EPTYou will be shocked to hear that the judge sustained an objection regarding the Democrat attorney trying to bring up all the horseshit that Plansix was referencing.
US Politics Mega-Blog - Page 80
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
You will be shocked to hear that the judge sustained an objection regarding the Democrat attorney trying to bring up all the horseshit that Plansix was referencing. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
EDIT: And the Court is finding in favor of Rick Scott's campaign. EDIT 2: It was a little hard to hear the ruling, but the Court determined that Snipes has violated Florida law as it pertains to the open records request and the ballot certification, and ordered her to provide the information demanded in the open records request by 7 pm EST tonight. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 10 2018 03:37 Plansix wrote: That is most definitely a crime, given how campaign finance laws work. Of course, no one is shocked. And nothing will come of it. No, it is not "most definitely a crime." Go look at the laws. Whether Trump directly authorized the payment is not dispositive. There are safe harbor provisions that allow for such payments for other purposes. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Congrats on being correct, yah got me. We will have to see how candidate Scott proves the existence of these fictional liberal activist creating ballots. I’m infested to see how he accomplishes that. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On November 10 2018 05:56 xDaunt wrote: No, it is not "most definitely a crime." Go look at the laws. Whether Trump directly authorized the payment is not dispositive. There are safe harbor provisions that allow for such payments for other purposes. Valid. However, If John Edwards is any guidence on how theses were treated in the past, it merits a criminal investigation and charges. Edwards was not overtly attempting to pay off this mistress, which was struggle to prove the money provided to her was a contribution. This one case with Trump is much cleaner, with little ambiguity of intent. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 10 2018 05:39 xDaunt wrote: Oh look, the judge agrees with me that the fraud allegation is totally irrelevant and only the pleadings before the Court matter! EDIT: And the Court is finding in favor of Rick Scott's campaign. EDIT 2: It was a little hard to hear the ruling, but the Court determined that Snipes has violated Florida law as it pertains to the open records request and the ballot certification, and ordered her to provide the information demanded in the open records request by 7 pm EST tonight. Laughing my ass off that she literally detailed in her verbal ruling why the public statements were immaterial, just after you said that was the case. Florida Man is the true meme for elections office and sheriffs office in the county. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23607 Posts
Also nice to see Republicans suddenly treating disenfranchisement as a big deal but I don't think most people will buy this concern as sincerity and not cynicism. Pelosi shouldn't be anywhere near the speakership, it's not like Democrats are going to pass anything anyway, unless it's Republican legislation with bribes for some Dems in it. Far more likely under Pelosi than someone like Lee. Pelosi is a terrible direction for Democrats. Particularly while toting her favorability among the donor class like that's a good thing. It's not like she can stop the Democrats who have already been voting with Trump most of the time anyway. The same Democrats are also why their majority is mostly superficial. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On November 10 2018 07:18 Danglars wrote: Laughing my ass off that she literally detailed in her verbal ruling why the public statements were immaterial, just after you said that was the case. Florida Man is the true meme for elections office and sheriffs office in the county. It really isn't rocket science. It was a stupid argument to make, and the Judge treated it as such when she summarily dismissed it upon objection as soon as the Democrat attorney tried to raise it. I get that attorneys are supposed to be advocates for their clients, but that argument was just facially retarded, and I would have been too embarrassed to make it. The one somewhat valid argument that the County had was that they may not have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond to the open record request. But the problems with that one were 1) the information being requested was incredibly limited, and 2) the information should have been available no later than Tuesday evening. I can't stress this part enough: Snipes is openly flaunting Florida election law. Maybe she is just an imbecile, but she could also be crooked. We're going to find out soon enough. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Ryzel
United States540 Posts
On November 10 2018 13:13 xDaunt wrote: Nevermind, looks like Broward County did release the info. Palm Beach is still monkeying it up and requested an hearing tomorrow to stay the current order. Fixed. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
ChristianS
United States3287 Posts
On November 11 2018 05:12 Danglars wrote: I imagine that some of the more regular posters here would look up whether Palm Beach has an African American supervisor of elections to make sure xDaunt didn't commit racist dog-whistle. I love how silly all the childish political plays look these days. I feel like this country has deserved Trumpian levels of political dialogue these past ten years or more. I'm reminded a little of LL's + Show Spoiler + say his name three times snd he'll appear Politics aside for a moment. If there's more than one way for you to say something, and people don't like one of those ways because to them it implies an ugly sentiment you never meant to imply, why wouldn't you just say it some other way? Or if you already said it and they're upset, why wouldn't you just say "I didn't mean to imply that ugly sentiment, I don't agree with that ugly sentiment, and I'll say that thing a different way next time to avoid this confusion"? That seems like the obvious tactful response. I mean, I can imagine reasons to keep saying it the way that offends people. Maybe offending people is the goal. Maybe you do actually agree with the sentiment they find ugly, or at least you're not sure you disagree with it, or you have some other reason to want to leave that door open. But if you're not an asshole and don't agree with the ugly sentiment, I don't understand why you wouldn't just say it differently. The purpose of commmunication, after all, is to convey your thoughts to other people, and if your choice of words is conveying something you didn't intend, then you're not communicating very effectively. To apply this to politics again, then: many people, both racists and anti-racists, think the phrase "monkey it up" implies racist sentiments, or at least it can contextually. If you're anti-racist and have no desire to embolden racists and offend anti-racists, why wouldn't you just a) not use the phrase in the first place, or b) if you already used it, clarify that you didn't mean to imply racist sentiments, you think racism is terrible, and you'll try to avoid the phrase in the future? | ||
|
NewSunshine
United States5938 Posts
On November 11 2018 05:12 Danglars wrote: I imagine that some of the more regular posters here would look up whether Palm Beach has an African American supervisor of elections to make sure xDaunt didn't commit racist dog-whistle. I love how silly all the childish political plays look these days. I feel like this country has deserved Trumpian levels of political dialogue these past ten years or more. Ah yes, Florida has a brown person doing a thing, therefore dogwhistling is impossible because that's how it works. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 11 2018 06:06 ChristianS wrote: I'm reminded a little of LL's + Show Spoiler + say his name three times snd he'll appear Politics aside for a moment. If there's more than one way for you to say something, and people don't like one of those ways because to them it implies an ugly sentiment you never meant to imply, why wouldn't you just say it some other way? Or if you already said it and they're upset, why wouldn't you just say "I didn't mean to imply that ugly sentiment, I don't agree with that ugly sentiment, and I'll say that thing a different way next time to avoid this confusion"? That seems like the obvious tactful response. I mean, I can imagine reasons to keep saying it the way that offends people. Maybe offending people is the goal. Maybe you do actually agree with the sentiment they find ugly, or at least you're not sure you disagree with it, or you have some other reason to want to leave that door open. But if you're not an asshole and don't agree with the ugly sentiment, I don't understand why you wouldn't just say it differently. The purpose of commmunication, after all, is to convey your thoughts to other people, and if your choice of words is conveying something you didn't intend, then you're not communicating very effectively. To apply this to politics again, then: many people, both racists and anti-racists, think the phrase "monkey it up" implies racist sentiments, or at least it can contextually. If you're anti-racist and have no desire to embolden racists and offend anti-racists, why wouldn't you just a) not use the phrase in the first place, or b) if you already used it, clarify that you didn't mean to imply racist sentiments, you think racism is terrible, and you'll try to avoid the phrase in the future? I’d like to mimic your language to show my perspective. Many people think common phrases like “monkey it up” have nothing to do with racist undertones, and think their continuance is just conversation as usual. So what to do when a group suggests and asserts you meant it as a dog-whistle, it’s more likely than not you’re signalling to racists, and the whole affair emboldens racism and white supremacy? You dismiss those complaints made by the low partisans making them. They have hay to make and readily resort to accusations of racism on a slow news day or when a candidate isn’t doing so well. The worst thing you can do is show their poor attempts to flag phrases in common use is readily accepted and their point gained. It just emboldens their next conquest: white allyship, “where are you from?,” mansplaining, MS-13 animals. Now, you’ve tried the whole “politics aside for a moment,” so I’ll try to make the only nuanced point that is devoid from politics. “People” don’t think it “implies an ugly sentiment,” but some “people” think it’s code words for a very nasty intent to punish minorities. That’s not a sentiment, that’s an accusation of malintent. That goes far beyond the part of politeness that is primarily given to individuals and sometimes to groups. Certain coarse and demeaning language falls under that label. Not the secretive racist implication towards furthering white supremacy with a wink and a nod. If the matter was only causing offense and being impolite, that would be quite another thing indeed. I really think the language here is abused by a minority, certainly showing by DeSantis’s numbers and the reaction, so, as a matter of fact, the language is used plainly to convey the information to the listener and does so quite well. It’s only the part of society that wishes they had the secret decoder rings and people like DeSantis didn’t know they posted them that try (with you, perhaps succeed) to convince others it’s dog whistle racism. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
He straight up forgot about these troops. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23607 Posts
On November 11 2018 07:38 Plansix wrote: Meanwhile, as Trump wastes tax dollars doing nothing, accomplishing nothing and forcing troops to miss thanksgiving, we are thankful for a strong leader who couldn’t make it to a memorial service in the rain. He straight up forgot about these troops. https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1061334045584490496 Trump can monkey it up with the worst of them it seems. Silver lining is the next time he wants to use the military and millions tax dollars for a pathetic political show the generals will have to resist harder. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 11 2018 08:16 GreenHorizons wrote: Trump can monkey it up with the worst of them it seems. Silver lining is the next time he wants to use the military and millions tax dollars for a pathetic political show the generals will have to resist harder. I applaud your use of monkey it up. Also, what do you mean "the generals will have to resist harder." He is their commander in chief. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23607 Posts
On November 11 2018 08:20 Danglars wrote: I applaud your use of monkey it up. Also, what do you mean "the generals will have to resist harder." He is their commander in chief. Yeah, but he's wholly and completely militarily incompetent. His generals have to explain even the most rudimentary logistics to him and he's demonstrated he's unwilling or incapable of absorbing that kind of information. So next time he wants to use the military for his own political agenda (tactics and strategy be damned) they will have to more aggressively explain to him why they (in this case FP adviser) aren't going to do it, like they did (reportedly) when he didn't understand why we had all these nukes if we aren't going to use them. Refusing a direct order isn't really an option but forcefully explaining to Trump why what he wants is completely idiotic is something they can do and will have to if they want to avoid a more direct conflict between the presidency and the military. The morale of those troops he exploited for political gain falls on their leaders shoulders and they can only do so much before it becomes a nasty feedback loop until someone snaps. | ||
| ||
