TM)t be used right back against you and yours?

Interestingly, we've been looking at the Saul/David transition in ancient Israel in Sunday School. Violence begets violence, and it is a hard thing to see every branch of government twisted, weaponized, and used to push people in completely unhealthy directions. Pray for peace.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Senator Cotton and Kurt Schlichter More

Senator Cotton and Kurt Schlichter

Comments Filter:

  • Democrats challenge Republicans in court then accept the court's ruling. Never once breaking the law.

    Republicans challenge the Democrats in court, get laughed at for having no evidence and violating tons of court rules, hire hackers to break into election machines, riot, kill cops, and engage in a criminal conspiracy to present false electors.

    Pretending that these things are similar demonstrates that you can not tell the difference between legal and illegal.

    It is NOT about what you do, but how you do it. I

    • Never once breaking the law.

      The Democrats are arguably demolishing the idea of the law by criminalizing dissent, weaponizing institutions (FBI/DOJ), blowing off enforcement, and generally sowing anarchy throughout the land. But do go on.

      • Oh please, ya can't single out the democrats... Anarchism means loss of authority. That's the last thing they want.

        • Anarchism means loss of authority. That's the last thing they want.

          https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/rahm-emanuel-reprises-never-let-a-crisis-go-to-waste-catchphrase-amid-coronavirus-pandemic [washingtonexaminer.com]

  • Doesn't mean it's true. When did democrats try to stop the certification in 2016, 2004, 2000, or any other previous election? What did they do to try to stop it? The tweet did not provide any information for that.

    And to really make it an apples to apples comparison, what did the losing candidate themselves do to try to stop it? I certainly don't recall a candidate stirring up a violent uprising but maybe the mainstream media just didn't cover it? I don't recall a candidate asking for a swing state to

    • The tweet did not provide any information for that.

      Knowledge abounds, but must be sought. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/07/13/rnc_video_democrats_long_history_of_denying_election_results.html [realclearpolitics.com]

      • Doesn't mean it's true. When did democrats try to stop the certification in 2016, 2004, 2000, or any other previous election? What did they do to try to stop it? The tweet did not provide any information for that.

        And to really make it an apples to apples comparison, what did the losing candidate themselves do to try to stop it? I certainly don't recall a candidate stirring up a violent uprising but maybe the mainstream media just didn't cover it? I don't recall a candidate asking for a swing state to conjure up more ballots to swing the vote, either.

        Knowledge abounds, but must be sought. https://www.realclearpolitics.... [realclearpolitics.com]

        The questions I asked - which I have quoted here to remind you what the questions were - were "When did democrats try to stop the certification in 2016, 2004, 2000, or any other previous election? What did they do to try to stop it?".

        I did not see any answers to any of those questions in your video montage. There were a couple video clips of Al Gore stating his belief that he won Florida in 2000, but not once did he encourage anyone to overturn the Florida count or to stop the certification of the Ele

        • OK, so you move the goalposts on "try".

          • OK, so you move the goalposts on "try".

            They sure as hell didn't achieve it. And your team has sacked the capitol to try to stop the counting. I'm giving you the leeway of showing me where they tried - as in, put in some sort of effort - and you can't come up with it. You can't come up with it because nothing the democrats have ever done even begins to compare to what your team has done.

            Regardless, your claim of moving the goalposts is invalid. My original question included the word try. I quoted my own question, that started this threa

            • And your team has sacked the capitol to try to stop the counting.

              Oh, come on, girl, you can fap that Fedboi Op harder than that!

              • And what did you say about moving goalposts? If this is the best you can do when faced with the fact that your cited source doesn't support your thesis, I suggest you read further into your sources before praising them here.
                • It looks like the J6 Committee was so legitimate that it destroyed evidence. https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2023/08/10/the-media-ignores-defunct-jan-6-committees-destruction-of-evidence-n2626849 [townhall.com]

                  To be fair, that's what one expects in a post-Constitutional state.
                  • It looks like once again you are claiming "the left" to be brilliant criminal masterminds and complete idiots. I guess that contradiction doesn't bother you as long as it gives you the opportunity to paint them as evil.

    • I do recall watching the Florida votes get counted, and recounted, and then stopped by the SCOTUS.

      Garbage like this is why I gave up trying to take you seriously. https://www.factcheck.org/2008/01/the-florida-recount-of-2000/ [factcheck.org]

      • I do recall watching the Florida votes get counted, and recounted, and then stopped by the SCOTUS.

        Garbage like this is why I gave up trying to take you seriously. https://www.factcheck.org/2008... [factcheck.org]

        What part of my statement that you quoted was refuted in the article you linked to? In the article they mention in the first paragraph:

        even if the U.S. Supreme Court had allowed a limited statewide recount to go forward as ordered by Florida's highest court

        Which supports the statement that votes were being recounted, and that the SCOTUS stopped it.

        • The point is that the Democrats were not allowed to continue recounting "using any means necessary" until they obtained the desired results. In Gore's defense, election reform is needful.

  • Trump was not only allowed to dispute an election he felt was fraudulent, but as president was constitutionally obligated to do so; that is the opposite of criminal — In fact, he is one of the only public officials willing to uphold the oath he swore.

    https://www.americanthinker.co... [americanthinker.com]

    • Trump DID dispute the election. He did it over and over and over in court. And lost in court.

      That's when he started breaking the law. He had no obligation to break the law and took no oath swearing to break the law.

      • He did it over and over and over in court. And lost in court.

        Please cite a specific case that went to trial. Any case.

Slashdot Top Deals

A computer scientist is someone who fixes things that aren't broken.

Close