Jump to content

BHMCruiser

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1592
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by BHMCruiser

  1. 1 minute ago, DigglerontheHoof said:

    Just what the fuck was he trying to do, in your opinion?

    Trying to press his claim that the election had been stolen from him. And it spun out of control on him because he's an idiot surrounded by morons and schemers who blew smoke up his ass about what he could and couldn't do. 

     

    2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

    He's on tape trying to do it. 

    Where? 

    • Fuck You 2
  2. 1 minute ago, Captainant said:

    He didn't just push the lie. He submitted fraudulent documents to states. He actively conspired and planned to get the false documents accepted into federal proceedings. They wanted to hang Mike Pence because he would not accept the fraudulent documents. 

    THEY BROUGHT FUCKING GALLOWS TO THE CAPITAL 

     

    That's not just talking about things, man. That's conspiracy and insurrection.

    So when did it become an insurrection. At what point exactly? The ACLU has publicly stated Trump's comments at the rally are protected speech (I'm not saying they're right). And a lot of this stuff is the same shady election fraud that happens all the time - and which should be prosecuted when it can be - but that does not make it an insurrection. Sending false documents somewhere is not even in the same universe as using force to overthrow a government. 

    • Fuck You 4
  3. 9 minutes ago, Captainant said:

    We have so many other pieces of evidence and text messages and emails and all the receipts of them knowingly pushing the lie that "the election was stolen from trump". How is fabricating that story, working with multiple billion dollar media empires to amplify that message, coordinating a funding a rally to bring all the rioters to the capital on J6, SPEAKING AT THAT RALLY AND TELLING THEM TO MARCH AND THAT HE WOULD FOLLOW THEM, and then actively preventing the military from taking substantive action against the fascists as they attacked?

     

    You didn't think ....... THAT was insurrection?

    What, did he have to be shouting "IM DOING AN INSURRECTION" as he did it for it to count?

    What the fucking fuck?

    The civil war was an insurrection. I do not think Trump was trying to overthrow the government. If you want to persecute every candidate who has pushed the lie that an election was stolen from them, you will have a tough row to hoe.

    • Fuck You 9
  4. 2 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

    Wickard and Roe were correct and the only problem with the Obamacare decision (I'm assuming he's referring to the first one) is it unnecessarily analyzed and reached a conclusion on the interstate commerce argument and invalidated the Medicaid expansion with what can't even charitably be called legal reasoning. 

    Wickard was clearly wrong. Roe was laughably wrong. Dobbs was wrong because stare decisis is critical to ordered liberty. Obamacare was wrong because you cannot call something a "tax" unless it originates in the House. That's my only beef with that decision. They should have addressed the interstate commerce issues more squarely. It was a sleight of hand. 

  5. 2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

    You misread what I wrote. Or I may have stated it poorly.

    You stated there needs to be a conviction for section 3 to execute. I stated not according to the constitution 

    You also states there needs to be a uniformly applicable federal law. Which I agree, there should be one. The fact we’re relying on 7 political appointments to interpret words written by a bunch of rich fucks from 150 years ago to determine the outcome of our country is insanity. 

    Sorry my fault. I don't think there needs to be a "conviction," per se. I do think that there has to be some sort of federal government action against an individual before he or she can be categorized as an insurrectionist and therefore subject to the restrictions imposed by Section 3. It could be legislative, or some sort of judicial process, but it cannot just be states taking their best shot at it, so to speak. I should have been more clear. 

    2 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

    Those are all trash for sure but I think refusing to apply the plain language of the constitution solely because of fear of MAGAts takes the cake. 

    I disagree but I understand your point.

  6. 2 hours ago, Neonmoon said:

    Did any of them provide aid or support an insurrection?

    You tell me. I don't think DJT fomented an insurrection, or that what happened on 1/6 was an insurrection. I also think they should have shot every single person who tried to storm the Capitol that day.

    2 hours ago, Longhorn_Fan68 said:

    I think you need to recalibrate your definition of political. would your opinion of what Trump did change if he had a D next to his name? he should not be a candidate because he tried to overthrow our government. full fucking stop.

    No my opinion would not change based on the political party. 

    • Hook 'Em 1
  7. Let me ask you this:

    Is Mike Pence able to run for President? Could Bill Barr run for President? What about Trump's children? How do we decide?

  8. Just now, Neonmoon said:

    Not according to the constitution. You may disagree with it, and I would agree with you, but just because we want something doesn't mean jack shit. 

    The states were following the letter of the constitution. 

    As Wildcat said, if there was a disagreement over if any person disqualified was disqualified for a good reason or not, THAT is up to Supreme Courts or Congress. 

     

    Obviously there's a disagreement as to the disqualification. Are you kidding me with that "of course we all agree" nonsense? 

    The constitution still has to be enforced. That's why 1983 and 1988 exist. They are congressional legislation created for the enforcement of the Reconstruction Era amendments.

  9. 7 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

    Sure, but you're making a policy argument here, not a legal argument. Would I like there to be uniform, objective election laws for federal office? Absolutely.

    No I'm not. I'm not talking about uniform federal election law. I don't mind if the states control their ballots to some degree. But what they cannot do is strike a candidate on political grounds. That's just not tolerable, nor is it legal. 

  10. 6 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

     

    The plain language of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment disqualifies Trump. Nobody can reasonably dispute that. Everything else is a political excuse so that the justices could avoid reaching the obvious but politically volatile conclusion. 

    I bet half the Americans and all of the Supreme Court justices can reasonably dispute that.

    1 minute ago, 'stache said:

    You know exactly how that would play out. Red states would disqualify any democrat from the ballot claiming "insurrection" because of the border (they already call it that) while the blue states would per usual be the grown ups in the room and not disqualify republicans for bullshit reasons. I haven't read the decisions but I have no doubt that reports are true that the righties went way beyond what was necessary.

    They did go beyond what was necessary. 

  11. 3 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

    Every state already independently assesses federal eligibility in every election for every candidate for every office, including federal office, often with different conclusions reached by different states. This is where the "concurrence" that sure reads like a dissent gets it wrong too. It's like every justice decided to pretend that they had no clue how elections in America work.

    I respectfully disagree. There's an enormous qualitative difference between barring a candidate for failing to meet clearly established, evenly applied, objective criteria to be on a state's ballot and striking the presumptive candidate of one of the major parties because you don't like something he did. 

    I disagree with the court for reaching the issue of HOW to enforce Section 3, but having a five day bench trial in Colorado to decide whether the former president is an insurrectionist (or Maine's secretary of parking just throwing him off the ballot there) ain't it. There has to be some sort of determination that Trump is guilty of insurrection for Section 3 to execute. And it has to be uniformly, nationally applied/applicable. 

  12. 13 hours ago, YGIFS said:

    Let him fight and fight.  Win and win.  Lose and lose.  Run and run.  Raise and raise.  grift and grift.  Rally and rally.  Consciously, he doesn't know what is happening.  But his body will wear down and wear down.  Nobody involved is going to say it out loud.  It will torch his insides.  He will be dead soon enough.  Maybe he wins.  Maybe he dies before the general.  The game is to run him ragged because, or the food supplier at Mar-a-Lago.  And then 25mm Americans don't acce[pt his death as legitimate.  And so we deal with that problem and the next problem and the one after that.  And we continue this experiment in Democracy and like Tommy in "Casino", when we wake up...we keep bashing the shit out of the asshole in front of us because we don't know any better.  

    My parents instilled in me from a very young age that I was smart and passionate enough to change the world.  They were wrong.  We all need to come to terms with the fact that maybe our calling was something entirely different.  I have but two skill sets besides being a father.  I am tenacious.  And I have no problem hurting bad people.  Took me until my mid-40s to realize it.  Trump and his judicial enablers woke up the garbage in our nation.  And we've got a lot of work to do to rid the political landscape of them.  Jump in and  help or quit whining.  Because there's some crazy shit coming up soon.  Good news though is...they're fucking beyond stupid and it shouldn't he hard to arrange it that they take each other out.  

    Did any of you who grew up with me in public school in the 1980's with American Exceptionalism ever think we'd ever see anything like this for this amount of time?  My hat's off to the Greatest Generation of which I had many relatives fight for peace and against fascism.  Now it's our turn.  Fuck these people, let's chlorinate the gene pool.  

    You sound like a fucking lunatic. Switch to decaf.

  13. 8 hours ago, Hookah Horns said:

    It's going to go down as one of the most poorly-reasoned pieces of shit the court has ever produced. I thought they'd try a little harder to hide that they decided the result first and then worked backward. 

    No it won't. Not when you have unadulterated trash like Dred Scott, Roe v. Wade, Wickard v. Filburn, Dobbs, and the Obamacare decision. 

  14. 13 hours ago, wildcat09 said:

    Whether or not it is the correct legal decision depends on whether you think judges should have personal input into whether election law should make sense or not. The three liberals are clearly concerned about the possibility of GOP states ruling that all Dems are insurrectionists based on nothing and keeping them off the ballot (though one would think that SCOTUS could check that by determining whether or not someone actually committed insurrection) and see a real judicially cognizable interest in supporting some degree of uniformity in elections for federal office, but this decision isn't remotely based in the text or history of the 14th Amendment nor in structural Constitutional concerns (typically the Court looks at federalism, especially in elections, as good, not a horrible thing to be avoided at all costs even to the extent someone who committed treason should stay on the ballot).  

    If you're a legal realist that thinks the courts have a role to play in filling in the blanks when the text of the law isn't entirely clear, I guess it's not insane for you to think that this is the correct legal decision (though I think the text of the law is fairly clear here). But if you've ever spent even a single fucking second touting anything any conservative legal commentators have said about what law should be and you want to pretend that this aligns with what you've previously touted, you should ___________________________________________________ [content that would get me suspended and/or might encourage someone to actually commit self harm has been censored by me]. 

    A SCOTUS ruling that Colorado's electors can't be counted. Based on what? Who fucking knows, but that's what would happen.

    Your approach works if you're okay with every state getting to hold a hearing to determine if some politician "actually committed insurrection," whatever that means, with the total chaos (if not outright civil war) that resulted from forcibly removing people from ballots for political reasons. 

  15. 2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

    Just read the opinion.  It's both good and bad.  

    Good: it reached the correct ultimate result, based on some pretty sound reasoning.  That reasoning being that Section 3 of the 14th amendment did not grant to individual states the ability to enforce Section 3 against candidates for FEDERAL office.  It granted states the power to do so re state office, but not federal.  The power to apply Section 3 to candidates for federal office lies solely with the federal government.

    Bad: the opinion unnecessarily BEYOND what is stated above, and states an unnecessarily proscriptive interpretation of Article 5, which grants Congress the power to to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of the 14th Amendment.  The majority (read: all the conservatives except ACB) lays out a detailed set of requirements for such legislation, putting restrictions and requirements in place that did not need to be there.  To her credit ACB's concurrence said that 1) she agreed with the outcome, 2) because Section 3 didn't grant any power to the states, and that's where the opinion should have ended -- leave out the pointless dicta.  The 3 liberal justices voiced a similar concern, in more detail.

    What the whole saga really demonstrates is that even our post-Civil War amendments don't sufficiently account for the problem of what to do if the insurrectionists control Congress...which is the present case.  The weakness is that the 14th amendment lets the fox guard the henhouse in that circumstance.  We are in the middle of another Civil War, it's just that few people have actually acknowledged it.

    I seldom agree with you but in this case agree entirely with your analysis up until your last paragraph. The four concurring justices are correct that the Court should never have reached the issues decided in 1A of the opinion.

  16. They've usually made up for the lack of choices by having unique colors and high quality paint. In this case, who knows? I still think the idea of a hybrid LC starting in the $50s is bad ass and look forward to the new model. I may even buy one in five or ten years once my 200 series needs a new home. 

    I've driven a 55, 2 80s, a 100 and a 200. Nothing but LCs for me.

    • Hook 'Em 1
    • Like 4
  17. I met R. Lee Ermey at a dinner one time and told him that, while he was a great actor, his one role was so impressive, so undeniably great, that it was a gift to all movie lovers for the rest of time. "Of course," I told him, "I am referring to Saving Silverman." He thought that was hilarious and could not believe anybody had even seen it. 

    • Hook 'Em 2
×
×
  • Create New...