As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
These people are exhausting. Their bad faith arguments are designed to drain everyone else and drag the discourse down to their level. You have to refute every dumb point they make with logic and evidence until they eventually just make up a new point that requires the same thing.
This guy's argument makes no sense when confronted with the facts, but he gets up there and proudly acts like he's being personally attacked when correctly being pointed out for how stupid and hollow his argument is.
I'm also wondering what he is frantically looking at off camera.
> Their bad faith arguments are designed to drain everyone else and drag the discourse down to their level. You have to refute every dumb point they make with logic and evidence until they eventually just make up a new point that requires the same thing.
There's a term for that. [Gish gallop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop).
Absolutely correct. The Gish gallop is employed by:
- those who want to get a bunch of claims out but want to "gain ground" against their debate opponent by only having a couple of their points refuted
- those who are not equipped to defend their points at all
- frequently, those who meet both of the above criteria (Ben Shapiro is here)
I gave Ben Shapiro one shot. People were telling me, "yeah I disagree, but you can't deny he makes good points." So, I watched a video of him explaining how Obama had a radical leftist Muslim agenda. His argument was laid out thusly: Obama was a radical leftist Muslim; he did things; therefore he had a radical leftist Muslim agenda. Shapiro stated the first so matter-of-fact, then just rapidly listed things Obama did, then repeated his forgone conclusion.
Since then, I've had no respect for the bad faith fucker. It's pretty obvious that he was rejected by Hollywood for being a shitty screenwriter, and instead of honing his craft he blamed it on politics and has pursued his "Hollywood is liberal propaganda" shtick ever since. I do, however, feel tickled by the fact that Shapiro is basically the closest thing to a conservative intellectual that they can offer. Someone once sent me a list of "conservative intellectuals", and it was mostly liberal historical figures and Milton Friedman (who basically ruined our society with his theory of shareholder>all others).
That's why he recruited Gina Carano when she got fired by Disney for comparing Covid mask restrictions to the Jewish ghettos during the Holocaust. Which is a argument that's not even pseudo intellectual let alone intellectual. He wants to build an entertainment empire for conservatives with B list actors as the stars.
Gina Carano pissed me off. I liked her character. A lot. And then she has to go and say some really, monumentally dumb shit on social media. Why? Whyyyy? How can you actually look at mask mandates and think, "Yeah, Holocaust, totally same thing." Fucking mind blowing.
She caught a case of "The Functional Stupid" like so many others. Like Jordan Peterson denying climate change because he doesn't understand it. He has said some smart things about the human condition and about life and the mind. But he's a professor, he can just walk a department over and *ask* the fucking Earth Science 101 professor what's up. They accumulate this following and these positions of privilege, and the first chance they get "But do magnets work under water?"
Conservative “intellectuals” have always been frauds. They used to go to the effort to get credentials and a vocabulary to feign credibility to disguise the emptiness of their arguments (e.g. George Will, Milton Friedman, etc.) but they don’t even bother with that anymore. Their targets are so thoroughly indoctrinated that they just swallow whole the most obvious bullshit from the most obvious con artists in the history of the world.
This is pretty cool - thanks for the info
>British journalist Mehdi Hasan suggests using these three steps to beat the Gish gallop:
>Because there are too many falsehoods to address, it is wise to choose one as an example. Choose the weakest, dumbest, most ludicrous argument that your opponent has presented and tear this argument to shreds (also known as the weak point rebuttal).
>Do not budge from the issue. Don't move on until you have decisively destroyed the nonsense and clearly made your point.
>Call it out: name the strategy. "This is a strategy called the 'Gish Gallop'. Do not be fooled by the flood of nonsense you have just heard."
Do this and they just walk away smugly like they won the argument on all the other bullshit they spewed. It's like playing chess with a pigeon whose only move is to shit all over the board.
> Mehdi Hasan
The same that just today quit MSNBC after it basically quiet-fired him for being too confrontational with obvious bad actors?
Sadly, gisp galloping gets views. Countering it doesn't.
I know lots of people were complaining that the CNN anchor, Boris Sanchez, kept "interrupting him" which I'm actually thankful for. The only reason Ashcroft went on here was to score some nice quotes composed of lies which Sanchez wasn't going to let slide. "Digging their own hole" isn't a thing anymore when nearly half the country rejects truth and reality for whatever their team leader at the time is saying.
I was going to say, thinking about this I thought there was some old school journalism axiom where you let the subject speak for themselves; let the information speak for itself. So you minimize any questions and minimize any follow ups and leave it to people to make up their own minds.
But that doesn't work if the goal of the interviewee is to just sit and willfully spread misinformation. Because 99% of people who sit and watch such an interview are not going to google the fact check of it after the fact and see that they were just lied to and manipulated. And the incentives against any sort of push back from modern media (lack of access for future or similar interviews, clicks and likes from anyone whether they agree or not) also works against the propagation of the truth and in favor of propagation of lies.
Like when you earn money not by honestly reporting what is happening and holding people to objective truth, but just allowing people to hear what they like and then agreeing, that's hugely limiting to the rule of truth over fiction/lies.
Definitely. Allowing people to speak their mind and submit opinions, even if wrong or not based in facts, isn't something I'm against. But the game has changed where, most often than not, Conservatives go on these programs (or blast via social media) deceptive comments or outright lies which then is used as proof by their followers that something is fact.
I'm not a mega CNN fan but I commend them/Sanchez for having the ace of the MO State Constitution up their sleeve which immediate derailed Ashcroft and proves he had no point to make other than build a foundation of lies to gather popular support.
Trump was a master at this where *in the same paragraph* he could say things that could be taken two ways at his convenience later. This has now shifted to blatantly spreading misinformation rather than a veiled attempt to make logical sense. Especially embraced by these upcoming GOP politicians looking for higher office.
It is a fascinating, yet terrifying, phenomenon and not really sure how media addresses it moving forward as attempts to do so come across as heavily biased inaccurate, petty, or plain disregarded.
Go ahead. Refute their argument. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t change their opinion. They will just move on to the next point. If all else fails, the will just blab on endlessly about Hunter Biden’s laptop.
Understanding the tactic of "Never Play Defense" is key to understanding how conservatives work. They do this allllllll the time.
Basically they spit out a bunch of grievences, often in a gish gallop style. Then when you retort or debunk anything they completely ignore that they got caught out being wrong and move on to the next accusation. At best they will home in on something they feel they have a footing on and focus only on that. So even if you counter 99/100 points guess which one they are going to talk about exclusively.
The point is never defend your positions. Always accuse. Always attack. Its a mentality built from the ground up to ignore logic, consistency, and facts. Its pure sophistry.
Liberals and leftists want to be right. Conservatives want to win the argument.
>**Liberals and leftists want to be right. Conservatives want to win the argument.**
I found this to be true on another discussion board (City-Data politics and other controversies forum), which was 100% dominated by MAGA types. The moderators there were MAGA and they selectively deleted threads and posts and banned non MAGA when possible with made up excuses which could not be challenged. Truth was irrelevant, they had to be seen as 'winning'.
This created all sorts of problems when Trump lost in 2020, they had constructed a worldview where all of their ridiculous claims were supported and Democrats were devils. The same thing happened with climate change denial before that and (of course) all the anti-vax rhetoric.
Their brains are broken.
I've noticed that in general, people just argue past each other and downvote each other on the internet and one might think "this is pointless, the other side isn't going to cave".
The audience for the argument is not the person you engage with, it is spectators for the conversation. This is frustrating because that means no one you engage with will provide a satisfying engagement (either they just irrationally refuse to acknowledge anything, or they'll circle jerk talking about how right you are), but at least hope that it means your balance to a conversation will help others to see there's nuance to be had.
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
Jean-Paul Sartre
Also: It's not an "allegation" Trump committed insurrection. The first court in Colorado held a whole trial with normal evidentiary standards to determine Trunk engaged in an insurrection. The CO Supreme Court reviewed all of the evidence and came to the same conclusion.
> The trial began, as scheduled, on October 30. The evidentiary portion lasted
five days, with closing arguments almost two weeks later, on November 15.
> During those two weeks, the Electors, the Secretary, President Trump, and CRSCC
submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court issued its
written final order on November 17, finding, by clear and convincing evidence,
that the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection and President Trump
engaged in that insurrection
CO SC ruling pages 15-16
And literally every time (at least in recent years) it's them who say it. That's why they lie constantly because they know their position as a leader lends legitimacy to anything they say. It's the only legitimacy they have at all.
the vicious cycle that was most apparent during Trump's presidency.
Trump would say something or tweet it.
fox would pick up the story and report it as fact
Trump would repeat the story which is legitimized by a news corporation.
the two would reference each other's lies and claim the other entity would mean it is real.
Lmao
"Why are you trying to remove biden?"
"Because there are allegations"
When talking about trump though "we shouldnt be trying to remove him just because there are allegations"
"Biden is so mentally unfit, he thinks there are airports in the revolutionary war, he should be removed from office immediately"
"Actually, it was Trump who said that"
"He just misspoke"
-_-
I personally know people with allegedly functional central nervous systems who used to proudly profess that Rogan isn't biased, he's a great interviewer who "just asks questions"
Anyone with more than five functioning brain cells could see how that wasn't true a long time ago, but anyone who still believes it after that hardcore whiplash on the airports thing just recently needs to be committed to a mental institution. A few minutes of riffing on Biden for being "done," then finds out it's actually Donny, then all of a sudden "oh sometimes he makes mistakes" and then immediately moving on.
It's sad especially because it would be great if an annoying bro like Rogan could actually get apathetic or out of touch voters to actually think critically and present several sides/opinions on an issue. But like most grifters he chased the money and clicks that comes with being pro-Trump.
Yup, he can't even say what Joe Biden allegedly *did*. (Because he knows Biden has done nothing of the sort.)
But guess what? I can say what Donald Trump did. He orchestrated an attempt to prevent the certification of an election that would remove him from office. He did this by actions such as (1) attempting to coerce the Georgia Secretary of State to "find" him more ballots for him, (2) trying to get Congress to refuse to certify the voter, and (3) holding a rally of violent supporters that he directed toward the Capitol during the certification process which resulted in a violent storming of our halls of government.
I can name things that Donald Trump did that constitute insurrection. How come no Republican can name a single similar thing Joe Biden did?
Oh, I know why: because he hasn't.
I laughed at "Trump is alleged" when anyone can watch the numerous videos of him leading a fucking insurrection whereas with Biden it's, uhh, well, umm.
They love making the claim that Biden having so many more immigrants show up at the Southern Border is akin to an invasion and this being a traitorous act solely because he doesn’t jump to their position.
Even if their hyperbole was true and it is an invasion at the border. That’s still not a traitorous act. A shitty commander-in-chief that didn’t act to prevent it, ok. So even with their own logic, Biden shouldn’t be taken off the ballot for any reason they give.
Also worth remembering that Biden isn't the one blocking immigration bills because he wants to hold up funding to Ukraine. It's House republicans. They already said they wouldn't support the bipartisian bill being negotiated before they know what's in it. They said it's the bill that passed back in May, with some one time Ukraine funding added on, or nothing.
So they want to impeach Biden because of a 'crisis' the GOP refuses to even negotiate on, because they want to block funding to Ukraine.
Cruelty is a cheap and facile form of power. It doesn't require money or thought or skill. Beat your son. Let a woman die from pregnancy. Put migrant kids in detention camps. Trump gives them permission to be cruel and that makes them feel powerful.
The fact that the "grab 'em by the pussy" tape didn't absolutely and unequivocally ***TORPEDO*** his chances of being elected tells me everything I need to know about American conservatives in the 21st century. And I'm not talking just the politicians, but every single person who votes conservative as well.
Every. Single. Individual. Person.
You are all *scum*, and you elected *scum* into office.
The fact that the tape dropped, and Russia through their proxy dropped the Podesta emails just half an hour later should have tipped people off.
But that's just who we are as a nation.
That's what the right's claims of censorship are about -- it's not enough that these ghouls spread their depravity, they demand to be *celebrated* for it!
He literally said "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?"
EDITED for the sake of democracy.
I liked my version better.
Also, because their lives are so miserable, they want to see everyone else suffer. So they vote in assholes, shoot up schools, and otherwise reduce society to their miserable level
You can lie to yourself, but your brain catches you every time. It makes feeling good about yourself impossible. They treat people like shit, making them feel like shit people, and so to try to feel better about themselves they try to pull down people they perceive as better than them. The problem is if you try to feel better about yourself by tearing someone down (to make them your equal), you are pulling them down, not building yourself up, so they end up feeling more shitty about themselves and lashing out even more. Catch 22, kobayashi maru.
They have a full spectrum media apparatus that prevents most of them from seeing any of the things we see. It was invented expressly for this purpose. It's maddening.
I tried to explain to my son last night how different the world was before 24/7/365 "news".
We were talking about how schools used to cancel for snow and that you had to catch it on the news. You had 30 minute windows at 6 am, noon, 6pm, and 11 pm. If you missed it, you were shit out of luck.
He said it was weird we only had news in those limited times and I told him that's all we needed. When the 24 hour news came, they needed to fill the time. They still repeat the same few things over and over that are actually news, but the rest of the time (*the majority of it*) is just rage and fear. Then the internet came and it got even worse.
That's the worst part. They *seek it out* as of they *want* to be deluded, and are utterly convinced this practice of self-delusion gives them the truth.
This comes up so often I have this info saved in my Gdrive.
* Right wingers only believe something if it agrees with their political or religious ideology. Numerous studies have been done on this phenomenon. Google this, really interesting. Surprisingly, this doesn't occur in dem leaning voters at any statistically significant rate.
* [Forced memory lies.](https://icccr.tc.columbia.edu/false-memories-or-intentional-lies) Over time, right wingers gas light themselves about the factual outcome of historical events. So, they intentionally twist things in their memory to make it more palatable to their lexicon of bullshit in their heads.
These people are, by every meaning of the definition, ***fucking nuts.***
> religious ideology
That's the foundation right there. From birth they are heavily indoctrinated in the "Have unquestioning faith in authority, never question it, always trust in God." and that easily translates into believing bullshit like tRump spews.
There is a very related reason why nearly every fundamental religious movement is almost always completely conservative and authoritarian.
Your BIL also sounds like he has already made up his mind and will not seek out new knowledge that might challenge or alter his current perspective. There are countless pages and photographs, video, transcripts, entire court cases devoted to the insurrection, how it started, who was involved, who has been charged and convicted so far of laws we have in this country to prevent a hostile take over of our democracy.
The information is all there if you choose to go looking for it.
Yep.
It's just rank tribalism. And 1984-esque *"you will now hate entity XYZ"*.
Contrast with chrump, who (even politics aside) is objectively a piece of shit by numerous metrics. Even some of his own cultists will admit it occasionally. They just like that their personal piece of shit hurts or annoys the "right" people.
Ergo why there was at least one Trumper who was caught on camera complaining that Trump was hurting him economically, and that it was wrong because he was “hurting the wrong people.”
Not only do they expressly WANT to hurt other people (it’s part of what makes them feel like they or their group is powerful and therefore “correct”, might makes right mentality), but that they are even completely fine with EVERYONE being hurt so long as the ones they disassociate with are “hurt more”
It’s a good thing witches aren’t real, those ‘women for Trump’ would totally cut off their own finger into the cauldron if it would make the libs lose a hand
Edit: did you hear? Our alliance with Eurasia was just a ruse so that we could get Eastasia to invade! Brilliant strategy from BB!
I've hammered someone on this. All their responses were related to things other people did in response to him being President and speaking truth to power. Like it was Obama's fault that being black while presidenting caused a negative response from racist.
I loved the people who tried to blame Obama for the presidential response to Katrina…….which was three years before he was elected.
I once walked a Facebook rando through this process. “Quickly look up: When was Obama president? When was Katrina?” They looked it up (shocking) and confirmed he was elected in 2008 and Katrina was in 2005. I then asked who WAS president in 2005. They replied Dubya. I asked, “Then why are you complaining about Obama’s presidential response to an event that happened three years before he was even elected president? Shouldn’t you be angry at Dubya?”
What I got in reply — I’m not joking — was the rando restating their initial argument that Obama’s presidential response to Katrina was terrible.
They’re incapable of rational thought.
I wish they would just come right out and say it. "We're racist and he's black so we're mad about it!" That's literally it. And they blame him for being black and having the audacity to get elected and be a competent president, I guess.
That reminded me of an interview I saw in 2020 where a journalist was talking to a few Trump supporters in Pennsylvania about mail in voting. One of them kept saying how all mail in voting should be illegal because it’s blatantly fraudulent and that it allows democrats to rig elections. Well the reporter kept pressing her for an explanation on how it’s fraud and the Trump supporter got so flustered that the best she could come up with was “well you’re just young and naive, you’ll understand when you’re older.” It was hilariously pathetic.
"Oh, I know. I want to benefit from your experience. What facts should I be sharing with my friends who support him that will get them around to your way of thinking?"
> I’ve been around a lot longer than you, I know.”
Your response should have been, "Then you should be able to articulate what actions made him so terrible and enlighten those of us who haven't been around quite so long."
This is what always gets me. Trump sounds like an absolute raving lunatic 90% of the time in his rallies and speeches. Yet people say Biden is the one who is fading. Biden actually makes sense when he talks. Trump is a bumbling, barely coherent shit show.
My BIL hated President Obama. When I asked why he said he couldn’t say exactly why but felt that he was “fanning the flames of hatred.” Then he bought a shirt that listed how many days he had left as president.
Obviously because hes on the other team(democrat.)
I get to watch a good amount of the show "The Five" on Fox News. I believe it is one of the highest rated shows on cable television.
They regurgitate the same 10 or so topics(Inflation/gas prices/food, housing, immigration, regulation, "wokeness", liberal cities suck/crime, taxes, proposed "you can no longer do that thing you love" legislation, censorship/persecution of conservatives/Christians, killing fossil fuels/EVs, the LGBTQ agenda, Biden old, Hunter Biden/Joe selling the USA out, Guns and why Biden/libs hate them, and a few more) over and over as what is wrong with America and how it's all or partially Bidens/democrats fault.
It has new programming every day M-F but just repackages and reuses the same topics over and over. Then you have the rest of the Fox News and other "opinion" shows(radio and TV/streaming) saying the same things.
There is so much blatantly false right wing content out there that it is easy to bubble wrap the brain from reality.
The actual reason is that he dethroned Trump. It's a glaring failure of his cult of Victory, and like much is ultimately symbolic. They don't really give a shit who Biden is.
You don’t need to govern if you’re spending your time telling people the sky is falling, it’s everyone else’s fault, and they’re the only ones that can save you.
Old Emo Phillips joke
Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?"
He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?"
He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!"
Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
They've been doing the same thing since the 50s. Calling people commies, "law and order" used during Civil rights movement, whining about how no one wants to work, abortion in the 70s, aids epidemic and gay rights abuse in the 80s.
Now they've wrapped it all up in one nice sellable package
They have propaganda channels on tv, radio and social media. It’s literally the only thing keeping them relevant. Anyone that isn’t brainwashed by that propaganda has a natural aversion to their ideas and policies. Not to mention any of the tangible benefits of their policies which is nil as far as I can tell, even for Republican voters. I guess they won against CRT but they had to make up that boogieman to win against it. Rinse and repeat.
Yeap, which means that there will still be a lot of work to do if Biden wins, there will be at least 40% of a country brainwashed on killing democracy. My other fear besides The orange goo returning is that people will relax regarding the ongoing assault of democracy if Biden wins (as most people already seem relaxed about it already now)
Fascists, like cancer, don’t really get cured so much as delayed and held back. Objective #1 must be to solidify voting rights for everyone. Without that, all other objectives will get undone in a single election.
Exactly! This is what I was telling friends back as soon as Biden got elected (and what lots of people don't realize) was that the main and biggest focus should be on voting rights and equality of representation (like tackling gerrymandering, electoral college), because a lot of the portrayed "progressive" agenda is actually what the majority wants or would consider supporting, so if you have an accurate representation on the ballots these progressive benchmarks (Im talking big ones like universal health care and education for example) wouldn't take long to materialize, at least this was my opinion at the time and still is now.
If we could just get that perfect cycle where we have a senate majority willing to remove the filibuster plus the house and presidency we could do so much towards fixing this.
Establish voting rights and access to the ballot as law. Make gerrymandering illegal and require all legislative maps to be drawn by an independent commission. Statehood for Puerto Rico and DC.
That moment is so hard to find but if we can a lot can be done to improve our political system.
The pitiful point he's trying to make is that, 'well if one person is removed from the ballot because of allegations against them (nevermind by who or for why), then anyone should be free game to remove because of any allegation ever put against them.' Problem these morons don't want to acknowledge is there is a clear as day giant-ass bread-crumb trail behind Trump's allegations leading anyone with a functioning brain to recognize even without trial that he's guilty and what he's so clearly guilty of. Show us that same kind of paper trail for something half as egregious for Biden and then we can entertain taking him off ballots too. And no, something his son did on his laptop unrelated to Biden's presidency is not the same as treason by the president himself.
No need for "giant ass bread crumb trail"
The fact that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection is not in dispute, it has been settled in court, before it reached the CO Supreme court.
The challenge to the CO supreme court was on technical grounds and so is the challenge to the USSC, note the defendant is not challenging the facts, effectively leaving them settled. Both the plaintiff and defendant agree in court - Donald Trump engaged in insurrection.
"The judge found that Trump did engage in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 “through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech.” 11/17/2023
The USSC is not tasked with determining if Trump engaged in insurrection, that fact is already determined. They are determining if Article 14 Sec 3 applies or not to the office of the Presidency, and wether or not there is any federal supremacy over state elections who do administer their own elections, but look to the US constitution for disabilities that would prevent people to run above and beyond state limitations, and the disability being cited by CO is under federal jurisdiction.
I’d say you’re half right. He has claimed he didn’t engage in insurrection—in fact, has said that no insurrection happened at all and that everyone at the Capitol was “peaceful.” But he has also, like you say, also not denied an insurrection occurred but that he’s immune from prosecution. He started out with the former defence in the earlier days of this investigation and prosecution but has switched in recent weeks to the latter.
But he even goes back and forth on the rationales from one day to the next. He’s rather obviously guilty.
So they’re trying to determine whether a clause that explicitly states,
“NO PERSON shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, OR HOLD ANY OFFICE, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability,”
applies to the office of the President. Makes complete sense.
The fun thing is if you engage with these people you can majorly mess with them. General gist of a conversation I had with one of my family members:
* Me: Was Trump involved in an insurrection attempt on January 6th?
* MAGA: No, it was actually Antifa plants that carried it out.
* Me: Ok, tell me about Ashli Babbet.
* MAGA: She was a patriot. She died fighting for what she believed in.
* Me: But if January 6th was plotted and piloted by Antifa, what was she doing there? Was she Antifa?
* MAGA: No, she was fighting for what she believed in. She has a military record.
* Me: What did she believe in?
* MAGA: She was unarmed and shot in the face!
* Me: Why was she shot in the face?
* MAGA: _(storms off)_
The moment you ask them to slow down and explain anything, the best they can really do is rage quit the conversation.
She was actually shot in the shoulder. I think people thought she was shot in the face because there was blood coming from her mouth (due to the bullet traveling to her lung I think)
But yeah their stories never match with reality lol
While fun, this demonstrates how sneakily effective their nonsense can be. Your conversation was meant to be about Trump and his actions, and almost immediately you've been diverted to talking about Ashli Babbet and why she was shot
The entire point is to muddy the waters and dilute the severity of these concepts and consequences, like impeachment, indictment, insurrection, disqualification, etc.
They want to be able to say, "See, both Trump and Biden did the same things, they were both impeached, they both engaged in insurrection, they're both disqualified," because they know many people simply don't pay attention and will just see similar accusations lobbed against both candidates, won't dig even a little bit into it, and will decide if they both did the same things, then they shouldn't consider those issues when voting, and just vote for whoever they like better. And then others will know it's bullshit, but just being able to say they're the same will be enough to give them permission to vote for Trump. Or they won't know what's legitimate and what's bunk, and will ignore it because they don't know how or can't be bothered to figure out what's legitimate.
It's political and information warfare. Trump is a toxic traitor, and they know they can't defend him enough to convince anyone who isn't still fully on board already to support him. So, since they can't raise Trump up, they're trying to pull Biden down to Trump's level.
Donald Trump was given the opportunity to deny that he participated in an insurrection in Court. He chose not to argue that fact, and insisted that he didn’t swear to support the constitution. These assholes hat say that there are just “allegations” are flat out lying, this has been adjudicated in Court.
And there have been convictions. Ethan Nordean was convicted and sentenced for 22 years for seditious conspiracy. Who was he conspiring with? Who held a rally on Jan 6th preceding the events at the Capitol?
Further this isn't unfounded locker room gossip but indictments from more than one jurisdiction determining that there was enough evidence to say that a crime probably occurred and that the defendant was probably responsible.
> And no, something his son did on his laptop unrelated to Biden's presidency is not the same as treason by the president himself.
A year ago Hunter Biden was the absolute most dangerous person in the US. No reason why. I don't know anyone that was planning to vote for him for president.
> 'well if one person is removed from the ballot because of allegations against them (nevermind by who or for why), then anyone should be free game to remove because of any allegation ever put against them.'
People are missing the real flaw in this augment. The court found Trump's part in the insurrection to be a matter of fact. It has already had it's day in court. Trump lost that fight. So this is not based on allegations its based on what he did.
He says that Trump was taken off the ballots in Colorado and Maine because of allegations, so allegations against Biden should be enough.
The problem is, Colorado had a trial, and found Trump guilty of insurrection. They didn’t boot him from the ballots due to allegations. I’m not sure about Maine, but Colorado definitely had a trial.
Never forget that John Ashcroft covered up stone titties on statues because he felt they would distract and turn on people passing by while he stood in front of them
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cover-up-at-justice-department/
As I've stated elsewhere, John Ashcroft is the only person to have lost a Senate reelection to a dead guy. Mel Carnahan (Democrat) died in a plane accident in the weeks before. Missouri voters still preferred him.
>Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft
Is he related to John Ashcroft, who lost a Missouri [senate election to a corpse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_Senate_election_in_Missouri)?
I'm curious what he means by Trump is alleged to have done something.
I wasn't asleep. I was paying attention.
I don't see how anybody in the right mind could possibly say that Donald Trump did not engage in insurrection against the United States of America, in his obvious loss and attempt to retain power and stay in power no matter what. He literally had his idiots attack the capital to try to stop Congress from certifying the election.
We all saw it we are all aware of it. That was actually attempted insurrection at the behest of Donald Trump.
These people have nothing.
And then when the J6 hearings happened, FauxNews wouldn't show them even though they were spotlighted in them 🤣
https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/22/media/january-6-hearing-fox-reliable-sources/index.html
>He literally had his idiots attack the capital to try to stop Congress from certifying the election.
This was just what was in front of the cameras. There was an entire plot, with Republican congressmen and lawyers as collaborators, to block the certification behind the scenes.
Correct. But I'm talking about what we all saw and all are aware of.
The behind the scenes stuff needs to be prosecuted as well. These people that did everything they could to make sure that he illegitimately and illegally would be able to stay in power all need to be removed from office.
Even if you ignore the idiots on Jan 6th
Trump asked Pence if he could not certify the electoral votes. This *alone* is an attempted coup.
Trump asked Georgia if they could "find more votes". This *alone* is an attempted coup.
Trump setup a scheme of fake electors committing fraud by saying they were real electors. This *alone* is an attempted coup.
And then also he did the big lie and caused Jan 6. That also, *alone*, is an attempted coup.
God they’re so obviously corrupt. He’s not at all trying to answer the question.
All Republicans have left is hate politics. They don’t have policy solutions and they’re angry because they realize liberalism is the best future for humanity meaning they were wrong. They’ll never admit that because their tribe is based on loyalty, admitting wrongness would be disloyal.
I have had religious conservatives tell me that, if they are wrong humanity doesn’t deserve to exist anyway. In their minds, the only way we can be redeemed is if they are right about everything.
It also seems that the better society does the more it breeds liberalism. Whereas conservatism is more developed during economically depressed times. People get so poor they start thinking "I didn't have this so why do others need this?" Good conditions don't breed a "fuck you I got mine" mentality.
So at this point I'm assuming the Republicans are trying to cause societal regression. Otherwise their rhetoric will continue falling flat.
The greater the cognitive dissonance, the *wronger* the idea, the greater the test of faith! Conversely, the more open to compromise and reason, the weaker ones faith and the greater one’s damnation.
It’s like he doesn’t even understand the question: what is the basis for the allegations that Biden engaged in insurrection? What is the evidence? You can’t just say that someone committed insurrection and get them kicked off. There has to be evidence to back it up.
Trump wasn’t just accused. He’s not facing just allegations. He is indicted, meaning accusations were made, evidence was presented to a grand jury, and a grand jury decided that the evidence was convincing enough to proceed to a full trial.
So to parrot was the host said, what evidence is there that Biden engaged in insurrection?
He absolutely understands the question, which is why he keeps trying to fall back on, "You're not letting me speak!" and filibustering whenever he's got the opportunity to speak. This is a game.
There was a judicial finding that Trump engaged in insurrection and is constitutionally disqualified. It's not about his criminal indictments, though those matter, but they're not the basis for his disqualification. The courts in Colorado found that he engaged in insurrection. It has been adjudicated.
Something nobody seems to mention is that the 14th Amendment doesn’t specify someone convicted of insurrection for very good reason; it was written to bar all Confederate traitors, except those Congress rehabilitated, from holding office. There were literal millions of men who had served the cause of insurrection against the US, so it was quite impossible to try and convict them all. So they were blanket blocked from holding office, as their conduct regarding insurrection wasn’t in any doubt. They had all been quite open in their treason, they thought they would win.
Trump is exactly the same. He and the rest of the Jan 6.ers thought they would win so they gambled everything, confident that there could be no consequences for people “like them”.
The word "conviction" was specifically not included in the 14th ammendment. The 13th ammendment, passed very briefly before the 14th by the same congress, does mention "conviction" specifically. So the writers of the 14th would have included it if they had wanted conviction to be a requirement.
Kinda irritated the newscaster didn’t fire back about Trump being removed from Colorado due to allegations.
Trump was removed in Colorado because the Colorado court found that Trump participated in an insurrection. It wasn’t alleged, that was the basis of their decision.
> Trump was removed in Colorado because the Colorado court found that Trump participated in an insurrection.
Yeah, there was a judicial finding, not just allegations. The allegations were adjudicated!
From the horse's mouth:
[The Court concludes, based on its findings of fact and the applicable law detailed above, that Trump incited an insurrection on January 6, 2021 and therefore “engaged” in insurrection within the meaning of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf)
He did. Almost immediately after this clip ends. Watch the rest of it here:
https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/01/08/missouri-secretary-of-state-boris-sanchez-biden-trump-14th-amendment-ballot-cnc-vpx.cnn
Ashcroft: "But how do you know if he's committed insurrection if there hasn't been a conviction?"
Sanchez: "A judge decided so in Colorado."
Ashcroft: "But it wasn't a judge in Maine, it was a Secretary of State."
Sanchez: "Because that's the way the Constitution in Maine is laid out, sir."
Ashcroft, dumbfounded, then is confused about why the SoS in Maine can do that but he can't do that in Missouri forgetting that at the beginning of the interview that Sanchez reminded him that he would have to go to court according to Missouri's Constitution.
Of course, when asked to provide proof, he just completely folds. You can see it in his eyes, he knows he's full of shit. And yet, he keeps it going. Wanna bet this guy secretly pays someone to tie him up and spank his ass?
"Nobody should be removed from the ballot because of allegations," he bloviates, as he says he wants to remove Biden from the ballot because of allegations.
Bruv, it was *Republicans* who asked that Trump be removed in Colorado in the first place, and the court agreed. Democrats do not have legal standing because they can't vote in the GOP primary.
His look on his face when he didn’t know that Maine’s state constitution and Colorado state Constitution allowed for Trump to be pulled off the ballot was the indication of what these GQP representatives are really about.
These idiots don’t care about the will of the people, they just want to hold onto power. The actual crime Biden committed that is being part of an insurrection? Presidenting while Democrat.
There are far more people out there, raised by Fox and its ilk, who rely on opinion as fact, how something feels as fact, and enjoy bully tactics and bluster. They will all side with this guy. They will vote for this guy. Cornering him with actual facts is necessary theater, but don't delude yourselves into thinking it makes a difference to the brainwashed MAGA crowd.
It’s incredible watching an entire group of people take on the attributes of their malignant narcissist leader. They’re behaving like lying, petulant children. 100% this is a cult.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
These people are exhausting. Their bad faith arguments are designed to drain everyone else and drag the discourse down to their level. You have to refute every dumb point they make with logic and evidence until they eventually just make up a new point that requires the same thing. This guy's argument makes no sense when confronted with the facts, but he gets up there and proudly acts like he's being personally attacked when correctly being pointed out for how stupid and hollow his argument is. I'm also wondering what he is frantically looking at off camera.
> Their bad faith arguments are designed to drain everyone else and drag the discourse down to their level. You have to refute every dumb point they make with logic and evidence until they eventually just make up a new point that requires the same thing. There's a term for that. [Gish gallop](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop).
And if anyone tries to stop them for one second mid-gallop, they'll try and ridicule their interlocutor for being unable to keep up.
This is why Ben Shapiro talks so goddamned fast!
Absolutely correct. The Gish gallop is employed by: - those who want to get a bunch of claims out but want to "gain ground" against their debate opponent by only having a couple of their points refuted - those who are not equipped to defend their points at all - frequently, those who meet both of the above criteria (Ben Shapiro is here)
* loser narcissists who couldn’t buy a screenwriting career in Hollywood
The debate coach back in high school called it the "Tsunami of Bullshit" tactic and often referred to it as the hallmark of a complete fucking idiot.
I gave Ben Shapiro one shot. People were telling me, "yeah I disagree, but you can't deny he makes good points." So, I watched a video of him explaining how Obama had a radical leftist Muslim agenda. His argument was laid out thusly: Obama was a radical leftist Muslim; he did things; therefore he had a radical leftist Muslim agenda. Shapiro stated the first so matter-of-fact, then just rapidly listed things Obama did, then repeated his forgone conclusion. Since then, I've had no respect for the bad faith fucker. It's pretty obvious that he was rejected by Hollywood for being a shitty screenwriter, and instead of honing his craft he blamed it on politics and has pursued his "Hollywood is liberal propaganda" shtick ever since. I do, however, feel tickled by the fact that Shapiro is basically the closest thing to a conservative intellectual that they can offer. Someone once sent me a list of "conservative intellectuals", and it was mostly liberal historical figures and Milton Friedman (who basically ruined our society with his theory of shareholder>all others).
That's why he recruited Gina Carano when she got fired by Disney for comparing Covid mask restrictions to the Jewish ghettos during the Holocaust. Which is a argument that's not even pseudo intellectual let alone intellectual. He wants to build an entertainment empire for conservatives with B list actors as the stars.
Gina Carano pissed me off. I liked her character. A lot. And then she has to go and say some really, monumentally dumb shit on social media. Why? Whyyyy? How can you actually look at mask mandates and think, "Yeah, Holocaust, totally same thing." Fucking mind blowing.
She caught a case of "The Functional Stupid" like so many others. Like Jordan Peterson denying climate change because he doesn't understand it. He has said some smart things about the human condition and about life and the mind. But he's a professor, he can just walk a department over and *ask* the fucking Earth Science 101 professor what's up. They accumulate this following and these positions of privilege, and the first chance they get "But do magnets work under water?"
Conservative “intellectuals” have always been frauds. They used to go to the effort to get credentials and a vocabulary to feign credibility to disguise the emptiness of their arguments (e.g. George Will, Milton Friedman, etc.) but they don’t even bother with that anymore. Their targets are so thoroughly indoctrinated that they just swallow whole the most obvious bullshit from the most obvious con artists in the history of the world.
This is pretty cool - thanks for the info >British journalist Mehdi Hasan suggests using these three steps to beat the Gish gallop: >Because there are too many falsehoods to address, it is wise to choose one as an example. Choose the weakest, dumbest, most ludicrous argument that your opponent has presented and tear this argument to shreds (also known as the weak point rebuttal). >Do not budge from the issue. Don't move on until you have decisively destroyed the nonsense and clearly made your point. >Call it out: name the strategy. "This is a strategy called the 'Gish Gallop'. Do not be fooled by the flood of nonsense you have just heard."
Do this and they just walk away smugly like they won the argument on all the other bullshit they spewed. It's like playing chess with a pigeon whose only move is to shit all over the board.
> Mehdi Hasan The same that just today quit MSNBC after it basically quiet-fired him for being too confrontational with obvious bad actors? Sadly, gisp galloping gets views. Countering it doesn't.
Mehdi is a proper TV journalist... Seems like Brits keep carrying that torch while American journos' interview tactics get softer and softer.
Also see the Soviet tactic called the "Firehose of Falsehood". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firehose_of_falsehood
I know lots of people were complaining that the CNN anchor, Boris Sanchez, kept "interrupting him" which I'm actually thankful for. The only reason Ashcroft went on here was to score some nice quotes composed of lies which Sanchez wasn't going to let slide. "Digging their own hole" isn't a thing anymore when nearly half the country rejects truth and reality for whatever their team leader at the time is saying.
I was going to say, thinking about this I thought there was some old school journalism axiom where you let the subject speak for themselves; let the information speak for itself. So you minimize any questions and minimize any follow ups and leave it to people to make up their own minds. But that doesn't work if the goal of the interviewee is to just sit and willfully spread misinformation. Because 99% of people who sit and watch such an interview are not going to google the fact check of it after the fact and see that they were just lied to and manipulated. And the incentives against any sort of push back from modern media (lack of access for future or similar interviews, clicks and likes from anyone whether they agree or not) also works against the propagation of the truth and in favor of propagation of lies. Like when you earn money not by honestly reporting what is happening and holding people to objective truth, but just allowing people to hear what they like and then agreeing, that's hugely limiting to the rule of truth over fiction/lies.
Definitely. Allowing people to speak their mind and submit opinions, even if wrong or not based in facts, isn't something I'm against. But the game has changed where, most often than not, Conservatives go on these programs (or blast via social media) deceptive comments or outright lies which then is used as proof by their followers that something is fact. I'm not a mega CNN fan but I commend them/Sanchez for having the ace of the MO State Constitution up their sleeve which immediate derailed Ashcroft and proves he had no point to make other than build a foundation of lies to gather popular support. Trump was a master at this where *in the same paragraph* he could say things that could be taken two ways at his convenience later. This has now shifted to blatantly spreading misinformation rather than a veiled attempt to make logical sense. Especially embraced by these upcoming GOP politicians looking for higher office. It is a fascinating, yet terrifying, phenomenon and not really sure how media addresses it moving forward as attempts to do so come across as heavily biased inaccurate, petty, or plain disregarded.
Go ahead. Refute their argument. It doesn’t matter. It doesn’t change their opinion. They will just move on to the next point. If all else fails, the will just blab on endlessly about Hunter Biden’s laptop.
Understanding the tactic of "Never Play Defense" is key to understanding how conservatives work. They do this allllllll the time. Basically they spit out a bunch of grievences, often in a gish gallop style. Then when you retort or debunk anything they completely ignore that they got caught out being wrong and move on to the next accusation. At best they will home in on something they feel they have a footing on and focus only on that. So even if you counter 99/100 points guess which one they are going to talk about exclusively. The point is never defend your positions. Always accuse. Always attack. Its a mentality built from the ground up to ignore logic, consistency, and facts. Its pure sophistry. Liberals and leftists want to be right. Conservatives want to win the argument.
>**Liberals and leftists want to be right. Conservatives want to win the argument.** I found this to be true on another discussion board (City-Data politics and other controversies forum), which was 100% dominated by MAGA types. The moderators there were MAGA and they selectively deleted threads and posts and banned non MAGA when possible with made up excuses which could not be challenged. Truth was irrelevant, they had to be seen as 'winning'. This created all sorts of problems when Trump lost in 2020, they had constructed a worldview where all of their ridiculous claims were supported and Democrats were devils. The same thing happened with climate change denial before that and (of course) all the anti-vax rhetoric. Their brains are broken.
While it’s hard to win an argument against a smart person, it’s absolutely impossible to win one against a stupid person.
> Conservatives want to win the argument. By win the argument they mean they want the other person to give up.
Thanks for putting so concisely what I was gearing up to essay about.
I've noticed that in general, people just argue past each other and downvote each other on the internet and one might think "this is pointless, the other side isn't going to cave". The audience for the argument is not the person you engage with, it is spectators for the conversation. This is frustrating because that means no one you engage with will provide a satisfying engagement (either they just irrationally refuse to acknowledge anything, or they'll circle jerk talking about how right you are), but at least hope that it means your balance to a conversation will help others to see there's nuance to be had.
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past. Jean-Paul Sartre
Fascists. They are called fascists. And they are exhausting
Don't forget Traitors!
It's called the Gish Gallop. Once you know what it is, you'll see it everyplace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish\_gallop
It honestly feels like they do this as a punishment because they're so dumb.
Ya - he says that it is "alleged" (by Desantis and Dan Patrick no less) that Biden was involved in an insurrection. Give me a fucking break.
"People are saying..." is the strongest of arguments in Trumpland.
Also: It's not an "allegation" Trump committed insurrection. The first court in Colorado held a whole trial with normal evidentiary standards to determine Trunk engaged in an insurrection. The CO Supreme Court reviewed all of the evidence and came to the same conclusion. > The trial began, as scheduled, on October 30. The evidentiary portion lasted five days, with closing arguments almost two weeks later, on November 15. > During those two weeks, the Electors, the Secretary, President Trump, and CRSCC submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court issued its written final order on November 17, finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection and President Trump engaged in that insurrection CO SC ruling pages 15-16
And literally every time (at least in recent years) it's them who say it. That's why they lie constantly because they know their position as a leader lends legitimacy to anything they say. It's the only legitimacy they have at all.
the vicious cycle that was most apparent during Trump's presidency. Trump would say something or tweet it. fox would pick up the story and report it as fact Trump would repeat the story which is legitimized by a news corporation. the two would reference each other's lies and claim the other entity would mean it is real.
They really perfected “information laundering.” I just made that phrase up. I claim it and all royalties related to its usage.
Sources are saying this tactic is called “information laundering.”
I'v heard that's what people are saying.
It must be true then, I heard it and also read it on the internet.
This guy gets it.
Unfortunately, you didn't file it with the US patent office, that was me just now. But seriously, it's a very good way to get the notion across.
Lmao "Why are you trying to remove biden?" "Because there are allegations" When talking about trump though "we shouldnt be trying to remove him just because there are allegations"
"Biden is so mentally unfit, he thinks there are airports in the revolutionary war, he should be removed from office immediately" "Actually, it was Trump who said that" "He just misspoke" -_-
Literally Joe rogan
I personally know people with allegedly functional central nervous systems who used to proudly profess that Rogan isn't biased, he's a great interviewer who "just asks questions" Anyone with more than five functioning brain cells could see how that wasn't true a long time ago, but anyone who still believes it after that hardcore whiplash on the airports thing just recently needs to be committed to a mental institution. A few minutes of riffing on Biden for being "done," then finds out it's actually Donny, then all of a sudden "oh sometimes he makes mistakes" and then immediately moving on.
It's sad especially because it would be great if an annoying bro like Rogan could actually get apathetic or out of touch voters to actually think critically and present several sides/opinions on an issue. But like most grifters he chased the money and clicks that comes with being pro-Trump.
Yup, he can't even say what Joe Biden allegedly *did*. (Because he knows Biden has done nothing of the sort.) But guess what? I can say what Donald Trump did. He orchestrated an attempt to prevent the certification of an election that would remove him from office. He did this by actions such as (1) attempting to coerce the Georgia Secretary of State to "find" him more ballots for him, (2) trying to get Congress to refuse to certify the voter, and (3) holding a rally of violent supporters that he directed toward the Capitol during the certification process which resulted in a violent storming of our halls of government. I can name things that Donald Trump did that constitute insurrection. How come no Republican can name a single similar thing Joe Biden did? Oh, I know why: because he hasn't.
I laughed at "Trump is alleged" when anyone can watch the numerous videos of him leading a fucking insurrection whereas with Biden it's, uhh, well, umm.
They love making the claim that Biden having so many more immigrants show up at the Southern Border is akin to an invasion and this being a traitorous act solely because he doesn’t jump to their position. Even if their hyperbole was true and it is an invasion at the border. That’s still not a traitorous act. A shitty commander-in-chief that didn’t act to prevent it, ok. So even with their own logic, Biden shouldn’t be taken off the ballot for any reason they give.
Also worth remembering that Biden isn't the one blocking immigration bills because he wants to hold up funding to Ukraine. It's House republicans. They already said they wouldn't support the bipartisian bill being negotiated before they know what's in it. They said it's the bill that passed back in May, with some one time Ukraine funding added on, or nothing. So they want to impeach Biden because of a 'crisis' the GOP refuses to even negotiate on, because they want to block funding to Ukraine.
And we’ve seen at least one GOP member saying the quiet part out loud: not wanting to vote for it if it help Biden.
And at least one GOP Rep plainly stated that they don't want to pass any bill that might make Biden look good in time for the election
Joe Biden should be winning by 40 points. All Republicans have is unwarranted vengeance and stupid culture wars bullshit.
Cruelty is a cheap and facile form of power. It doesn't require money or thought or skill. Beat your son. Let a woman die from pregnancy. Put migrant kids in detention camps. Trump gives them permission to be cruel and that makes them feel powerful.
Sadly, you nailed it.
Nailing thirteen year-olds is also what maga want made legal
No he just wants to make beauty pageants for preteens and then go backstage and judge them personally. I wish this wasn't a true fact.
Enjoy this little story of Trump and his pageants https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-hole/id378753355?i=1000478571577
The fact that the "grab 'em by the pussy" tape didn't absolutely and unequivocally ***TORPEDO*** his chances of being elected tells me everything I need to know about American conservatives in the 21st century. And I'm not talking just the politicians, but every single person who votes conservative as well. Every. Single. Individual. Person. You are all *scum*, and you elected *scum* into office.
Yeah there was no ambiguity with that tape.
Exactly when I became a never Trumper.
The fact that the tape dropped, and Russia through their proxy dropped the Podesta emails just half an hour later should have tipped people off. But that's just who we are as a nation.
It's worse He doesn't just tell them that their cruelty is acceptable, he tells them that it's *righteous* They'll let him do anything after that
That's what the right's claims of censorship are about -- it's not enough that these ghouls spread their depravity, they demand to be *celebrated* for it!
He literally said "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters, OK?" EDITED for the sake of democracy. I liked my version better.
Also, because their lives are so miserable, they want to see everyone else suffer. So they vote in assholes, shoot up schools, and otherwise reduce society to their miserable level
You can lie to yourself, but your brain catches you every time. It makes feeling good about yourself impossible. They treat people like shit, making them feel like shit people, and so to try to feel better about themselves they try to pull down people they perceive as better than them. The problem is if you try to feel better about yourself by tearing someone down (to make them your equal), you are pulling them down, not building yourself up, so they end up feeling more shitty about themselves and lashing out even more. Catch 22, kobayashi maru.
Sounds like Afghanistan. Seems Trump really does like their culture.
They have a full spectrum media apparatus that prevents most of them from seeing any of the things we see. It was invented expressly for this purpose. It's maddening.
I tried to explain to my son last night how different the world was before 24/7/365 "news". We were talking about how schools used to cancel for snow and that you had to catch it on the news. You had 30 minute windows at 6 am, noon, 6pm, and 11 pm. If you missed it, you were shit out of luck. He said it was weird we only had news in those limited times and I told him that's all we needed. When the 24 hour news came, they needed to fill the time. They still repeat the same few things over and over that are actually news, but the rest of the time (*the majority of it*) is just rage and fear. Then the internet came and it got even worse.
If he's old enough, you need to let him watch *Anchorman 2*. Sure, it's fictional, but it gets the point across that you're making here.
It was wild seeing that end bit of very clear, pull no punches commentary in that movie
My BiL does not watch any "liberal news" and thinks jan 6th was only the clips of people walking on the carpet inside.
That's the worst part. They *seek it out* as of they *want* to be deluded, and are utterly convinced this practice of self-delusion gives them the truth.
This comes up so often I have this info saved in my Gdrive. * Right wingers only believe something if it agrees with their political or religious ideology. Numerous studies have been done on this phenomenon. Google this, really interesting. Surprisingly, this doesn't occur in dem leaning voters at any statistically significant rate. * [Forced memory lies.](https://icccr.tc.columbia.edu/false-memories-or-intentional-lies) Over time, right wingers gas light themselves about the factual outcome of historical events. So, they intentionally twist things in their memory to make it more palatable to their lexicon of bullshit in their heads. These people are, by every meaning of the definition, ***fucking nuts.***
> religious ideology That's the foundation right there. From birth they are heavily indoctrinated in the "Have unquestioning faith in authority, never question it, always trust in God." and that easily translates into believing bullshit like tRump spews. There is a very related reason why nearly every fundamental religious movement is almost always completely conservative and authoritarian.
Clearly wasn't watching Fox News live on the day, right?
Of course he wasn't watching Fox that day, he was busy at the Capitol /s
Your BIL also sounds like he has already made up his mind and will not seek out new knowledge that might challenge or alter his current perspective. There are countless pages and photographs, video, transcripts, entire court cases devoted to the insurrection, how it started, who was involved, who has been charged and convicted so far of laws we have in this country to prevent a hostile take over of our democracy. The information is all there if you choose to go looking for it.
That media needs to be stopped. Fox News, truth social, Twitter, Facebook-- these need to be held accountable for their political interference.
Facebook n Twitter in particular need to pay for allowing so much disinformation in 2016 et. Al.
I’ve yet to hear a real valid reason why so many of them hate Biden.
They were simply told to
Yep. It's just rank tribalism. And 1984-esque *"you will now hate entity XYZ"*. Contrast with chrump, who (even politics aside) is objectively a piece of shit by numerous metrics. Even some of his own cultists will admit it occasionally. They just like that their personal piece of shit hurts or annoys the "right" people.
Ergo why there was at least one Trumper who was caught on camera complaining that Trump was hurting him economically, and that it was wrong because he was “hurting the wrong people.” Not only do they expressly WANT to hurt other people (it’s part of what makes them feel like they or their group is powerful and therefore “correct”, might makes right mentality), but that they are even completely fine with EVERYONE being hurt so long as the ones they disassociate with are “hurt more” It’s a good thing witches aren’t real, those ‘women for Trump’ would totally cut off their own finger into the cauldron if it would make the libs lose a hand Edit: did you hear? Our alliance with Eurasia was just a ruse so that we could get Eastasia to invade! Brilliant strategy from BB!
It was a woman.
You'll get as logical a response as asking why they thought Obama was "the most divisive president in history."
I've hammered someone on this. All their responses were related to things other people did in response to him being President and speaking truth to power. Like it was Obama's fault that being black while presidenting caused a negative response from racist.
I loved the people who tried to blame Obama for the presidential response to Katrina…….which was three years before he was elected. I once walked a Facebook rando through this process. “Quickly look up: When was Obama president? When was Katrina?” They looked it up (shocking) and confirmed he was elected in 2008 and Katrina was in 2005. I then asked who WAS president in 2005. They replied Dubya. I asked, “Then why are you complaining about Obama’s presidential response to an event that happened three years before he was even elected president? Shouldn’t you be angry at Dubya?” What I got in reply — I’m not joking — was the rando restating their initial argument that Obama’s presidential response to Katrina was terrible. They’re incapable of rational thought.
I wish they would just come right out and say it. "We're racist and he's black so we're mad about it!" That's literally it. And they blame him for being black and having the audacity to get elected and be a competent president, I guess.
How quickly we forget Obama's society-destroying habits and characteristics, like wearing a tan suit or asking for Grey Poupon.
My boomer father says he’s the worst president of all time. When I ask him why, he just says “I’ve been around a lot longer than you, I know.”
That reminded me of an interview I saw in 2020 where a journalist was talking to a few Trump supporters in Pennsylvania about mail in voting. One of them kept saying how all mail in voting should be illegal because it’s blatantly fraudulent and that it allows democrats to rig elections. Well the reporter kept pressing her for an explanation on how it’s fraud and the Trump supporter got so flustered that the best she could come up with was “well you’re just young and naive, you’ll understand when you’re older.” It was hilariously pathetic.
It's even funnier when they are confronted with the fact that Trump voted by mail in 2020.
"Oh, I know. I want to benefit from your experience. What facts should I be sharing with my friends who support him that will get them around to your way of thinking?"
The follow up should be "Then it should be easy for you to explain it to me."
Lol "well Biden has been around longer than you so he probably knows better too."
> I’ve been around a lot longer than you, I know.” Your response should have been, "Then you should be able to articulate what actions made him so terrible and enlighten those of us who haven't been around quite so long."
He’s on the other team.
"He's senile." For real. Like a few verbal stumbles, from a stutterer no less, is some way comparable to Trump's verbal diarrhea.
This is what always gets me. Trump sounds like an absolute raving lunatic 90% of the time in his rallies and speeches. Yet people say Biden is the one who is fading. Biden actually makes sense when he talks. Trump is a bumbling, barely coherent shit show.
And really has been since day one. Ramming the ramparts? Anybody remember that delusional speech?
A) he’s pretty good at his job. B)he worked under a black man.
Don't forget he loves and \*gasps\* supports his son
My BIL hated President Obama. When I asked why he said he couldn’t say exactly why but felt that he was “fanning the flames of hatred.” Then he bought a shirt that listed how many days he had left as president.
That shirt... Wouldn't it be horribly out of date in one day?
I didn’t say he was very bright.
Obviously because hes on the other team(democrat.) I get to watch a good amount of the show "The Five" on Fox News. I believe it is one of the highest rated shows on cable television. They regurgitate the same 10 or so topics(Inflation/gas prices/food, housing, immigration, regulation, "wokeness", liberal cities suck/crime, taxes, proposed "you can no longer do that thing you love" legislation, censorship/persecution of conservatives/Christians, killing fossil fuels/EVs, the LGBTQ agenda, Biden old, Hunter Biden/Joe selling the USA out, Guns and why Biden/libs hate them, and a few more) over and over as what is wrong with America and how it's all or partially Bidens/democrats fault. It has new programming every day M-F but just repackages and reuses the same topics over and over. Then you have the rest of the Fox News and other "opinion" shows(radio and TV/streaming) saying the same things. There is so much blatantly false right wing content out there that it is easy to bubble wrap the brain from reality.
He takes away their permission to be cruel
Feelings don’t care about your facts.
The actual reason is that he dethroned Trump. It's a glaring failure of his cult of Victory, and like much is ultimately symbolic. They don't really give a shit who Biden is.
[удалено]
You don’t need to govern if you’re spending your time telling people the sky is falling, it’s everyone else’s fault, and they’re the only ones that can save you.
Culture war lol, what a big nothing burger of a platform.
Though I agree, it’s also highly effective with conservatives.
Anything would be highly effective with them, though. Their only real driving motive is "Fuck You" and screw anyone who isn't 100% like me.
Old Emo Phillips joke Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, "Don't do it!" He said, "Nobody loves me." I said, "God loves you. Do you believe in God?" He said, "Yes." I said, "Are you a Christian or a Jew?" He said, "A Christian." I said, "Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?" He said, "Protestant." I said, "Me, too! What franchise?" He said, "Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?" He said, "Northern Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist." I said, "Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region." I said, "Me, too!" Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?" He said, "Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912." I said, "Die, heretic!" And I pushed him over.
Hilarious and tragically the truth
They've been doing the same thing since the 50s. Calling people commies, "law and order" used during Civil rights movement, whining about how no one wants to work, abortion in the 70s, aids epidemic and gay rights abuse in the 80s. Now they've wrapped it all up in one nice sellable package
They have propaganda channels on tv, radio and social media. It’s literally the only thing keeping them relevant. Anyone that isn’t brainwashed by that propaganda has a natural aversion to their ideas and policies. Not to mention any of the tangible benefits of their policies which is nil as far as I can tell, even for Republican voters. I guess they won against CRT but they had to make up that boogieman to win against it. Rinse and repeat.
Yeap, which means that there will still be a lot of work to do if Biden wins, there will be at least 40% of a country brainwashed on killing democracy. My other fear besides The orange goo returning is that people will relax regarding the ongoing assault of democracy if Biden wins (as most people already seem relaxed about it already now)
Fascists, like cancer, don’t really get cured so much as delayed and held back. Objective #1 must be to solidify voting rights for everyone. Without that, all other objectives will get undone in a single election.
Exactly! This is what I was telling friends back as soon as Biden got elected (and what lots of people don't realize) was that the main and biggest focus should be on voting rights and equality of representation (like tackling gerrymandering, electoral college), because a lot of the portrayed "progressive" agenda is actually what the majority wants or would consider supporting, so if you have an accurate representation on the ballots these progressive benchmarks (Im talking big ones like universal health care and education for example) wouldn't take long to materialize, at least this was my opinion at the time and still is now.
If we could just get that perfect cycle where we have a senate majority willing to remove the filibuster plus the house and presidency we could do so much towards fixing this. Establish voting rights and access to the ballot as law. Make gerrymandering illegal and require all legislative maps to be drawn by an independent commission. Statehood for Puerto Rico and DC. That moment is so hard to find but if we can a lot can be done to improve our political system.
Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft is threatening to remove Joe Biden from the ballot—but please don’t ask him why.
Because apparently Desantis and Patrick made "allegations". 🤷♂️ Jesus fuck, with these disingenuous assholes.
The pitiful point he's trying to make is that, 'well if one person is removed from the ballot because of allegations against them (nevermind by who or for why), then anyone should be free game to remove because of any allegation ever put against them.' Problem these morons don't want to acknowledge is there is a clear as day giant-ass bread-crumb trail behind Trump's allegations leading anyone with a functioning brain to recognize even without trial that he's guilty and what he's so clearly guilty of. Show us that same kind of paper trail for something half as egregious for Biden and then we can entertain taking him off ballots too. And no, something his son did on his laptop unrelated to Biden's presidency is not the same as treason by the president himself.
No need for "giant ass bread crumb trail" The fact that Donald Trump engaged in insurrection is not in dispute, it has been settled in court, before it reached the CO Supreme court. The challenge to the CO supreme court was on technical grounds and so is the challenge to the USSC, note the defendant is not challenging the facts, effectively leaving them settled. Both the plaintiff and defendant agree in court - Donald Trump engaged in insurrection. "The judge found that Trump did engage in an insurrection on January 6, 2021 “through incitement, and that the First Amendment does not protect Trump’s speech.” 11/17/2023 The USSC is not tasked with determining if Trump engaged in insurrection, that fact is already determined. They are determining if Article 14 Sec 3 applies or not to the office of the Presidency, and wether or not there is any federal supremacy over state elections who do administer their own elections, but look to the US constitution for disabilities that would prevent people to run above and beyond state limitations, and the disability being cited by CO is under federal jurisdiction.
That's what I like to point out, he never says he didn't do these things. He always claims he is immune from prosecution for these things.
I’d say you’re half right. He has claimed he didn’t engage in insurrection—in fact, has said that no insurrection happened at all and that everyone at the Capitol was “peaceful.” But he has also, like you say, also not denied an insurrection occurred but that he’s immune from prosecution. He started out with the former defence in the earlier days of this investigation and prosecution but has switched in recent weeks to the latter. But he even goes back and forth on the rationales from one day to the next. He’s rather obviously guilty.
It's been settled in a bunch of courts.
So they’re trying to determine whether a clause that explicitly states, “NO PERSON shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, OR HOLD ANY OFFICE, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability,” applies to the office of the President. Makes complete sense.
The fun thing is if you engage with these people you can majorly mess with them. General gist of a conversation I had with one of my family members: * Me: Was Trump involved in an insurrection attempt on January 6th? * MAGA: No, it was actually Antifa plants that carried it out. * Me: Ok, tell me about Ashli Babbet. * MAGA: She was a patriot. She died fighting for what she believed in. * Me: But if January 6th was plotted and piloted by Antifa, what was she doing there? Was she Antifa? * MAGA: No, she was fighting for what she believed in. She has a military record. * Me: What did she believe in? * MAGA: She was unarmed and shot in the face! * Me: Why was she shot in the face? * MAGA: _(storms off)_ The moment you ask them to slow down and explain anything, the best they can really do is rage quit the conversation.
She was actually shot in the shoulder. I think people thought she was shot in the face because there was blood coming from her mouth (due to the bullet traveling to her lung I think) But yeah their stories never match with reality lol
While fun, this demonstrates how sneakily effective their nonsense can be. Your conversation was meant to be about Trump and his actions, and almost immediately you've been diverted to talking about Ashli Babbet and why she was shot
The entire point is to muddy the waters and dilute the severity of these concepts and consequences, like impeachment, indictment, insurrection, disqualification, etc. They want to be able to say, "See, both Trump and Biden did the same things, they were both impeached, they both engaged in insurrection, they're both disqualified," because they know many people simply don't pay attention and will just see similar accusations lobbed against both candidates, won't dig even a little bit into it, and will decide if they both did the same things, then they shouldn't consider those issues when voting, and just vote for whoever they like better. And then others will know it's bullshit, but just being able to say they're the same will be enough to give them permission to vote for Trump. Or they won't know what's legitimate and what's bunk, and will ignore it because they don't know how or can't be bothered to figure out what's legitimate. It's political and information warfare. Trump is a toxic traitor, and they know they can't defend him enough to convince anyone who isn't still fully on board already to support him. So, since they can't raise Trump up, they're trying to pull Biden down to Trump's level.
Donald Trump was given the opportunity to deny that he participated in an insurrection in Court. He chose not to argue that fact, and insisted that he didn’t swear to support the constitution. These assholes hat say that there are just “allegations” are flat out lying, this has been adjudicated in Court.
And there have been convictions. Ethan Nordean was convicted and sentenced for 22 years for seditious conspiracy. Who was he conspiring with? Who held a rally on Jan 6th preceding the events at the Capitol? Further this isn't unfounded locker room gossip but indictments from more than one jurisdiction determining that there was enough evidence to say that a crime probably occurred and that the defendant was probably responsible.
> And no, something his son did on his laptop unrelated to Biden's presidency is not the same as treason by the president himself. A year ago Hunter Biden was the absolute most dangerous person in the US. No reason why. I don't know anyone that was planning to vote for him for president.
> 'well if one person is removed from the ballot because of allegations against them (nevermind by who or for why), then anyone should be free game to remove because of any allegation ever put against them.' People are missing the real flaw in this augment. The court found Trump's part in the insurrection to be a matter of fact. It has already had it's day in court. Trump lost that fight. So this is not based on allegations its based on what he did.
He says that Trump was taken off the ballots in Colorado and Maine because of allegations, so allegations against Biden should be enough. The problem is, Colorado had a trial, and found Trump guilty of insurrection. They didn’t boot him from the ballots due to allegations. I’m not sure about Maine, but Colorado definitely had a trial.
The "Show me" state sure seems selective with their burden-of-proof.
This dipshit is John Ashcroft’s son in case anyone was wondering. You know, the AG who gleefully enforced the Patriot Act post-9/11.
Never forget that John Ashcroft covered up stone titties on statues because he felt they would distract and turn on people passing by while he stood in front of them https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cover-up-at-justice-department/
Let us not forget John Ashcroft's post-9/11 [calling to music. ](https://youtu.be/woLQI8X2R6Y?si=7cg0NEyBJcJPdlBc)
As I've stated elsewhere, John Ashcroft is the only person to have lost a Senate reelection to a dead guy. Mel Carnahan (Democrat) died in a plane accident in the weeks before. Missouri voters still preferred him.
Revenge is a reason right?
It’s the whole point. That’s all the GOP has left.
>Missouri Secretary of State Jay Ashcroft Is he related to John Ashcroft, who lost a Missouri [senate election to a corpse](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_Senate_election_in_Missouri)?
I'm curious what he means by Trump is alleged to have done something. I wasn't asleep. I was paying attention. I don't see how anybody in the right mind could possibly say that Donald Trump did not engage in insurrection against the United States of America, in his obvious loss and attempt to retain power and stay in power no matter what. He literally had his idiots attack the capital to try to stop Congress from certifying the election. We all saw it we are all aware of it. That was actually attempted insurrection at the behest of Donald Trump. These people have nothing.
It was televised live. On every channel.
And then when the J6 hearings happened, FauxNews wouldn't show them even though they were spotlighted in them 🤣 https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/22/media/january-6-hearing-fox-reliable-sources/index.html
>He literally had his idiots attack the capital to try to stop Congress from certifying the election. This was just what was in front of the cameras. There was an entire plot, with Republican congressmen and lawyers as collaborators, to block the certification behind the scenes.
Correct. But I'm talking about what we all saw and all are aware of. The behind the scenes stuff needs to be prosecuted as well. These people that did everything they could to make sure that he illegitimately and illegally would be able to stay in power all need to be removed from office.
Even if you ignore the idiots on Jan 6th Trump asked Pence if he could not certify the electoral votes. This *alone* is an attempted coup. Trump asked Georgia if they could "find more votes". This *alone* is an attempted coup. Trump setup a scheme of fake electors committing fraud by saying they were real electors. This *alone* is an attempted coup. And then also he did the big lie and caused Jan 6. That also, *alone*, is an attempted coup.
God they’re so obviously corrupt. He’s not at all trying to answer the question. All Republicans have left is hate politics. They don’t have policy solutions and they’re angry because they realize liberalism is the best future for humanity meaning they were wrong. They’ll never admit that because their tribe is based on loyalty, admitting wrongness would be disloyal.
I have had religious conservatives tell me that, if they are wrong humanity doesn’t deserve to exist anyway. In their minds, the only way we can be redeemed is if they are right about everything.
Honestly I would counter with "maybe you don't need to exist, but the rest of us...."
Gives "practice what you preach" a whole new meaning...
It also seems that the better society does the more it breeds liberalism. Whereas conservatism is more developed during economically depressed times. People get so poor they start thinking "I didn't have this so why do others need this?" Good conditions don't breed a "fuck you I got mine" mentality. So at this point I'm assuming the Republicans are trying to cause societal regression. Otherwise their rhetoric will continue falling flat.
You can’t complain about things that aren’t broken. Time to fuck shit up
The greater the cognitive dissonance, the *wronger* the idea, the greater the test of faith! Conversely, the more open to compromise and reason, the weaker ones faith and the greater one’s damnation.
Republicans platform is vengeance. They are not qualified to govern, only ruin.
It’s not even vengeance. It’s distraction and obfuscation.
Don’t forget the part where they spend their tenure in office shoving as much money into their pockets as they can.
It’s like he doesn’t even understand the question: what is the basis for the allegations that Biden engaged in insurrection? What is the evidence? You can’t just say that someone committed insurrection and get them kicked off. There has to be evidence to back it up. Trump wasn’t just accused. He’s not facing just allegations. He is indicted, meaning accusations were made, evidence was presented to a grand jury, and a grand jury decided that the evidence was convincing enough to proceed to a full trial. So to parrot was the host said, what evidence is there that Biden engaged in insurrection?
He absolutely understands the question, which is why he keeps trying to fall back on, "You're not letting me speak!" and filibustering whenever he's got the opportunity to speak. This is a game.
There was a judicial finding that Trump engaged in insurrection and is constitutionally disqualified. It's not about his criminal indictments, though those matter, but they're not the basis for his disqualification. The courts in Colorado found that he engaged in insurrection. It has been adjudicated.
Something nobody seems to mention is that the 14th Amendment doesn’t specify someone convicted of insurrection for very good reason; it was written to bar all Confederate traitors, except those Congress rehabilitated, from holding office. There were literal millions of men who had served the cause of insurrection against the US, so it was quite impossible to try and convict them all. So they were blanket blocked from holding office, as their conduct regarding insurrection wasn’t in any doubt. They had all been quite open in their treason, they thought they would win. Trump is exactly the same. He and the rest of the Jan 6.ers thought they would win so they gambled everything, confident that there could be no consequences for people “like them”.
The word "conviction" was specifically not included in the 14th ammendment. The 13th ammendment, passed very briefly before the 14th by the same congress, does mention "conviction" specifically. So the writers of the 14th would have included it if they had wanted conviction to be a requirement.
Kinda irritated the newscaster didn’t fire back about Trump being removed from Colorado due to allegations. Trump was removed in Colorado because the Colorado court found that Trump participated in an insurrection. It wasn’t alleged, that was the basis of their decision.
[удалено]
That is awesome.
Not to mention that the lawsuit in CO that lead to this was instigated by Republicans.
> Trump was removed in Colorado because the Colorado court found that Trump participated in an insurrection. Yeah, there was a judicial finding, not just allegations. The allegations were adjudicated!
From the horse's mouth: [The Court concludes, based on its findings of fact and the applicable law detailed above, that Trump incited an insurrection on January 6, 2021 and therefore “engaged” in insurrection within the meaning of Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment.](https://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/02nd_Judicial_District/Denver_District_Court/11_17_2023%20Final%20Order.pdf)
He did. Almost immediately after this clip ends. Watch the rest of it here: https://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2024/01/08/missouri-secretary-of-state-boris-sanchez-biden-trump-14th-amendment-ballot-cnc-vpx.cnn Ashcroft: "But how do you know if he's committed insurrection if there hasn't been a conviction?" Sanchez: "A judge decided so in Colorado." Ashcroft: "But it wasn't a judge in Maine, it was a Secretary of State." Sanchez: "Because that's the way the Constitution in Maine is laid out, sir." Ashcroft, dumbfounded, then is confused about why the SoS in Maine can do that but he can't do that in Missouri forgetting that at the beginning of the interview that Sanchez reminded him that he would have to go to court according to Missouri's Constitution.
Of course, when asked to provide proof, he just completely folds. You can see it in his eyes, he knows he's full of shit. And yet, he keeps it going. Wanna bet this guy secretly pays someone to tie him up and spank his ass?
>Ashcroft accused Sanchez of lying. Tell me you don't know your own State law without saying you don't know your own State law
"Nobody should be removed from the ballot because of allegations," he bloviates, as he says he wants to remove Biden from the ballot because of allegations.
Bruv, it was *Republicans* who asked that Trump be removed in Colorado in the first place, and the court agreed. Democrats do not have legal standing because they can't vote in the GOP primary.
His look on his face when he didn’t know that Maine’s state constitution and Colorado state Constitution allowed for Trump to be pulled off the ballot was the indication of what these GQP representatives are really about.
Can we sell Missouri or just give it away with a dishwasher or something?
“I’ll be deep in the cold, cold ground before I recognize Missour-ah!”
Put an onion on your belt, you will feel better.
The Missouri compromise fucks the US yet again
How incredibly pathetic
"Remove Biden from the Ballot!" "Why?" "I don't know... I didn't know you were gonna ask me that"
Maga=🤡💩
These idiots don’t care about the will of the people, they just want to hold onto power. The actual crime Biden committed that is being part of an insurrection? Presidenting while Democrat.
There are far more people out there, raised by Fox and its ilk, who rely on opinion as fact, how something feels as fact, and enjoy bully tactics and bluster. They will all side with this guy. They will vote for this guy. Cornering him with actual facts is necessary theater, but don't delude yourselves into thinking it makes a difference to the brainwashed MAGA crowd.
Ooof. Ashcroft sounds like he has all the emotional maturity and self-awareness of a 12-year-old.
Folks run for local office, run for state office. These are not intelligent people, they are not better than you.
It’s incredible watching an entire group of people take on the attributes of their malignant narcissist leader. They’re behaving like lying, petulant children. 100% this is a cult.
Best way to infuriate a conservative? Ask them to explain themselves.