• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Split Thread A second impeachment

Meadmaker said:
<snip>
He is listening to lots of lawyers, scholars, advisers, and government officials, and I will guarantee you that not one of those people ever told him that Mike Pence had the authority to refuse those electoral votes. Not even Rudy would say that. Ok, maybe Sydney Powell might say that, because she's nuts. If that group of people told him, "Mr. President. The Vice President has no authority to do this," and he still went out and told a rally that he expected Mike Pence to do it, what explanation is there for that action?

Stupidity is not an adequate explanation. It's one thing to not understand the Constitution. Lots of people don't understand it. To tell a bunch of people who have lots and lots of knowledge about this that they are all wrong is a completely different thing. If he believes that Pence could do it, and all of those advisors are wrong, then he's mentally ill. If he doesn't believe it, and he knows Pence couldn't do it, then he's criminal.

There really are no other options.

Even if Charles Schumer said something stupid.
Click to expand...

Rudy will say anything if you pay him US$20,000.

Any time, any place, anywhere. Even the Fours Seasons Total Landscaping, without even blinking. He is just like martini.
 
metacristi said:
From my past experience with you the same is with most of those who dare to criticize Islam rationally for example. Yet what really counts is primarily the argument presented not the controversies in which the author was involved in the past, I recommend you his book Cancel Culture: The Latest Attack on Free Speech and Due to understand that the new version of progressivism based on minority identity politics born after 1990 and rampant today is actually creating much more harm than even McCarthyism, not ultimately because free speech is much more severely eroded. By contrast the old type of universalist progressivism, with roots in Enlightenment, was eons more rational than the current version. For me there is no question of what a rational person should choose.
Click to expand...
The right to free speech isn't "eroded" just because it's held to some standard more rigorous than mere opinion when it comes to consequences from it. The speech is still free, it's the lies that incur cost.
 
Steve said:
You are inclined, I think, to use an awful lot of words to say very little. What would a rational person choose? Please be specific.
Click to expand...

Quite agree. I used the term "verbal diarrhea" earlier. I'd like to include the adjective "pompous" in that, too.
 
JoeMorgue said:
DO YOU HAVE A GODDAMN POINT YOU PLAN ON GETTING TO?

A totally unrelated, unhinged, poorly formatted, stream of consciousness rant of Alt-Right 101 cliches about "progressives" isn't the response a sane person has to the President launching a coup.
Click to expand...

And I bet that is the same argument we're going to be or are hearing from the legislators who insist on supporting Trump and the Big Lie.

They are going to fill so empty when their leader leaves town without them.

4 more days!
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Rudy will say anything if you pay him US$20,000.

Any time, any place, anywhere. Even the Fours Seasons Total Landscaping, without even blinking. He is just like martini.
Click to expand...

Sweating quite a bit, however ...

Hans
 
metacristi said:
From my past experience with you the same is with most of those who dare to criticize Islam rationally for example. Yet what really counts is primarily the argument presented not the controversies in which the author was involved in the past, I recommend you his book Cancel Culture: The Latest Attack on Free Speech and Due to understand that the new version of progressivism based on minority identity politics born after 1990 and rampant today is actually creating much more harm than even McCarthyism, not ultimately because free speech is much more severely eroded. By contrast the old type of universalist progressivism, with roots in Enlightenment, was eons more rational than the current version. For me there is no question of what a rational person should choose.
Click to expand...

That sounds really nice. Can you give any examples in relation to Trump rhetoric?

Hans
 
podcast featuring Ken White

First-amendment expert Ken White discusses the first amendment implications of the President's speech, starting roughly around the 20 minute mark.
EDT
TL/DL Ken White thinks a legal case on incitement is uphill but not impossible, especially considering the president's behavior. My opinion is that when Mr. White speaks on the first amendments, the rest of us should listen intently and take careful notes.
 
Last edited:
Metcristi compares so-called "cancel culture" unfavorably to McCarthyism. I don't know how old he is, but I wonder if he actually remembers it.

Some people are nowadays excluded from privately funded and held fora for their actions and their political views, to be true, but once people were imprisoned, blacklisted and fired not only for that but for the rumor of it, not only for politics but for their personal lives.

I'll concede that I was only a kid back when my parents were outspoken liberals in a conservative locale, and the explicitly political physical attacks on the school bus were not too serious, the vandalism not fatal, the death threats not all that serious, the anonymous phone calls mostly laughable, and so forth, but I would respectfully suggest that people who do remember those times reflect a little on what side they were actually on, and those who do not indulge in a little discreet self-cancellation.
 
conservatives railing against “cancel culture” is the perfect example of the kind of rank hypocrisy that they’ve turned into an art form. if I don’t like what someone says, I’m free to tell them that and also free to no longer purchase their products, and to encourage others to do the same.

It’s grass roots, free speech, and capitalism all in one. of course, only a problem when it targets someone conservatives like. or when the conservative elite tell you who is ok to cancel and who isn’t. It’s a power dynamic they don’t like, nothing more.

hey, meticristi, is Colin Kaepernick in that douchewitz book? you don’t have to answer that, I’m sure we all already know the answer
 
Last edited:
turingtest said:
The right to free speech isn't "eroded" just because it's held to some standard more rigorous than mere opinion when it comes to consequences from it. The speech is still free, it's the lies that incur cost.
Click to expand...

To add to that, the US has a very long history of large groups of people actively holding various forms of speech to a much higher level than others. It's only relatively recently that "Republicans" pretty much declared war on truth and facts, pretty obviously because they correctly saw political advantage to be had by shamelessly spreading lies, half-truths, and entirely one-sided spin. Falsely claiming the First Amendment is a tactic in defense of that (much like the claiming the second) because it pretty much just shuts down any reasonable discussion and misleads the public by playing on biases.
 
Last edited:
metacristi said:
From my past experience with you the same is with most of those who dare to criticize Islam rationally for example. Yet what really counts is primarily the argument presented not the controversies in which the author was involved in the past, I recommend you his book Cancel Culture: The Latest Attack on Free Speech and Due to understand that the new version of progressivism based on minority identity politics born after 1990 and rampant today is actually creating much more harm than even McCarthyism, not ultimately because free speech is much more severely eroded. By contrast the old type of universalist progressivism, with roots in Enlightenment, was eons more rational than the current version. For me there is no question of what a rational person should choose.
Click to expand...

Well done for “daring” to criticize Islam. Let me pin the “Medal for Exceptional Daring in Online Keyboard Warrior skills” upon your avatar. I myself am also exceptionally daring which is why I also criticize Islam. I think most atheists do so there are a lot of medals to go round.

Now, Dershowitz, free speech.... I am not a lawyer but if Dershy is saying that Twitter is suppressing first amendment rights then frankly he shouldn’t be a lawyer either or rather you shouldn’t pay for his services.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom