Jump to content

BHMCruiser

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    1765
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by BHMCruiser

  1. 4 hours ago, immamac said:

    I’m about to ban @BHMCruiser actually. Also people aren’t dog piling they are giving clear, pointed and not even really flame filled rebuttals to nonsensical trolling. 

    I’m about to get banned? For what? What did I do? 
     

    also I’m not being dog piled. A lot of people have made good faith arguments to me. And I have listened. 

  2. 5 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

    It's what people leave out that makes them bad faith operators/liars.

    Compare these two scenarios:

    1 -- Brisket was going to be late filing his brief with the court of appeals, which has to be filed by 5:00 pm. but through a loophole in the law, the court's clerk's office is deemed "open for filing" as long as the clerk is physically in the office, so because the clerk was still in his office at 8:00 pm, Brisket did nothing wrong by filing his brief at 8:00.

    2 -- Brisket was going to be late filing his brief with the court of appeals, which has to be filed by 5:00 pm. but through a loophole in the law, the court's clerk's office is deemed "open for filing" as long as the clerk is physically in the office, so because the clerk was still in his office at 8:00 pm...because Brisket urged his supporters to storm the clerk's office, and hold the clerk at gunpoint so he couldn't leave.... Brisket did nothing wrong by filing his brief at 8:00.

    It's the part that BHM leaves out that tells you he isn't arguing in good faith.  A violent attack on the capitol offered the opportunity, if a bad actor cooperated with it and took advantage of it, to delay and possibly kill the vote certification.  Trump, given the CLEAR AND BINARY OPTION of 1) exercise his authority as the executive to take action to stop the insurrection, or 2) functionally join in the insurrection to further his interest as a candidate to kill a vote certification that would have ended his bid for office, he unambiguously and enthusiastically chose option 2.  Joining in and coopting the use of force to your advantage is legally, morally, ethically, and practically identical to using the force yourself.  "Go shoot that guy so I can get some advantage" and then taking advantage when your request is followed is no different than shooting the guy yourself.

    But BHM isn't interested in a good-faith analysis.  He wants to both-sides it because some other candidates have filed legal challenges in the past.  What he won't cite for you is a single fucking candidate who SIDED WITH AND TOOK ADVANTAGE OF AN ONGOING VIOLENT INSURRECTION to do so.  Because it has never happened before.  Ever.  What Trump did was disastrously unprecedented and, by my prediction, it will ultimately kill the country.  He set the precedent that the peaceful transfer of power is no longer the order of the day.  Every election from now on will offer the option of a violent refusal to accept it.  You can't shove that demon back in the box.

    Thoughtful and fair except for the end of days part at the end. I’m coming around on this. 

  3. 14 minutes ago, Red Five said:

    Georgia

    Those phone calls are no different than happen in every presidential election. Don't kid yourself. Read Caro's books on LBJ

    13 minutes ago, VivaNaranja said:

    Right. She conceded the next day.

    Trump

    Never

    Did

     

    See the difference?

    Yes. One conceded. One did not. Neither one is an insurrection. 

    • Fuck You 23
  4. 1 minute ago, VivaNaranja said:

    Ha ha ha that's the next day. 

    Here's her talking to CBS about why she lost:

     

    4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

    Nobody serious thinks there's any equivalence between how Hillary responded to her loss and how Trump responded to his. BHM is clearly not serious. 

    Donald putting on a confederate uniform, picking up a musket, and actually shooting Biden. And only that, probably. 

    Yes but shooting him WHERE?

  5. 1 minute ago, Captainant said:

    I don't think there's anything I could say to convince you that trump did anything wrong, but I would argue that the brightest red line was crossed when they had to evacuate both chambers of congress, and when trump was ignoring their calls while they were actively under siege. 

    Oh he did plenty of shit that was wrong. I think there's all sorts of stuff he could be nailed on. I am just skeptical that "insurrection" is one of them. 

    I do not think Trump is competent to be president. I think he is selfish, stupid and vain. I think he is dangerously egotistical. But I think he cratered when his rally spun out of his control. 

    6 minutes ago, Stilicho said:

    TIL that when a violent mob storm the United States fucking Capitol in the name of, and at the behest of, a political candidate to protect his incumbency and reverse a legally-recognized election result, it is not an insurrection.

     

    I prefer "totally fucking pedantic" but thanks

  6. 1 minute ago, RomaVicta said:

    Interesting posts, @BHMCruiser. I'm in the camp that believes the actions of Jan 6 were obviously efforts to seize the government illegally. It matters to lawyers and judges if you can define it under a certain legal code. Whether they can or not doesn't alter my opinion of what I saw and what I have read.

    I've been kicking around the stange notion that the obvious doesn't mean so much anymore. That someone who did what Trump did and which we saw and not be eliminated out of hand from holding office is just plain bizarre. Trump may not fit the narrow definition of an insurrectionist or traitor, but he is clearly a dangerous enemy of the republic.

    He has invited whatever a loyal citizen of the US might do to him.

    We have the same opinion of the real problem being the electorate. Trump's presence on the ballot supported by that electorate is a combination that is both shocking and dangerous.

    Very valid points. Of course I am shocked that an electorate would choose Trump OR Biden but then again what the fuck do I know

    • Fuck You 1
  7. If somebody had recorded HRC's response to losing to Trump, I wonder what she was saying? Probably something about "accepting the results" and "oh well fair is fair"

    • Fuck You 13
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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. 

  12. 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.

  13. 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
  14. 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.

  15. 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. 

  16. 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. 

  17. 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. 

  18. 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.

×
×
  • Create New...