(Thread IKs:
weg, Toxic Mental)
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:https://twitter.com/Democracy1stE/status/1754477396366143724?s=20 I like how many tough guys there are in the movement that will not actually throw punches like a tough guy, but they sure will yell and act like they’re about to
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:22 |
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:https://twitter.com/Democracy1stE/status/1754477396366143724?s=20 “Homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of god”. Good cause i don’t wanna inherit anything,gently caress god.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:05
|
|
|
rotinaj posted:I like how many tough guys there are in the movement that will not actually throw punches like a tough guy, but they sure will yell and act like they’re about to They will smack the poo poo out of the painted part of the back of a truck.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:06
|
|
|
Accipiter posted:So what you're saying is that higher courts have never ever decided that a lower court's decision was wrong and/or unconstitutional and/or illegal and then overturned that decision? I didn't even come remotely close to implying this? Just that not everything is always decided by a jury. Secretary of State says "I say this person is/is not qualified because X." Legal challenge ensues. Judge serves as finder of fact and says "Yep, not qualified." Appeals play out, including possibly all the way to SCOTUS. Ruling is either upheld or not. Done. Also it's probably a little safer if a thing qualifying/disqualifying someone from holding office like that can be defined entirely within the text of the constitution & amendments. If you say 'Insurrection is someone committing the federal crime of "Insurrection."' You're opening the door for congress to write a law defining "Insurrection" as whatever the gently caress mush-brained Marjorie Taylor Green of the day has decided it should be.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:08
|
|
|
rotinaj posted:I like how many tough guys there are in the movement that will not actually throw punches like a tough guy, but they sure will yell and act like they’re about to They are all carrying you can see one of the guys with a pistol tucked in the back of his pants. They know they are all fragile enough that if someone throws a punch some other wussy will start mag-dumping. I wouldn't be shocked if they are trying to get someone so mad they do just so they can murder them.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:08
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:10
|
|
|
Vire posted:They are all carrying you can see one of the guys with a pistol tucked in the back of his pants. They know they are all fragile enough that if someone throws a punch some other wussy will start mag-dumping. I wouldn't be shocked if they are trying to get someone so mad they do just so they can murder them. That shouldn’t be a problem, they are awash with good guys with a gun to stop the bad guy with one
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:11
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:this is what happens when your entire movement are built on moron bigots with main character syndrom I was just about to make this same post, almost word for word. It's a hilarious feedback loop since none of them ever want to be the one to back down. e: "We will not be hosed!" 
Harveygod fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Feb 5, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:12
|
|
|
redshirt posted:I'm confused by why anyone thinks the Supreme Court cares what other people think of their decisions at this point; precedent? They don't seem to care. PR? Why would they care? Politics?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:12
|
|
|
Accipiter posted:You're trying to equate "crimes" to "things that are not crimes." That's not how this works. That's a poor counter, you may as well say "You're trying to equate ages to things that are not ages." Okay? So what? He is not being found guilty of a crime. Historically other applications of the 14 amendment did not require a conviction.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:13
|
|
|
Swift Tag update: Uploaded, what do I do to have other have it?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:13
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Swift Tag update: Paste the link to the tag here, its link from the SA site.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:16
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:That's a poor counter No, it's not. It's the only possible counter. The way you are found to be under 35 is to be under 35. Being found to have committed a crime is not as cut and dried. They aren't even remotely the same category of "held to be true." QuarkJets posted:He is not being found guilty of a crime. Historically other applications of the 14 amendment did not require a conviction. Already addressed: Accipiter posted:Uncharted waters for sure, but people also have to realize: Side-note: a foreign body that also happened to be one that had declared war on the United States. Just saying.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:17
|
|
|
lmaaao they're interviewing a woman on npr who was an undocumented immigrant from mexico who was granted amnesty by raygun, and she's voting trump because "the people crossing the border today aren't mexican, they're south american, and they should close the border" just absolute loving idiocy and spite
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:18
|
|
|
The die is cast. Goons, here are your two new tag codes: https://fi.somethingawful.com/safs/titles/4e/15/00115088.0001.gif  https://fi.somethingawful.com/safs/titles/a1/30/00126285.0008.gif Thank you to fellow mentally ill sex pest Mr Ice Cream Glove for making it happen.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:19
|
|
|
Oh perfect thanks for posting that
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:20
|
|
|
PKMN Trainer Red posted:The die is cast. Goons, here are your two new tag codes: fuckin lol
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:20
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:https://twitter.com/Democracy1stE/status/1754477396366143724?s=20 at the TMNT Jeep
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:21
|
|
|
Accipiter posted:Oh come on. That's 100% false. i'm entirely familiar with these specifics and if you were too i don't think you'd be so condescending. someone being referred to as a suspected murderer before a conviction is precisely because they have yet to stand before a court that has standing and jurisdiction to make that finding. every other court has had standing to make the insurrection finding because the language to determine it is right there. that's why every court that has reviewed it so far has said "yeah he definitely did an insurrection", even republican ones. the SCOTUS absolutely also has standing to make that decision, and it is going to them because their jurisdiction on constitutional issues supersedes the other courts. remanded judgements happen when the court in question does not have the standing to establish a point of law. an appellate court remands a judgement back down to a lower court because the appeal decision was "you hosed up this trial based on this point of law; however, we don't have the standing to decide what should happen, so do a new trial." the main way remand would work in this case is assigning jail time or whatever other criminal consequences. that absolutely is going to happen. that sort of thing needs to be done by jury, and there's not going to be any jury in these hearings. but for the purposes of keeping him off the ballot? the SCOTUS absolutely does not need to remand that and it will cause substantial problems both with their authority and constitutional interpretation if they do that; if they remanded the question of donny t's insurrection, and therefore his eligibility, down to lower courts, it opens a possibility to a president that a bunch of states do not consider eligible to take office. that's an absolutely staggering crisis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:22
|
|
|
Might have a crumbley verdict. People are filling back in. e: another jury question. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 19:36 on Feb 5, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:22
|
|
|
deoju posted:
DONT TYOUCH MAH TRUK
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:23
|
|
|
Too bad there isn't any video footage of Donald Trump telling his followers to march on Congress and to fight like hell and to not accept the results of a "fake" election Oh hold a moment something is coming in over the telex... oh my!
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:24
|
|
|
The very moment I heard a convoy was headed to the TX border I immediately thought "oh good, they'll ruin themselves"
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:24
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:https://twitter.com/Democracy1stE/status/1754477396366143724?s=20 Of course one of the guys is in a cookie cutter "I'm unique" modified bro Jeep lmao
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:24
|
|
|
deoju posted:
lol indeed 
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:25
|
|
|
Harveygod posted:I was just about to make this same post, almost word for word. its why while stuff is worrying in various cases, i am not worried for the medium term or as much about the election least for now. trump robbed the GOP of any ability to plan more then an hour ahead, they can only react and they either have to be the oppoisite of mainstream culture OR whatever trump wants.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:25
|
|
|
TremorX posted:lol indeed Hahahaha
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:26
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/live/7eQ9f90yvZc?si=f-oLKl03QHrX2NFk Live cam from Crumbley trial
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:27
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:27
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:i'm entirely familiar with these specifics You aren't though. Your reply is a bunch of hastily-googled snippets that partly apply and partly don't. (And you added more after I hit the "quote" button.)
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:28
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:https://twitter.com/Democracy1stE/status/1754477396366143724?s=20
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:28
|
|
|
Accipiter posted:No, it's not. It's the only possible counter. SCOTUS is not going to hand down a list of federal statutes and say 'These count as insurrection.' though. I guess we can get some kind of ruling that 'Must be found guilty by a federal jury of some crime meeting these set of specific criteria that we think would meet the common understanding of 'Insurrection' at the time the amendment was written.' maybe? Even that's going to be weird because, ok someone is convicted of a crime, like Trump with the Jan 6 stuff. And THEN a SoS says they think it qualifies as insurrection and disqualifies them. Then you do the entire appeal all over again and it just ends up SCOTUS deciding if that specific crime counts as insurrection, I guess? I'm not sure how much the criminal conviction buys you in the legal sense there. The amendment just says 'did a thing' not 'convicted of the crime of X'. Coolguye posted:the main way remand would work in this case is assigning jail time or whatever other criminal consequences. that absolutely is going to happen. that sort of thing needs to be done by jury, and there's not going to be any jury in these hearings. but for the purposes of keeping him off the ballot? the SCOTUS absolutely does not need to remand that and it will cause substantial problems both with their authority and constitutional interpretation if they do that; if they remanded the question of donny t's insurrection, and therefore his eligibility, down to lower courts, it opens a possibility to a president that a bunch of states do not consider eligible to take office. that's an absolutely staggering crisis. I guess it depends on how you read 14.3, but people seem to be reading into it that it MUST mean 'guilty of the crime of X' and not 'did a thing'. Guilty of breaking a federal statute would be a weird rear end thing to have in the constitution since congress can just do whatever, or even rescind the law. I guess then the 14th section 3 just no longer exists then? Whether you think it's a good idea or not, it seems to me that this is a case where a judge can rule that XYZ happened or did not happen, and that's that. The 35 year age thing was supposed to be a ridiculous example, but what about all the conspiracy poo poo about birth citizenship? That COULD be more complicated in terms of evidence, testimony, etc... so why would we let a judge decide that and not insurrection? Rescue Toaster fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Feb 5, 2024 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:28
|
|
|
Accipiter posted:You aren't though. Your reply is a bunch of hastily-googled snippets that partly apply and partly don't. (And you added more after I hit the "quote" button.) i do. you jumped the gun and got aggressive for no reason. namaste.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:29
|
|
|
Froghammer posted:Outrage bait street preachers rely on being able to sue randos if they get assaulted on a college campus or whatever, and I have no idea why they thought that threat would work in a convoy headed to illegally occupy the US-Mexico border Seems to be working. And yeah, they are intentionally blocking parking spaces to provoke the confrontation. They 100% know what they are doing and will be going ham in court as soon as they get back.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:30
|
|
|
Froghammer posted:Outrage bait street preachers rely on being able to sue randos if they get assaulted on a college campus or whatever, and I have no idea why they thought that threat would work in a convoy headed to illegally occupy the US-Mexico border Matthew 6:5; They've already got their reward.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:30
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:31
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:https://twitter.com/Democracy1stE/status/1754477396366143724?s=20 oh gently caress yeah, right into my veins
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:32
|
|
|
Crumbley in the court room, we should now be getting a verdict
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:33
|
|
|
Coolguye posted:i do. you jumped the gun and got aggressive for no reason. namaste. You have had these slapfights repeatedly before and yet will not clarify whether you have any actual background in law or legal matters Do you have a background in law or legal matters that allows you to speak so confidently, or are you googling your answers?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 19:22 |
|
|
Nevermind another question
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2024 19:35
|
|