Journal damn_registrars's Journal: The next steps for the USHouse GOP 113
Not that this should surprise anyone when it rolls out, but I'll lay it out here before they start to execute these next steps. The first is already in motion but hasn't built much momentum yet.
- Blame the democrats for the situation
- This is already well in motion, they are pretending that the democrats are responsible for the lack of a speaker (ignoring that they needed 15 votes to elect the previous) and that the whole problem therefore belongs at the feet of the democrats instead of the GOP.
- Take credit as the "party of diversity"
- After all they have both conservatives and conservative fascists in their party, and because of that they are now over 2 weeks behind their original claimed deadline for putting in a new speaker
It's a farce (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Still in denial I see...
the sun has set on the idea of electing representatives to legislate.
And waving the white flag
Re: (Score:2)
All of that School House Rock stuff is wayyyyy gone.
Re: (Score:1)
Don't blame the Congresscritter. The voters give them no reason to change. I only question why they keep reelecting them, rhetorically of course. We already know the answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't blame the Congresscritter. The voters give them no reason to change.
How many addicts have you know who'd die in their chemicals ahead of facing the pain of cleaning up?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If we go making allowances for externalities like context and education, we're on the slippery slope to offering excuses and modeling the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
They just exploit man's animal instincts which easily overrules all rationality
Wow, it's almost like you came near to agreeing with the Maslow-3D model.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But we've "Progressed" way beyond that, I suppose.
Spoiler alert: 2020 was kinda hinky => Debunked?: An auditor reviews the 2020 election--and the lessons learned [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Well, we'd need a valid justice system
Those words, I don't think they mean what you think they mean.
Our current justice system has been giving all kinds of crazy leeway to the leader of Your Team that nobody else on earth would ever be granted by any other system. If you ask for it to be "valid", then he should be campaigning from jail with all his communications monitored thusly.
get everyone in court, under oath, and hash out the evidence
Who would constitute "everyone"? Every single voter in the country? Who gets to hash out the "evidence"? Presumably just people approved by Your Team? What
Re: (Score:2)
Our current justice system has been giving all kinds of crazy leeway to the leader of Your Team
Two impeachments and four major court cases is "leeway"? Your Team is running Maoist show trials (*cough*Derek Chauvin*cough*) to the corrosive detriment of the judicial branch, and you call it "leeway"?
What happens when Your Team still can't find enough "evidence" to show the fraud that you are so certain happened?
THANK YOU. This is precisely my point. Shag all the Team-wad noise: if we cared about, e.g. elections, then, Trump's bluff should have been called on the front end. Apparently, it was more useful to let the resentment fester than to reveal that Trump was a fat emperor sporting it in the buff.
We have progressed beyond random partisan witch hunts, yes.
Oh, please. Your
Re: (Score:2)
Two impeachments and four major court cases is "leeway"?
Two impeachments resulted in zero punishment for him. If anything they made him into more of a martyr for Your Team. The four major court cases are working their way through, though none have any great chance of a criminal conviction against your Dear Leader that would result in any jail time. Only his underlings get punished, while he gets enshrined instead.
Your Team is running Maoist show trials (*cough*Derek Chauvin*cough*)
He had all the same rights as any other accused person. He had the right to call witnesses, cross examine the state, etc. What on earth about it
Re: (Score:2)
What on earth about it makes you call it a "show trial"?
Ep. 32 You’ll be shocked to learn this, but it turns out the whole George Floyd story was a lie. [x.com]
(2:36) "The kind of case that ends careers"
(3:30) Vince Everett Ellison
(9:25) Democrats & Oppression
(11:28) "Burn, Loot, and Murder"
He had all the same rights as any other accused person.
"The difference between theory and practice is greater in practice than in theory."--Herb Sutter
Your Team kept insisting they were about to release great evidence, and then of course released nothing.
Once more, with feeling: failure to call the bluff and get people under oath, in court, did no one any good. Ambiguity, while the soul of humor, reeks horribly where elect
Re: (Score:2)
What on earth about it makes you call it a "show trial"?
(tucker carlson spouting conspiratorial nonsense on twitter)
If any of that is true, then Chauvin has a great basis for launching an appeal.
He had all the same rights as any other accused person.
"The difference between theory and practice is greater in practice than in theory."--Herb Sutter
What rights was Chauvin denied? You have shared conspiratorial gossip, nothing that actually rises to meet your accusation of him somehow being the victim of a "show trial".
Your Team kept insisting they were about to release great evidence, and then of course released nothing.
failure to call the bluff and get people under oath, in court, did no one any good.
Once again though we're dealing with a conspiracy that cannot be disproven to the believers of said conspiracy. They always believe that someone is going to come forward "soon" with more evidence. We are now starting to see some of the bigger cogs in the
Re: (Score:2)
What rights was Chauvin denied?
Oh, just a fair trial. https://legalinsurrection.com/2023/07/derek-chauvin-did-not-receive-a-fair-trial-but-minnesota-supreme-court-will-not-hear-his-appeal/ [legalinsurrection.com]
Recent events and the domestic echoes show the depth of the malevolent, anti-Western Narrative on offer.
Pray for peace; prepare for otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
What surprises me more is that he is apparently some new conservative sweetheart. Not too long ago
Re: (Score:2)
No one is accusing Chauvin of sainthood.
Whereas George Floyd was straight up beatified by Your Team.
Which points are irrelevant to the question of whether Your Team has leveraged Chauvin toward the demolition of our justice system.
Because I think that is precisely what has been going on since #OccupiedResoluteDesk was elected.
Re: (Score:2)
No one is accusing Chauvin of sainthood.
You're not falling far short of it with your new arguments in his favor. He murdered someone on camera. You're now calling his conviction a "show trial". That's a huge swing from where you were before. None of the arguments your lawyer friends make in the post you linked to warrant overturning the verdict. Some may warrant a new trial, but none rise to the level of your allegations of it being a "show trial".
On top of that you've walked away from all the other arguments you made in this thread and a
Re: (Score:2)
He murdered someone on camera. You're now calling his conviction a "show trial".
Subsequent evidence militates in this direction, yes.
That's a huge swing from where you were before.
Well, ya know, it may be the case that the propaganda was more settled than the science. Do we care about justice? Or is "The issue not the issue: the Revolution is the issue", as David Horowitz observed in his radical days?
completely discarded the justice system when he killed George Floyd.
Not enough hyperbole. Try harder.
Re: (Score:2)
He murdered someone on camera. You're now calling his conviction a "show trial".
Subsequent evidence militates in this direction, yes.
I have seen no new evidence in the text you linked to. What I saw was a standard defense lawyer grocery list in submitting an appeal. And just like with any other such list, half of it doesn't hold up to critique.
A good clue here is that they proposed alternative solutions to pretty well none of their grievances. They are attempting to defend someone who committed murder on camera. This is the kind of defense you see posted by people who are paid to defend these types of criminals; it's how they ge
Re: (Score:1)
Subsequent evidence militates in this direction, yes.
Really? You have some that can justify the homicide? Or are we denying it was homicide?
Re: (Score:2)
Their next step wil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Hmm, I love the way your favorite tabloid put it, "a white cop kneeling on the neck of a doped-up black criminal who conveniently died". I guess the trick worked,huh?
Re: (Score:2)
I guess the trick worked,huh?
To the tune of billions of dollars of damage by the time the godless Commies were done whipping up violence. But we're not to notice that?
Re: (Score:2)
The farce is Your Team cherry picking the data to make a martyr of a murderer.
Your hero of the week was a bad cop. Period. (Score:2)
If you actually care about the Police Department in Minneapolis, you would prefer for him to stay in jail. His actions were bad for good cops, bad c
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
put so much effort into making political hay of your hero cop being convicted of murder
Has to do with the rubble that used to form the mosaic of a legal system. But Your Team destroys all.
Re: (Score:2)
he was stoned
Which is not a capital offense.
and violent.
Which is simply not true. He did not want to get into the police car, and your new Hero murdered him for daring to have that opinion. Given your support for totalitarianism, I guess it doesn't surprise me that you support that kind of public execution. Though didn't you previously raise a claim of a "show trial"? Or is your new argument that bypassing a trial entirely and going straight to execution is better than a "show trial"?
Re: (Score:2)
put so much effort into making political hay of your hero cop being convicted of murder
Has to do with the rubble that used to form the mosaic of a legal system.
You do realize that his appeal is still moving through the legal system, right? Your friends in the SCOTUS have a chance to make their mark on this matter. You previously stated - with more recent and accurate data - that your Hero was "not a sympathetic character". Now you've shifted to older - and debunked - data and you're instead claiming that somehow he faced a "show trial". If your friends in the SCOTUS decline to hear the appeal will you then flip back to the reasonable side?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given your support for totalitarianism
What a blessing it is that you're so utterly false on this. The alternative is unacceptable, no matter how hard you strive to provoke it.
Re: (Score:2)
Given your support for totalitarianism
What a blessing it is that you're so utterly false on this.
Just like so many other fascists from Your Team, you trip on yourself trying to honor your Dear Leader as quickly and loudly as possible. He is the new image of American Totalitarianism, and you will never hesitate to bend a knee in front of a shrine to him.
Re: (Score:2)
The bigger question is why does His Team suddenly have such a rabid interest in this case. Is this something they are doing to try to preemptively set up a defense for their Dear Leader should anything beyond a small fine be levied against him for his crimes against The People?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As Tucker pointed out [twitter.com] at some point, Your Team may simply have the juice squeezed out of the Eminence Orange.
Which underscores the point that he has no intellectual heir. (While bemused by Trump, I have always and remain resolutely opposed to anything dynastic. No. We are not that far gone as a country, despite Your Team's most demonic efforts).
Whatever command of the base he holds, more that that is needed to sustain the recovery from the godless Commies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
they are doing to try to preemptively set up a defense for their Dear Leader should anything beyond a small fine be levied against him for his crimes against The People?
Wha....?
Re: (Score:2)
Whether or not Chauvin is sympathetic is irrelevant
That is somewhat true. What is not irrelevant is the fact that he murdered someone. He was not even close to following reasonable police procedure. He brought a giant stain upon the Minneapolis Police Department.
Your Team is tearing up the legal system on pretty much every level.
Really? How would that be possible when Your Team has a giant overwhelming advantage in the SCOTUS?
Re: (Score:2)
Which underscores the point that he has no intellectual heir.
Holy shit! I had to go get some paper towels to wipe down my monitors after the giant spit take I did when I saw you employ the phrase "intellectual heir". Hell, Air Bud was on the same intellectual level as your Dear Leader, though I have heard that particular golden retriever is indeed deceased. There are plenty of ficus trees around who could go toe to toe with Trump though.
I have always and remain resolutely opposed to anything dynastic. No. We are not that far gone as a country, despite Your Team's most demonic efforts
When was the last time that someone who wasn't from Your Team ran for a federal office previously held by their parent? I can'
Re: (Score:2)
they are doing to try to preemptively set up a defense for their Dear Leader should anything beyond a small fine be levied against him for his crimes against The People?
Wha....?
You are proudly parrotting Your Team's varied assaults on the legal system, working hard to stir up as much FUD about it as you can. Being as your Dear Leader's supporters are turning against him one after another, this seems like a predictable strategy for Your Team to keep Him out of jail. By perpetuating the fact-free myth of the entire system being corrupt, un-salvageable, and biased, you give your Dear Leader the ammunition he needs to mount an assault against it - legality be damned.
You might w
Re: (Score:2)
What is not irrelevant is the fact that he murdered someone. He was not even close to following reasonable police procedure.
What if...in support of a narrative...an autopsy was pencil-whipped? Nah, that absolutely could NEVER happen. No way.
Re: (Score:2)
Your Team has a giant overwhelming advantage in the SCOTUS?
What if the law were non-partisan?
Re: (Score:2)
anything dynastic
When was the last time that someone who wasn't from Your Team ran for a federal office previously held by their parent?
*cough*Kennedy*cough*
*cough*Clinton*cough*
Your typical rhetorical garbage of jacking around with the scope of the point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What is not irrelevant is the fact that he murdered someone. He was not even close to following reasonable police procedure.
What if...in support of a narrative...an autopsy was pencil-whipped?
You're asking the world to not believe what they saw. Do you honestly believe that after having someone's knee on his neck for over 9 minutes, having become completely unresponsive with no pulse before the ambulance arrived, his death was just a coincidence brought on from having possibly smoked pot sometime in the past month?
What Chauvin did was not in any way justified or in line with proper police procedure. He murdered someone on the street, just because he could. I'm more than willing to accept
Re: (Score:2)
When was the last time that someone who wasn't from Your Team ran for a federal office previously held by their parent?
*cough*Kennedy*cough*
RFK Jr is running for an office that his father never held. JFK Jr never ran for an office that his father held either.
*cough*Clinton*cough*
I haven't followed the political activity of Chelsea Clinton, but wikipedia doesn't mention her ever having run for office herself [wikipedia.org]
Maybe you were in too much of a hurry, but my question specifically said
When was the last time that someone who wasn't from Your Team ran for a federal office previously held by their parent?
Which would be a much better argument for the formation of a "dynasty".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
support the destruction of our legal and political systems
Yes, that's why the Federalist Society worked within the system for a literal half-century to restore sanity with Dobbs, whereas Your Team leaked that decision early to pressure the court. How utterly, despicably false can your accusations get? You see why I don't take you seriously at all?
Re: (Score:2)
On planet earth it is recognized that Chauvin killed George Floyd. Floyd would have survived that day had he not found himself under Chauvin's oh-now-so-infinitely-righteous knee for 9 minutes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's why the Federalist Society worked within the system for a literal half-century to restore sanity with Dobbs
They worked the system. I wouldn't say they worked within it so much as they abused and bludgeoned it to their will. Calling it sanity though is a stretch; they just happened to install supporters in the right places to make their own dreams come true. It was by no means a reflection of the majority of people in this country nor was it a sane choice in the interests of health of people in this country. Of course health choices that don't result in good financial returns have never been popular with You
Re: (Score:2)
Your Team has a giant overwhelming advantage in the SCOTUS?
What if the law were non-partisan?
Being as that would not be compatible with the dominant philosophy of Your Team, I would not expect Your Team to allow such a thing to last. Your Team intentionally changed the rules multiple times to give themselves an advantage in the SCOTUS. If they were interested in being non-partisan they would have at least been consistent on when they could appoint someone to rule there.
Re: (Score:2)
Your Team intentionally changed the rules multiple times to give themselves an advantage in the SCOTUS.
If you're alluding to Merrick Garland then I will applaud until my hands a numb. He's an abject disgrace who doesn't deserve a public position of any sort.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They worked the system. I wouldn't say they worked within it so much as they abused and bludgeoned it to their will.
Can you please elaborate on the distinction here? At what point was politics anything other than a raw expression of Nietzchean Will To Power?
The March for Life spent that half-century peacefully expressing views commonly held; the Federalist Society organized and built the cadre of sane judges; Ruth Bader Ginsberg held on too long; Mitch McConnell borrowed some vertebrae to hold the line against a godless Commie nominee: the system worked!
And all we get from you is butthurt.
Re: (Score:2)
Your Team intentionally changed the rules multiple times to give themselves an advantage in the SCOTUS.
If you're alluding to Merrick Garland
I'm specifically referring to how in 2016 after Scalia died, Your Team said there wasn't enough time for a nominee to be discussed, so they refused to hear it for months waiting for the election to pass. Then in 2020 when Ginsburg passed barely a month prior, Your Team realized their toxic POTUS had little chance of reelection so they discarded their own rule to ram through a SCOTUS nominee.
Though if you want to discuss Garland, then you should be able to come up with some logical reason for Your Team
Re: (Score:2)
Narrative
You are the one seeking a narrative. You are discarding actual facts and inserting opinions - many of which are at best based on partial facts - in their place.
I'm still interested in knowing why you are suddenly interested in defending a murderer, though. Your view of him took a huge swing all of a sudden, but what is it that you have to gain by defending him?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your Team realized their toxic POTUS had little chance of reelection so they discarded their own rule to ram through a SCOTUS nominee.
Your Team destroyed the judicial process with Bork. And now Your Team has set about the destruction of all three branches. While blaming the GOPatsies, who, admittedly, assume the position on a regular basis.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You not a fan of the Adams family?
Compared to the current GOP, John and John Quincy were raging communists. I'm sure Smitty will tell us that is the official position on them of His Team. They never wore the correct team insignia, so he has license to hate them for all eternity.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One hopes there is enough country remaining to restore when the Zombie Junta is peacefully overthrown at the ballot box.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Compared to the current GOP, John and John Quincy were raging communists.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not terribly hard to find.
That may be true, but I intentionally leave slashdot discussions on slashdot. To the best of my knowledge I do not converse with anyone from slashdot anywhere other than here. I intend to keep it that way; when the site goes down damn_registrars will cease to exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Has nothing to do with the point that Ted Kennedy initiated the Character Assassination tradition in the Senate.
Please, fill me in with direct quotes and actions from him that show this. Not conservative summaries and feeling statements, please show me exactly what he said that offends you so greatly. Don't tell me to just "google it", if you have such strong feelings about it certainly you know reputable sources to support it. What was said on the senate floor is public record, you can cite it directly.
Re: (Score:2)
The evidence that Your Team rigged the trial
That's not true.
(known at the time, but it came up again with the Tucker interview)
That's also not true. Just because someone near and dear to Your Team wants you to believe it, does not make it true. The evidence was presented at trial, if you choose to ignore it you have the right to do so. You do not however have the right to claim it to be some wide-ranging "leftist conspiracy".
and that he's appealing to SCOTUS, brought it up.
Your conspiracy will likely not be heard by your friends at SCOTUS as they will recognize the absurdity of it, even given the absurdity of the folks on the court itself.
peacefully overthrown at the ballot box.
Your Team has show
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your Team has shown a disregard for the results of the ballot box. If your Dear Leader loses yet again, what will Your Team do then?
I would suggest running a clean election, but I fear the sun has set on those days until there is enough power to make reform happen despite the liars.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the GOP of today would kick out Lincoln, Reagan, and Ike all for being far too liberal,
As long as you're just making counterfactual stuff up out of whole cloth, let's have Lincoln, Reagan, and Ike rejected for being Klingon. Your bollocks will be no less meaningful for the editorial change, sir.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your Team has shown a disregard for the results of the ballot box. If your Dear Leader loses yet again, what will Your Team do then?
I would suggest running a clean election
That sounds a lot like you're saying that there is no situation under which you would be willing to accept another loss by your Dear Leader, regardless of the margin. Who, again, is attacking democracy?
Re: (Score:2)
Given the GOP of today would kick out Lincoln, Reagan, and Ike all for being far too liberal,
Your bollocks will be no less meaningful for the editorial change, sir.
Reagan was once a member of a union, by his own free will. That's enough to get someone permanently blacklisted by the GOP as being philosphically unpure. On top of that Reaganomics 1.0 was practically socialism compared to what Your Team has tried since then. His "11th commandment" of never speaking ill of another conservative has been clearly thrown out the window as well (nevermind how much the GOP has embraced breaking - at least - the 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th as well).
Lincoln was actua
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's enough to get someone permanently blacklisted by the GOP as being philosphically unpure.
Trump was a Dem too, no? At least you're consistent in the falsehoods.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds a lot like you're saying that there is no situation under which you would be willing to accept another loss by your Dear Leader, regardless of the margin. Who, again, is attacking democracy?
Your Team.
That is a strange alternate reality you paint there. Your Team is planting the seeds for another insurrection if you don't like the results of next year's vote, after you had already held one after the 2020 vote. Your own Dear Leader never publicly accepted the results of the 2020 election either, and continues to spread lies about it. None of that is normal, none of that has ever happened after a presidential election in this country.
Re: (Score:2)
That's enough to get someone permanently blacklisted by the GOP as being philosphically unpure.
Trump was a Dem too, no?
You cherry-picked your way in to losing all context. Please try again if you have a point to make. If you're just trying for some obscure cheap jab, then just carry on.