Sicilianthing

>>>

You can think that!

Sicilianthing

>>>

Again, I dont care about any of that crap... Trump is a True Patriot trying to save America from the sick n twisted encroachments and transformations, invasions, repopulation, replacement erasure you support.

Go jump off the cliff !

Byeeeeee

Splat !

Big Kahuna

There's a high cliff off the tip of Block Island where some of the Mohicans were forced to jump off. Snot my prez would find that to be a challenging jump.

Sicilianthing

>>>

Indeed, many of them could be forced there when the fighting starts.

tNotMyPrez Loc: So. CA, USA

Ya kno John, what's really inexplicable, and somewhat frightening at the same time, is how hostile and combative these radical folks are. Anything that is contrary to their beliefs seems to render it impossible for them to have a conversation with anyone without resorting to threats or violent suggestions. Unfortunately, these are the same type of folks who responded to djt's call to arms. They feed him and he feeds off of them. They are marionettes/puppets of each other.

JohnCo

I agree.

Regarding threats, violence, and arms (and the 2nd Amendment):

I write this as an explanation, but not one against you. It's for anyone who cares to read it. Possibly you'll enjoy it.

The people who stormed the Capitol on January 6 are walking advertisements for the need for gun control.

Some discernment is necessary:

One of the legitimate reasons for a right to have guns, in my view, is that people might need to overthrow their own nation's government if it becomes a really bad government. That's one of the reasons why (in retrospect) the people in the 13 colonies in 1776 needed their own guns: so that they could (if it became really necessary) rebel against their own nation's (England's) government (or, against their own "country's" government). (They were English subjects at that time -- there was no USA at that time -- they were citizens or subjects or part, of England.) So, there ought to be some room for agreement between me and a lot of the people with guns now who talk about the 2nd Amendment. However, the more powerful the gun, the more need there is for sense:

It's really important to know:

which is the bad government and which is the good government --

or, to know which is the worse government and which is the better government --

or, if a government is worse, poor, or bad, to know whether it's bad enough to kill a lot of people, to replace it with, what:

perhaps something ready that you know is going to be worth all that killing, maiming, and misery of an armed revolt -- something so much better, than the government to be overthrown, that it would be worth all that bloodshed and heartache, to accomplish the swap.

I read that the American revolutionaries of 1776 did their due diligence, for years, in discovering and establishing that the English rule over the colonies was really a bad government -- bad enough to justify overthrowing it in the colonies -- bad enough to do a lot of killing about it. They laid out their argument in the Declaration of Independence. They did years of preliminary work before taking up arms against that government. They did not take up arms frivolously. They tried all the other legitimate ways first, and finally presented their written argument (Declaration of Independence) to the world, and _then_ took up arms to overthrow a bad government. This is how I understand the story, anyway -- the story we are told as a justification for the American Revolution.

Curiously (in light of Jan. 6, 2021), one of the things wrong with the English government over the colonies was that it was too autocratic. One thing the American revolutionaries of 1776 seem to have been sure of: they didn't want an autocratic government. One sees this in how they set up the three branches of U.S. government.

Now of course we have a whole mixture of things in our government -- some good, and some not so good. Perhaps it's mostly good, or has a net value of good, overall. (That's what I think.) Or maybe it's somewhat bad, but not bad enough to kill a lot of people about it. From 2017 through 2020 we had an unusual president -- one who behaved more like an autocrat than any other U.S. president I know of. We continued to have the three branches which had been so deliberately set up in the late 1700s: Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.

That president (Trump) just made up a lot of things. I've looked at a few items of the so-called "evidence" coming from the Right on the internet, and found it poor -- in at least one instance it was even laughable. So I'm not at all surprised that courts would have to reject it pretty early in the process. When I've debunked, nobody replies to the debunking; they just change the subject or go on to the next frivolous bit of so-called "evidence".

Most people don't understand what constitutes good evidence (if they even care). So all Mr. Trump needs to do, to convince millions of his followers and supporters, is to just make up stuff, and also express disdain for the people his followers like to disdain, and repeat the made up stuff many times.

Then they take up arms, to support the autocrat who makes up stuff and expresses disdain for the people they want to disdain, and to overthrow all the rest of the government: the vice-president, both houses of congress, and the judiciary -- plus all the executive branch that Trump is willing to fire or slur because they don't support his made-up stuff. They would throw out all that, and replace it with the autocrat Trump who just makes up things. They would disrespect the entire Congress (as seen on Jan. 6), the Vice President (as seen on Jan. 6), and disregard the Judiciary Branch (as seen in how they discount or ignore what all those courts said, but side with Trump instead).

They made the wrong choice. They are choosing the much worse kind of government. And they didn't even bother with the kind of process that produces a good Declaration of Independence to explain whatever their reasoning is, to the world.

They did produce something, perhaps something fluffy or imaginative, that they call "evidence" of a "stolen election"; but their so-called evidence isn't much good, and apparently virtually the entire U.S. judiciary agrees with me on this point, because it threw out the Trump cases. One can't try a "case" if there's no case. It's really easy to say a lot of things, even made up things, out in the public spaces; but it's a lot harder to make a solid case, that stands up to scrutiny in a court of law, in a courtroom where you can be prosecuted for lying.

The more powerful the gun, the more need there is for sense.

Sicilianthing

>>>

The 2nd protects the 1st

nonalien1 Loc: Mojave Desert

So far Biden has been more autocratic then Trump. With over 60 E.O.s.in his first month in office. Most with a negative effect on America.

tNotMyPrez Loc: So. CA, USA

You do realize that executive orders are numbered and published in the Federal Register, don't you ??? Last I read, Biden's EOs on Feb 8 were 29. So, please re-check your source for exaggerating their numbers.

Big Kahuna

To JohnCo, I've seen a lot of very frivolous cases taken up by the judiciary. I would think that the real leadership of the free world and any case regarding it should never be deemed a frivolous case. Talking about autocrats, Slo Joe is doing a great job of surpassing Trump in that regard and ovommit circumvented the legislative branch to pass most of his anti-American agenda. Let's get real here. If Trump was an autocrat, both Bribem and Ovommit are and were Super Autocrats. By the way, according to justices Kaegan, Sotomeyor and Breyer, the way they vote seems to prove that anything that concerns conservatism is always frivolous to them.

Sicilianthing

>>>

Bullseye JACKPOT!

JohnCo

Generally I'm no fan of judges. And I'm not surprised at the idea that frivolous cases might be taken up by the judiciary.

There are at least a couple of reasons why I'm convinced Trump's cases are no good:

(1) the overwhelming number of dismissals or rejections by such a great number of courts.

(2) Trump and what so-called evidence on his side that I've encountered have not been credible to me.

Another thing that tends to work against Trump's credibility is his followers' rhetoric. You'll see things like "Slo Joe" instead of "Biden", "Bribem" instead of "Biden", and "Ovommit" instead of whatever real name that's supposed to represent. (See your own post for examples.)

I edited this reply, to shorten it. See, I tried to express clearly.

tNotMyPrez Loc: So. CA, USA

You're quite right John. The last count I heard was 61 filings.

60 were either rejected, dismissed or had no standing. I believe one was an insignificant partial victory, but not any other parts of it...

It's not like the movies or TV. Folks don't actually have to have "their day in court" to have their data known. Briefs are filed and the prominent info is on the desks and before the eyes of the law clerks and the judges. It's how the judicial process works.

JohnCo

That is one thing to consider. But there's more than one thing to consider.

There are different ways that could play out, sometimes proving one point, and sometimes proving another.

Let's take this hypothetical example:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1. A yells "Fire!" in a crowded theater, knowing that there's no fire.

2. B complains about A doing that.

3. A shoots B. A says, "I'm protecting my right to say what I want."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So that's one hypothetical example. Here's another:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

1. Imagine there's no government at all.

2. Everybody can try to say whatever they want, and they can also try to shoot whomever they want.

3. Some people behave well, and some behave badly.

4. The bad ones do a lot of bad things. The good ones try to suppress the bad ones, but find they just have to kill them off. Or try to.

5. A Billy the Kid or a Wyatt Earp might stay on top for a while, and might even enjoy their lives, until finally they get shot. (I think their lives could have been a lot better, if there'd been a lot less shooting going on.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In such a world, some "good" people will probably band together, eventually forming a very large group, with rules, and that's government. How would they manage all the bad stuff, coming from people who go bad or even just lose their tempers? They might (a) try to keep killing them off, (b) try to lock most of them up, or (c) have gun control.

What the U.S. does a lot, now, is (b). I've a feeling that (c)'s probably better. Among developed nations, so I've read, the U.S. has one of the least amounts of gun control, and one of the highest amounts of incarceration.

Even the "good" or well-behaved people are constrained in such a society; they worry about getting shot (or that their _children_ will get shot), and they also worry about getting locked up over some little thing or even when they're entirely innocent but wrongly convicted.

Those people in prison can try to say whatever they want, so maybe they've got some sort of "1st Amendment" in there, but I think what they really want is to get out.

This next part digresses but I think it's still relevant (regarding a society of much imprisonment, which tends to follow generally from a lack of gun control, because society has to do _something_ to guard against wrongful violence):

I had a friend who had been in prison 4 years, and got out; and later, after I became acquainted with him, he was in prison a longer time, maybe about 8 years, and then he got out, but prison was bad for his health and he died younger than he should have. I think he was innocent and wrongly convicted both times. (It didn't have anything to do with guns, in his cases.) Oh, there was at least one technicality he was probably guilty of the second time, but even that may have been based on the earlier wrong conviction in the first place. Our society is slap-happy about accusing, harshly judging, and locking people up for long periods of time. And it looks to me like a lot of the judging is according to careless stereotyping.

Yet a further digression: this time partly about prosecutions:

I had another friend, who (let's suppose, for the sake of argument) could have been guilty as charged, but the real bad things were coming from the people she was against. The prosecution is uneven: some people are prosecuted, but some more powerful people who ought to be prosecuted are just let to do their bad things over and over, causing a lot of misery in other people.

Sicilianthing

>>>

I seriously could careless about any of this crap.

Shall NOT Infringe
End of story !

The 2nd is my permit to carry.

Opencarry50state.com