|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On May 26 2024 08:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2024 06:37 Introvert wrote:On May 26 2024 05:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 26 2024 00:11 Introvert wrote:On May 25 2024 20:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 25 2024 12:20 Introvert wrote:On May 25 2024 08:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 25 2024 08:39 Introvert wrote:On May 25 2024 07:02 Gahlo wrote:3. The Supreme Court is considering whether or not Trump could legally assassinate Biden, if Trump wins the next presidential election. Two of the Supreme Court Justices (Alito and Thomas) are January 6th insurrection sympathizers, and three of them (Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh) were appointed by Trump. That's five out of nine, a majority. I hate that we have to take this seriously so much. That's an asinine way of framing that, esp if you listened to the argument. Not a single justice expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it. And calling Alito and Thomas "Jan 6th sympathizers" is more trash, because neither have done any such thing. but people who read supposedly respectable news outlets still come out with these opinions which is damning enough. I didn't say that the justices "expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it"; I said that they're considering the case, because they are. I have no idea why they're considering the case, but they are. And to dismiss Alito's January 6th insurrection sympathizing after hearing about both his flags, and Thomas's connection to it through his wife, is alarming. Trump's lawyer abandoned his maximalist position during argument as well, I listened to it. They were considering the extent of presidential power and immunity, of which this was an obvious hypothetical. but it's one that everyone knows is wrong, so it's being used to tease out the logic of the arguments. It's not "being considered." The Alito home flew flags that have been a part of American flag flying for literally centuries, so no, the NYT hit piece was really, really stupid. Nevermind that Alito's explanation was perfectly reasonable. This is akin to morons trying to say the "OK" sign was a sign of white supremacy. So no, I would advise people be less gullible think for a few seconds. The moment someone you don't like does something that is normal doesn't mean everyone else A) knows why that person is doing it, B) agrees with the new, fringe meaning. Tempest in a teapot so that partisan dems can say that they are just "asking questions" while none of them cared that RBG made explicit anti-trump comments and still sat in on Trump cases. On May 25 2024 08:52 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2024 08:39 Introvert wrote:On May 25 2024 07:02 Gahlo wrote:3. The Supreme Court is considering whether or not Trump could legally assassinate Biden, if Trump wins the next presidential election. Two of the Supreme Court Justices (Alito and Thomas) are January 6th insurrection sympathizers, and three of them (Gorsuch, Barrett, and Kavanaugh) were appointed by Trump. That's five out of nine, a majority. I hate that we have to take this seriously so much. That's an asinine way of framing that, esp if you listened to the argument. Not a single justice expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it. And calling Alito and Thomas "Jan 6th sympathizers" is more trash, because neither have done any such thing. but people who read supposedly respectable news outlets still come out with these opinions which is damning enough. I think technically it’s Mrs Thomas who is full QAnon lunatic conspiracy theorist stolen election Clinton pizza. Justice Thomas just agrees with her. Again, haven't seen a shred of evidence for this. People just make stuff up because they don't want to like Thomas already. "it's one that everyone knows is wrong" Obviously not, considering Trump currently thinks it's right, surely some of his supporters do too, and the lawyer even supported the position - only adding the caveat that preemptive impeachment would also need to be considered. I get that these SCJs are simping for your side, but this is a serious threat to democracy. You shouldn't be so flippant. The lie that the Alitos flipped their flag due to a neighbor dispute is ridiculous. Their additional displaying of the Appeal to Heaven flag is dangerous, especially when we know that for years it hasn't been a reference to the Continental Army or New England, but rather Christian nationalism, Trump's big "stop the steal" lie, far-right extremism, and the January 6th insurrection. Thomas not recusing himself from January 6th cases where he's ruling over situations that are related to his wife is unethical and unprofessional. I know that SCJs all have their own personal biases and personal views on things, but these are at a completely different level. You call that a lie because you *want* it to be a lie, no has disputed that characterization and it is prima facie reasonable, considering how often flying a flag upside has been done. I wish I had your confidence while reading only things I wanted to agree with, that's not what thr Appeal to heaven flag means, though maybe some people on the fringes used it, which is a common thing and not something you can use to inpune everyone else. That's my whole point. Apparently it was so common that we have to assume last year that San Francisco city hall is a fan of Christian nationalism and that the type of people who edit Wikipedia articles didn't notice it. Apparently no one else did. + Show Spoiler +Sorry for all the tweets but this really does display how dumb and easily check able all this is. Re:Thomas, again I recall no such dismay when RGB was commenting on Trump before the election, multiple times, sns never recused. At best a few people had a muted "she shouldn't have done that" so I'm thinking this is all crocodile tears. I don't think the San Francisco city hall is deciding federal law. I also honestly don't remember which Trump-related cases RBG assessed, and what biased things she said/did while assessing them. Could you please elaborate? You know that's not the point I'm making. What I'm saying is that this flag is not a well-known symbol of J6 sympathizers, some reporter at the NYT just decided that it was and now in the space of a few days it has all of a sudden become common on the left that this anodyne flag that appears all over the place is now a right-wing dog whistle. And since that little detail has come out more people noticed it flying more places that aren't exactly MAGA country, like the MN state capitol. Just another example that no matter how "respectable" and "trustworthy" a publication, they all deserve the same scrutiny and often scorn. At about the time I made the post this morning the WP said that they too looked into the upside down flag flying at the Alito's way back when it happened... The wife of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. told a Washington Post reporter in January 2021 that an upside-down American flag recently flown on their flagpole was “an international signal of distress” and indicated that it had been raised in response to a neighborhood dispute. Martha-Ann Alito made the comments when the reporter went to the couple’s Fairfax County, Va., home to follow up on a tip about the flag, which was no longer flying when he arrived. The incident documented by reporter Robert Barnes, who covered the Supreme Court for The Post for 17 years and retired last year, offers fresh details about the raising of the flag and the first account of comments about it by the justice’s wife. The Post decided not to report on the episode at the time because the flag-raising appeared to be the work of Martha-Ann Alito, rather than the justice, and connected to a dispute with her neighbors, a Post spokeswoman said. It was not clear then that the argument was rooted in politics, the spokeswoman said. The upside-down flag has long been a sign of distress for the military and protest by various political factions. In the fraught weeks before and after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, it had also been adopted by supporters of the “Stop the Steal” movement, which embraced Donald Trump’s false claims that Joe Biden stole the election from him. Some of the rioters who participated in the attack had carried upside-down American flags with them. ---- The Post subsequently reported on May 17 that residents said the flag was raised following a heated confrontation between Martha-Ann Alito and a neighbor over political yard signs, one of which carried a profane anti-Trump message and another that carried a message along the lines of “you are complicit.” One resident, who like the others spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect their privacy in a sensitive situation, said the flag flew for between two and five days. On Jan. 20, 2021 — the day of Biden’s inauguration, which the Alitos did not attend — Barnes went to their home to follow up on the tip about the flag. He encountered the couple coming out of the house. Martha-Ann Alito was visibly upset by his presence, demanding that he “get off my property.” As he described the information he was seeking, she yelled, “It’s an international signal of distress!” Alito intervened and directed his wife into a car parked in their driveway, where they had been headed on their way out of the neighborhood. The justice denied the flag was hung upside down as a political protest, saying it stemmed from a neighborhood dispute and indicating that his wife had raised it. Martha-Ann Alito then got out of the car and shouted in apparent reference to the neighbors: “Ask them what they did!” She said yard signs about the couple had been placed in the neighborhood. After getting back in the car, she exited again and then brought out from their residence a novelty flag, the type that would typically decorate a garden. She hoisted it up the flagpole. “There! Is that better?” she yelled. Later that week, Samuel Alito issued a statement to The Post in response to written questions about whether it was his decision to fly the flag and whether it was flown to protest the election results, reflect concern about the state of the country or something else. “I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” he said, using wording almost identical to the statement provided to the Times last week. “It was placed by Mrs. Alito solely in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/25/alito-flag-martha-ann-washington-post/As for RGB, she made disparaging remarks about Trump, generally considered out of line and then apologized. https://www.npr.org/2016/07/14/486012897/ginsburg-apologies-for-ill-advised-trump-commentsBut the fact you don't even remember it is part of the problem. Selective memory and selective outrage. All these senators calling for Alito to recuse himself are hacks and hypocrites. edit: + Show Spoiler + In regards to Alito: Just because you didn't know about the Appeal to Heaven flag doesn't mean it wasn't used by insurrectionists during the January 6th attack. Just because a symbol might not be universally recognized doesn't give it a pass. In regards to RBG: I do remember RBG saying those things, which she apologized for (unlike Alito, who lied and made excuses about both flags). I didn't realize those were your examples of RBG saying/doing something similar to what Alito and Thomas are doing. If you believe that RBG making factual statements* about Trump is the same thing as another Supreme Court Justice sympathizing with an insurrection orchestrated by Trump while at the same time considering whether or not Trump should be able to do illegal things when he's president, we will just have to agree to disagree. I don't think those two are analogous. *RBG said: "He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego... How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that." I don't think calling out Trump on his inconsistency, ego, or tax returns is the same thing as supporting an insurrection and possibly allowing Trump to have near-perfect immunity for some of his past criminal indictments and potentially more future criminal indictments if he becomes president again. (She also said, "I can't imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president" and that her late husband would have said it was "time for us to move to New Zealand", which is probably the part she apologized for, as that's her opinion. Probably unbecoming for a SCJ, sure, but definitely not a worthy rival to Alito and Thomas.)
To be perfectly honest I think it kind of looks like you flailing around. The theme of the posts I'm making is that these flags are common enough that you can't assume someone intentions from them alone. And yet you turn around and assert, with no evidence or supporting argument whatsoever, that these are lies. This is about as good an example of motivated reasoning as one could ask for. How you get to
Just because a symbol might not be universally recognized doesn't give it a pass.
is a path I can't follow at all. It's not a "Christian nationalist flag" as evidenced by is provenance and its current usage. Come back when you have a coherent reason for thinking the story is a lie.
I think what RGB did was much worse, she went out there and cast her opinions into the world while a sitting judge who was going to rule on Trump cases, including his tax returns. At worst, Alito's wife flew a flag in their own neighborhood, you are right that they aren't at all comparable.
|
On May 26 2024 09:15 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2024 08:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 26 2024 06:37 Introvert wrote:On May 26 2024 05:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 26 2024 00:11 Introvert wrote:On May 25 2024 20:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 25 2024 12:20 Introvert wrote:On May 25 2024 08:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 25 2024 08:39 Introvert wrote:On May 25 2024 07:02 Gahlo wrote:
[quote]
I hate that we have to take this seriously so much. That's an asinine way of framing that, esp if you listened to the argument. Not a single justice expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it. And calling Alito and Thomas "Jan 6th sympathizers" is more trash, because neither have done any such thing. but people who read supposedly respectable news outlets still come out with these opinions which is damning enough. I didn't say that the justices "expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it"; I said that they're considering the case, because they are. I have no idea why they're considering the case, but they are. And to dismiss Alito's January 6th insurrection sympathizing after hearing about both his flags, and Thomas's connection to it through his wife, is alarming. Trump's lawyer abandoned his maximalist position during argument as well, I listened to it. They were considering the extent of presidential power and immunity, of which this was an obvious hypothetical. but it's one that everyone knows is wrong, so it's being used to tease out the logic of the arguments. It's not "being considered." The Alito home flew flags that have been a part of American flag flying for literally centuries, so no, the NYT hit piece was really, really stupid. Nevermind that Alito's explanation was perfectly reasonable. This is akin to morons trying to say the "OK" sign was a sign of white supremacy. So no, I would advise people be less gullible think for a few seconds. The moment someone you don't like does something that is normal doesn't mean everyone else A) knows why that person is doing it, B) agrees with the new, fringe meaning. Tempest in a teapot so that partisan dems can say that they are just "asking questions" while none of them cared that RBG made explicit anti-trump comments and still sat in on Trump cases. On May 25 2024 08:52 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2024 08:39 Introvert wrote:On May 25 2024 07:02 Gahlo wrote:
[quote]
I hate that we have to take this seriously so much. That's an asinine way of framing that, esp if you listened to the argument. Not a single justice expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it. And calling Alito and Thomas "Jan 6th sympathizers" is more trash, because neither have done any such thing. but people who read supposedly respectable news outlets still come out with these opinions which is damning enough. I think technically it’s Mrs Thomas who is full QAnon lunatic conspiracy theorist stolen election Clinton pizza. Justice Thomas just agrees with her. Again, haven't seen a shred of evidence for this. People just make stuff up because they don't want to like Thomas already. "it's one that everyone knows is wrong" Obviously not, considering Trump currently thinks it's right, surely some of his supporters do too, and the lawyer even supported the position - only adding the caveat that preemptive impeachment would also need to be considered. I get that these SCJs are simping for your side, but this is a serious threat to democracy. You shouldn't be so flippant. The lie that the Alitos flipped their flag due to a neighbor dispute is ridiculous. Their additional displaying of the Appeal to Heaven flag is dangerous, especially when we know that for years it hasn't been a reference to the Continental Army or New England, but rather Christian nationalism, Trump's big "stop the steal" lie, far-right extremism, and the January 6th insurrection. Thomas not recusing himself from January 6th cases where he's ruling over situations that are related to his wife is unethical and unprofessional. I know that SCJs all have their own personal biases and personal views on things, but these are at a completely different level. You call that a lie because you *want* it to be a lie, no has disputed that characterization and it is prima facie reasonable, considering how often flying a flag upside has been done. I wish I had your confidence while reading only things I wanted to agree with, that's not what thr Appeal to heaven flag means, though maybe some people on the fringes used it, which is a common thing and not something you can use to inpune everyone else. That's my whole point. Apparently it was so common that we have to assume last year that San Francisco city hall is a fan of Christian nationalism and that the type of people who edit Wikipedia articles didn't notice it. Apparently no one else did. + Show Spoiler +Sorry for all the tweets but this really does display how dumb and easily check able all this is. Re:Thomas, again I recall no such dismay when RGB was commenting on Trump before the election, multiple times, sns never recused. At best a few people had a muted "she shouldn't have done that" so I'm thinking this is all crocodile tears. I don't think the San Francisco city hall is deciding federal law. I also honestly don't remember which Trump-related cases RBG assessed, and what biased things she said/did while assessing them. Could you please elaborate? You know that's not the point I'm making. What I'm saying is that this flag is not a well-known symbol of J6 sympathizers, some reporter at the NYT just decided that it was and now in the space of a few days it has all of a sudden become common on the left that this anodyne flag that appears all over the place is now a right-wing dog whistle. And since that little detail has come out more people noticed it flying more places that aren't exactly MAGA country, like the MN state capitol. Just another example that no matter how "respectable" and "trustworthy" a publication, they all deserve the same scrutiny and often scorn. At about the time I made the post this morning the WP said that they too looked into the upside down flag flying at the Alito's way back when it happened... The wife of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. told a Washington Post reporter in January 2021 that an upside-down American flag recently flown on their flagpole was “an international signal of distress” and indicated that it had been raised in response to a neighborhood dispute. Martha-Ann Alito made the comments when the reporter went to the couple’s Fairfax County, Va., home to follow up on a tip about the flag, which was no longer flying when he arrived. The incident documented by reporter Robert Barnes, who covered the Supreme Court for The Post for 17 years and retired last year, offers fresh details about the raising of the flag and the first account of comments about it by the justice’s wife. The Post decided not to report on the episode at the time because the flag-raising appeared to be the work of Martha-Ann Alito, rather than the justice, and connected to a dispute with her neighbors, a Post spokeswoman said. It was not clear then that the argument was rooted in politics, the spokeswoman said. The upside-down flag has long been a sign of distress for the military and protest by various political factions. In the fraught weeks before and after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, it had also been adopted by supporters of the “Stop the Steal” movement, which embraced Donald Trump’s false claims that Joe Biden stole the election from him. Some of the rioters who participated in the attack had carried upside-down American flags with them. ---- The Post subsequently reported on May 17 that residents said the flag was raised following a heated confrontation between Martha-Ann Alito and a neighbor over political yard signs, one of which carried a profane anti-Trump message and another that carried a message along the lines of “you are complicit.” One resident, who like the others spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect their privacy in a sensitive situation, said the flag flew for between two and five days. On Jan. 20, 2021 — the day of Biden’s inauguration, which the Alitos did not attend — Barnes went to their home to follow up on the tip about the flag. He encountered the couple coming out of the house. Martha-Ann Alito was visibly upset by his presence, demanding that he “get off my property.” As he described the information he was seeking, she yelled, “It’s an international signal of distress!” Alito intervened and directed his wife into a car parked in their driveway, where they had been headed on their way out of the neighborhood. The justice denied the flag was hung upside down as a political protest, saying it stemmed from a neighborhood dispute and indicating that his wife had raised it. Martha-Ann Alito then got out of the car and shouted in apparent reference to the neighbors: “Ask them what they did!” She said yard signs about the couple had been placed in the neighborhood. After getting back in the car, she exited again and then brought out from their residence a novelty flag, the type that would typically decorate a garden. She hoisted it up the flagpole. “There! Is that better?” she yelled. Later that week, Samuel Alito issued a statement to The Post in response to written questions about whether it was his decision to fly the flag and whether it was flown to protest the election results, reflect concern about the state of the country or something else. “I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” he said, using wording almost identical to the statement provided to the Times last week. “It was placed by Mrs. Alito solely in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/25/alito-flag-martha-ann-washington-post/As for RGB, she made disparaging remarks about Trump, generally considered out of line and then apologized. https://www.npr.org/2016/07/14/486012897/ginsburg-apologies-for-ill-advised-trump-commentsBut the fact you don't even remember it is part of the problem. Selective memory and selective outrage. All these senators calling for Alito to recuse himself are hacks and hypocrites. edit: + Show Spoiler + In regards to Alito: Just because you didn't know about the Appeal to Heaven flag doesn't mean it wasn't used by insurrectionists during the January 6th attack. Just because a symbol might not be universally recognized doesn't give it a pass. In regards to RBG: I do remember RBG saying those things, which she apologized for (unlike Alito, who lied and made excuses about both flags). I didn't realize those were your examples of RBG saying/doing something similar to what Alito and Thomas are doing. If you believe that RBG making factual statements* about Trump is the same thing as another Supreme Court Justice sympathizing with an insurrection orchestrated by Trump while at the same time considering whether or not Trump should be able to do illegal things when he's president, we will just have to agree to disagree. I don't think those two are analogous. *RBG said: "He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego... How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that." I don't think calling out Trump on his inconsistency, ego, or tax returns is the same thing as supporting an insurrection and possibly allowing Trump to have near-perfect immunity for some of his past criminal indictments and potentially more future criminal indictments if he becomes president again. (She also said, "I can't imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president" and that her late husband would have said it was "time for us to move to New Zealand", which is probably the part she apologized for, as that's her opinion. Probably unbecoming for a SCJ, sure, but definitely not a worthy rival to Alito and Thomas.) To be perfectly honest I think it kind of looks like you flailing around. The theme of the posts I'm making is that these flags are common enough that you can't assume someone intentions from them alone. And yet you turn around and assert, with no evidence or supporting argument whatsoever, that these are lies. This is about as good an example of motivated reasoning as one could ask for. How you get to Show nested quote +Just because a symbol might not be universally recognized doesn't give it a pass. is a path I can't follow at all. It's not a "Christian nationalist flag" as evidenced by is provenance and its current usage. Come back when you have a coherent reason for thinking the story is a lie. I think what RGB did was much worse, she went out there and cast her opinions into the world while a sitting judge who was going to rule on Trump cases, including his tax returns. At worst, Alito's wife flew a flag in their own neighborhood, you are right that they aren't at all comparable.
I don't think that's how "at worst" works, but we'll have to agree to disagree. Out of curiosity, since it's about the same original post of mine: What do you think about Trump's/MTG's claim that Biden wanted to assassinate Trump?
|
On May 26 2024 10:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2024 09:15 Introvert wrote:On May 26 2024 08:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 26 2024 06:37 Introvert wrote:On May 26 2024 05:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 26 2024 00:11 Introvert wrote:On May 25 2024 20:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 25 2024 12:20 Introvert wrote:On May 25 2024 08:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 25 2024 08:39 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
That's an asinine way of framing that, esp if you listened to the argument. Not a single justice expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it. And calling Alito and Thomas "Jan 6th sympathizers" is more trash, because neither have done any such thing. but people who read supposedly respectable news outlets still come out with these opinions which is damning enough. I didn't say that the justices "expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it"; I said that they're considering the case, because they are. I have no idea why they're considering the case, but they are. And to dismiss Alito's January 6th insurrection sympathizing after hearing about both his flags, and Thomas's connection to it through his wife, is alarming. Trump's lawyer abandoned his maximalist position during argument as well, I listened to it. They were considering the extent of presidential power and immunity, of which this was an obvious hypothetical. but it's one that everyone knows is wrong, so it's being used to tease out the logic of the arguments. It's not "being considered." The Alito home flew flags that have been a part of American flag flying for literally centuries, so no, the NYT hit piece was really, really stupid. Nevermind that Alito's explanation was perfectly reasonable. This is akin to morons trying to say the "OK" sign was a sign of white supremacy. So no, I would advise people be less gullible think for a few seconds. The moment someone you don't like does something that is normal doesn't mean everyone else A) knows why that person is doing it, B) agrees with the new, fringe meaning. Tempest in a teapot so that partisan dems can say that they are just "asking questions" while none of them cared that RBG made explicit anti-trump comments and still sat in on Trump cases. On May 25 2024 08:52 KwarK wrote:On May 25 2024 08:39 Introvert wrote:
[quote]
That's an asinine way of framing that, esp if you listened to the argument. Not a single justice expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it. And calling Alito and Thomas "Jan 6th sympathizers" is more trash, because neither have done any such thing. but people who read supposedly respectable news outlets still come out with these opinions which is damning enough. I think technically it’s Mrs Thomas who is full QAnon lunatic conspiracy theorist stolen election Clinton pizza. Justice Thomas just agrees with her. Again, haven't seen a shred of evidence for this. People just make stuff up because they don't want to like Thomas already. "it's one that everyone knows is wrong" Obviously not, considering Trump currently thinks it's right, surely some of his supporters do too, and the lawyer even supported the position - only adding the caveat that preemptive impeachment would also need to be considered. I get that these SCJs are simping for your side, but this is a serious threat to democracy. You shouldn't be so flippant. The lie that the Alitos flipped their flag due to a neighbor dispute is ridiculous. Their additional displaying of the Appeal to Heaven flag is dangerous, especially when we know that for years it hasn't been a reference to the Continental Army or New England, but rather Christian nationalism, Trump's big "stop the steal" lie, far-right extremism, and the January 6th insurrection. Thomas not recusing himself from January 6th cases where he's ruling over situations that are related to his wife is unethical and unprofessional. I know that SCJs all have their own personal biases and personal views on things, but these are at a completely different level. You call that a lie because you *want* it to be a lie, no has disputed that characterization and it is prima facie reasonable, considering how often flying a flag upside has been done. I wish I had your confidence while reading only things I wanted to agree with, that's not what thr Appeal to heaven flag means, though maybe some people on the fringes used it, which is a common thing and not something you can use to inpune everyone else. That's my whole point. Apparently it was so common that we have to assume last year that San Francisco city hall is a fan of Christian nationalism and that the type of people who edit Wikipedia articles didn't notice it. Apparently no one else did. + Show Spoiler +Sorry for all the tweets but this really does display how dumb and easily check able all this is. Re:Thomas, again I recall no such dismay when RGB was commenting on Trump before the election, multiple times, sns never recused. At best a few people had a muted "she shouldn't have done that" so I'm thinking this is all crocodile tears. I don't think the San Francisco city hall is deciding federal law. I also honestly don't remember which Trump-related cases RBG assessed, and what biased things she said/did while assessing them. Could you please elaborate? You know that's not the point I'm making. What I'm saying is that this flag is not a well-known symbol of J6 sympathizers, some reporter at the NYT just decided that it was and now in the space of a few days it has all of a sudden become common on the left that this anodyne flag that appears all over the place is now a right-wing dog whistle. And since that little detail has come out more people noticed it flying more places that aren't exactly MAGA country, like the MN state capitol. Just another example that no matter how "respectable" and "trustworthy" a publication, they all deserve the same scrutiny and often scorn. At about the time I made the post this morning the WP said that they too looked into the upside down flag flying at the Alito's way back when it happened... The wife of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. told a Washington Post reporter in January 2021 that an upside-down American flag recently flown on their flagpole was “an international signal of distress” and indicated that it had been raised in response to a neighborhood dispute. Martha-Ann Alito made the comments when the reporter went to the couple’s Fairfax County, Va., home to follow up on a tip about the flag, which was no longer flying when he arrived. The incident documented by reporter Robert Barnes, who covered the Supreme Court for The Post for 17 years and retired last year, offers fresh details about the raising of the flag and the first account of comments about it by the justice’s wife. The Post decided not to report on the episode at the time because the flag-raising appeared to be the work of Martha-Ann Alito, rather than the justice, and connected to a dispute with her neighbors, a Post spokeswoman said. It was not clear then that the argument was rooted in politics, the spokeswoman said. The upside-down flag has long been a sign of distress for the military and protest by various political factions. In the fraught weeks before and after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, it had also been adopted by supporters of the “Stop the Steal” movement, which embraced Donald Trump’s false claims that Joe Biden stole the election from him. Some of the rioters who participated in the attack had carried upside-down American flags with them. ---- The Post subsequently reported on May 17 that residents said the flag was raised following a heated confrontation between Martha-Ann Alito and a neighbor over political yard signs, one of which carried a profane anti-Trump message and another that carried a message along the lines of “you are complicit.” One resident, who like the others spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect their privacy in a sensitive situation, said the flag flew for between two and five days. On Jan. 20, 2021 — the day of Biden’s inauguration, which the Alitos did not attend — Barnes went to their home to follow up on the tip about the flag. He encountered the couple coming out of the house. Martha-Ann Alito was visibly upset by his presence, demanding that he “get off my property.” As he described the information he was seeking, she yelled, “It’s an international signal of distress!” Alito intervened and directed his wife into a car parked in their driveway, where they had been headed on their way out of the neighborhood. The justice denied the flag was hung upside down as a political protest, saying it stemmed from a neighborhood dispute and indicating that his wife had raised it. Martha-Ann Alito then got out of the car and shouted in apparent reference to the neighbors: “Ask them what they did!” She said yard signs about the couple had been placed in the neighborhood. After getting back in the car, she exited again and then brought out from their residence a novelty flag, the type that would typically decorate a garden. She hoisted it up the flagpole. “There! Is that better?” she yelled. Later that week, Samuel Alito issued a statement to The Post in response to written questions about whether it was his decision to fly the flag and whether it was flown to protest the election results, reflect concern about the state of the country or something else. “I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” he said, using wording almost identical to the statement provided to the Times last week. “It was placed by Mrs. Alito solely in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/25/alito-flag-martha-ann-washington-post/As for RGB, she made disparaging remarks about Trump, generally considered out of line and then apologized. https://www.npr.org/2016/07/14/486012897/ginsburg-apologies-for-ill-advised-trump-commentsBut the fact you don't even remember it is part of the problem. Selective memory and selective outrage. All these senators calling for Alito to recuse himself are hacks and hypocrites. edit: + Show Spoiler + In regards to Alito: Just because you didn't know about the Appeal to Heaven flag doesn't mean it wasn't used by insurrectionists during the January 6th attack. Just because a symbol might not be universally recognized doesn't give it a pass. In regards to RBG: I do remember RBG saying those things, which she apologized for (unlike Alito, who lied and made excuses about both flags). I didn't realize those were your examples of RBG saying/doing something similar to what Alito and Thomas are doing. If you believe that RBG making factual statements* about Trump is the same thing as another Supreme Court Justice sympathizing with an insurrection orchestrated by Trump while at the same time considering whether or not Trump should be able to do illegal things when he's president, we will just have to agree to disagree. I don't think those two are analogous. *RBG said: "He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego... How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that." I don't think calling out Trump on his inconsistency, ego, or tax returns is the same thing as supporting an insurrection and possibly allowing Trump to have near-perfect immunity for some of his past criminal indictments and potentially more future criminal indictments if he becomes president again. (She also said, "I can't imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president" and that her late husband would have said it was "time for us to move to New Zealand", which is probably the part she apologized for, as that's her opinion. Probably unbecoming for a SCJ, sure, but definitely not a worthy rival to Alito and Thomas.) To be perfectly honest I think it kind of looks like you flailing around. The theme of the posts I'm making is that these flags are common enough that you can't assume someone intentions from them alone. And yet you turn around and assert, with no evidence or supporting argument whatsoever, that these are lies. This is about as good an example of motivated reasoning as one could ask for. How you get to Just because a symbol might not be universally recognized doesn't give it a pass. is a path I can't follow at all. It's not a "Christian nationalist flag" as evidenced by is provenance and its current usage. Come back when you have a coherent reason for thinking the story is a lie. I think what RGB did was much worse, she went out there and cast her opinions into the world while a sitting judge who was going to rule on Trump cases, including his tax returns. At worst, Alito's wife flew a flag in their own neighborhood, you are right that they aren't at all comparable. I don't think that's how "at worst" works, but we'll have to agree to disagree. Out of curiosity, since it's about the same original post of mine: What do you think about Trump's/MTG's claim that Biden wanted to assassinate Trump?
If you are referring the Mar a Lago thing, my understanding is that it's a misunderstanding of a normal procedure, but I haven't looked into it.
|
On May 26 2024 12:05 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2024 10:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 26 2024 09:15 Introvert wrote:On May 26 2024 08:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 26 2024 06:37 Introvert wrote:On May 26 2024 05:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 26 2024 00:11 Introvert wrote:On May 25 2024 20:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 25 2024 12:20 Introvert wrote:On May 25 2024 08:45 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
I didn't say that the justices "expressed any sympathy for the idea that the president was could have his opposition killed and get away with it"; I said that they're considering the case, because they are. I have no idea why they're considering the case, but they are. And to dismiss Alito's January 6th insurrection sympathizing after hearing about both his flags, and Thomas's connection to it through his wife, is alarming. Trump's lawyer abandoned his maximalist position during argument as well, I listened to it. They were considering the extent of presidential power and immunity, of which this was an obvious hypothetical. but it's one that everyone knows is wrong, so it's being used to tease out the logic of the arguments. It's not "being considered." The Alito home flew flags that have been a part of American flag flying for literally centuries, so no, the NYT hit piece was really, really stupid. Nevermind that Alito's explanation was perfectly reasonable. This is akin to morons trying to say the "OK" sign was a sign of white supremacy. So no, I would advise people be less gullible think for a few seconds. The moment someone you don't like does something that is normal doesn't mean everyone else A) knows why that person is doing it, B) agrees with the new, fringe meaning. Tempest in a teapot so that partisan dems can say that they are just "asking questions" while none of them cared that RBG made explicit anti-trump comments and still sat in on Trump cases. On May 25 2024 08:52 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
I think technically it’s Mrs Thomas who is full QAnon lunatic conspiracy theorist stolen election Clinton pizza. Justice Thomas just agrees with her. Again, haven't seen a shred of evidence for this. People just make stuff up because they don't want to like Thomas already. "it's one that everyone knows is wrong" Obviously not, considering Trump currently thinks it's right, surely some of his supporters do too, and the lawyer even supported the position - only adding the caveat that preemptive impeachment would also need to be considered. I get that these SCJs are simping for your side, but this is a serious threat to democracy. You shouldn't be so flippant. The lie that the Alitos flipped their flag due to a neighbor dispute is ridiculous. Their additional displaying of the Appeal to Heaven flag is dangerous, especially when we know that for years it hasn't been a reference to the Continental Army or New England, but rather Christian nationalism, Trump's big "stop the steal" lie, far-right extremism, and the January 6th insurrection. Thomas not recusing himself from January 6th cases where he's ruling over situations that are related to his wife is unethical and unprofessional. I know that SCJs all have their own personal biases and personal views on things, but these are at a completely different level. You call that a lie because you *want* it to be a lie, no has disputed that characterization and it is prima facie reasonable, considering how often flying a flag upside has been done. I wish I had your confidence while reading only things I wanted to agree with, that's not what thr Appeal to heaven flag means, though maybe some people on the fringes used it, which is a common thing and not something you can use to inpune everyone else. That's my whole point. Apparently it was so common that we have to assume last year that San Francisco city hall is a fan of Christian nationalism and that the type of people who edit Wikipedia articles didn't notice it. Apparently no one else did. + Show Spoiler +Sorry for all the tweets but this really does display how dumb and easily check able all this is. Re:Thomas, again I recall no such dismay when RGB was commenting on Trump before the election, multiple times, sns never recused. At best a few people had a muted "she shouldn't have done that" so I'm thinking this is all crocodile tears. I don't think the San Francisco city hall is deciding federal law. I also honestly don't remember which Trump-related cases RBG assessed, and what biased things she said/did while assessing them. Could you please elaborate? You know that's not the point I'm making. What I'm saying is that this flag is not a well-known symbol of J6 sympathizers, some reporter at the NYT just decided that it was and now in the space of a few days it has all of a sudden become common on the left that this anodyne flag that appears all over the place is now a right-wing dog whistle. And since that little detail has come out more people noticed it flying more places that aren't exactly MAGA country, like the MN state capitol. Just another example that no matter how "respectable" and "trustworthy" a publication, they all deserve the same scrutiny and often scorn. At about the time I made the post this morning the WP said that they too looked into the upside down flag flying at the Alito's way back when it happened... The wife of Supreme Court Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. told a Washington Post reporter in January 2021 that an upside-down American flag recently flown on their flagpole was “an international signal of distress” and indicated that it had been raised in response to a neighborhood dispute. Martha-Ann Alito made the comments when the reporter went to the couple’s Fairfax County, Va., home to follow up on a tip about the flag, which was no longer flying when he arrived. The incident documented by reporter Robert Barnes, who covered the Supreme Court for The Post for 17 years and retired last year, offers fresh details about the raising of the flag and the first account of comments about it by the justice’s wife. The Post decided not to report on the episode at the time because the flag-raising appeared to be the work of Martha-Ann Alito, rather than the justice, and connected to a dispute with her neighbors, a Post spokeswoman said. It was not clear then that the argument was rooted in politics, the spokeswoman said. The upside-down flag has long been a sign of distress for the military and protest by various political factions. In the fraught weeks before and after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, it had also been adopted by supporters of the “Stop the Steal” movement, which embraced Donald Trump’s false claims that Joe Biden stole the election from him. Some of the rioters who participated in the attack had carried upside-down American flags with them. ---- The Post subsequently reported on May 17 that residents said the flag was raised following a heated confrontation between Martha-Ann Alito and a neighbor over political yard signs, one of which carried a profane anti-Trump message and another that carried a message along the lines of “you are complicit.” One resident, who like the others spoke on the condition of anonymity to protect their privacy in a sensitive situation, said the flag flew for between two and five days. On Jan. 20, 2021 — the day of Biden’s inauguration, which the Alitos did not attend — Barnes went to their home to follow up on the tip about the flag. He encountered the couple coming out of the house. Martha-Ann Alito was visibly upset by his presence, demanding that he “get off my property.” As he described the information he was seeking, she yelled, “It’s an international signal of distress!” Alito intervened and directed his wife into a car parked in their driveway, where they had been headed on their way out of the neighborhood. The justice denied the flag was hung upside down as a political protest, saying it stemmed from a neighborhood dispute and indicating that his wife had raised it. Martha-Ann Alito then got out of the car and shouted in apparent reference to the neighbors: “Ask them what they did!” She said yard signs about the couple had been placed in the neighborhood. After getting back in the car, she exited again and then brought out from their residence a novelty flag, the type that would typically decorate a garden. She hoisted it up the flagpole. “There! Is that better?” she yelled. Later that week, Samuel Alito issued a statement to The Post in response to written questions about whether it was his decision to fly the flag and whether it was flown to protest the election results, reflect concern about the state of the country or something else. “I had no involvement whatsoever in the flying of the flag,” he said, using wording almost identical to the statement provided to the Times last week. “It was placed by Mrs. Alito solely in response to a neighbor’s use of objectionable and personally insulting language on yard signs.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/25/alito-flag-martha-ann-washington-post/As for RGB, she made disparaging remarks about Trump, generally considered out of line and then apologized. https://www.npr.org/2016/07/14/486012897/ginsburg-apologies-for-ill-advised-trump-commentsBut the fact you don't even remember it is part of the problem. Selective memory and selective outrage. All these senators calling for Alito to recuse himself are hacks and hypocrites. edit: + Show Spoiler + In regards to Alito: Just because you didn't know about the Appeal to Heaven flag doesn't mean it wasn't used by insurrectionists during the January 6th attack. Just because a symbol might not be universally recognized doesn't give it a pass. In regards to RBG: I do remember RBG saying those things, which she apologized for (unlike Alito, who lied and made excuses about both flags). I didn't realize those were your examples of RBG saying/doing something similar to what Alito and Thomas are doing. If you believe that RBG making factual statements* about Trump is the same thing as another Supreme Court Justice sympathizing with an insurrection orchestrated by Trump while at the same time considering whether or not Trump should be able to do illegal things when he's president, we will just have to agree to disagree. I don't think those two are analogous. *RBG said: "He has no consistency about him. He says whatever comes into his head at the moment. He really has an ego... How has he gotten away with not turning over his tax returns? The press seems to be very gentle with him on that." I don't think calling out Trump on his inconsistency, ego, or tax returns is the same thing as supporting an insurrection and possibly allowing Trump to have near-perfect immunity for some of his past criminal indictments and potentially more future criminal indictments if he becomes president again. (She also said, "I can't imagine what the country would be — with Donald Trump as our president" and that her late husband would have said it was "time for us to move to New Zealand", which is probably the part she apologized for, as that's her opinion. Probably unbecoming for a SCJ, sure, but definitely not a worthy rival to Alito and Thomas.) To be perfectly honest I think it kind of looks like you flailing around. The theme of the posts I'm making is that these flags are common enough that you can't assume someone intentions from them alone. And yet you turn around and assert, with no evidence or supporting argument whatsoever, that these are lies. This is about as good an example of motivated reasoning as one could ask for. How you get to Just because a symbol might not be universally recognized doesn't give it a pass. is a path I can't follow at all. It's not a "Christian nationalist flag" as evidenced by is provenance and its current usage. Come back when you have a coherent reason for thinking the story is a lie. I think what RGB did was much worse, she went out there and cast her opinions into the world while a sitting judge who was going to rule on Trump cases, including his tax returns. At worst, Alito's wife flew a flag in their own neighborhood, you are right that they aren't at all comparable. I don't think that's how "at worst" works, but we'll have to agree to disagree. Out of curiosity, since it's about the same original post of mine: What do you think about Trump's/MTG's claim that Biden wanted to assassinate Trump? If you are referring the Mar a Lago thing, my understanding is that it's a misunderstanding of a normal procedure, but I haven't looked into it.
Okay, I appreciate the response!
|
Does anyone think that Texas is in play, for our upcoming presidential election? I don't, but my friend thinks that Texas is slightly purple this time around. He asked for 2-to-1 odds, and I accepted: I'll give him $200 if Biden wins Texas, and he'll give me $100 if Trump wins Texas. (Our bet is void if one of them dies or is otherwise incapacitated). I think it's a pretty safe gamble on my end, but I feel like I win either way (losing $200 for Biden to automatically win the election is a great trade-off too). Thoughts?
|
On May 26 2024 19:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Does anyone think that Texas is in play, for our upcoming presidential election? I don't, but my friend thinks that Texas is slightly purple this time around. He asked for 2-to-1 odds, and I accepted: I'll give him $200 if Biden wins Texas, and he'll give me $100 if Trump wins Texas. (Our bet is void if one of them dies or is otherwise incapacitated). I think it's a pretty safe gamble on my end, but I feel like I win either way (losing $200 for Biden to automatically win the election is a great trade-off too). Thoughts?
Agreed on your assessment. Either you win because you don't get Trump as a president, or you win because you get $100.
I don't think i will ever give any predictions on US elections again. You guys elected Donald Trump once, anything can happen now, and it will probably be worse than expected.
|
On May 26 2024 19:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Does anyone think that Texas is in play, for our upcoming presidential election? I don't, but my friend thinks that Texas is slightly purple this time around. He asked for 2-to-1 odds, and I accepted: I'll give him $200 if Biden wins Texas, and he'll give me $100 if Trump wins Texas. (Our bet is void if one of them dies or is otherwise incapacitated). I think it's a pretty safe gamble on my end, but I feel like I win either way (losing $200 for Biden to automatically win the election is a great trade-off too). Thoughts?
Considering it's not even a "battleground state" (which Biden is currently losing all of anyway) I'd say it's a safe bet.
|
On May 26 2024 20:37 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2024 19:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Does anyone think that Texas is in play, for our upcoming presidential election? I don't, but my friend thinks that Texas is slightly purple this time around. He asked for 2-to-1 odds, and I accepted: I'll give him $200 if Biden wins Texas, and he'll give me $100 if Trump wins Texas. (Our bet is void if one of them dies or is otherwise incapacitated). I think it's a pretty safe gamble on my end, but I feel like I win either way (losing $200 for Biden to automatically win the election is a great trade-off too). Thoughts? Considering it's not even a "battleground state" (which Biden is currently losing all of anyway) I'd say it's a safe bet.
Donald leading by 4 points in the state he tried to openly steal the previous election is certainly peak US politics.
|
You won the bet dude, that hundo is as good as yours. I'm more worried about the seven purple states this year, but who knows what the hell will happen in the next five months.
|
A generic republican wins Texas easily. If the election were today, Trump wins Texas easily. But Trump is a geriatric criminal with five months to go. If he collapses physically/mentally/legally in dramatic fashion, it might lose him Texas.
|
On May 27 2024 05:55 Severedevil wrote:
A generic republican wins Texas easily. If the election were today, Trump wins Texas easily. But Trump is a geriatric criminal with five months to go. If he collapses physically/mentally/legally in dramatic fashion, it might lose him Texas.
I think Trump being a criminal ought to matter, but I don't think it's going to seriously deter his sycophants. As far as him being geriatric is concerned, I think that both Biden's and Trump's old ages ought to effectively cancel out (they're both too old in my opinion, and they both show various signs of cognitive decline and generally slowing down, so I'm certainly focusing more on their key political and moral differences). For those reasons, I think Trump is probably just as likely to safely secure Texas as any "generic Republicans".
|
Isn't trump the wrong kind of criminal for most people to give a shit? Unless it's tied in a tangible way to "Trump is stealing from you / the country" I don't see it mattering to people. The only trial I see mattering are the classified documents, though I have no idea what that timeline is.
|
United States42966 Posts
Trump’s MAGA judge appointee in Florida shut the Mar A Lago documents case, despite having audio recordings of Trump lying to the FBI and bragging about being guilty. This is why judicial capture matters, and to be honest why the second amendment matters. There was no fact pattern they could present there that would have led to Judge Cannon allowing the case to go forward. She is wholly unqualified and was appointed due to a willingness to break the law for Trump, something she is now delivering on. The conservatives who still insist that Trump isn’t a problem because of institutional constraints are, and honestly always were, both liars and useful idiots.
|
United States24701 Posts
Kwark what do you mean she "shut" the case?
|
Its not shut. its 'delayed indefinitely'.
In a written order issued late Tuesday, Cannon said there are too many outstanding pre-trial motions and classified issues that need to be resolved — and said a trial date cannot be finalized. It is unlikely that the trial will now start before the November election.
The gist of Kwarks post is correct tho, Cannon is 100% running interference for Trump. With this its basically guaranteed to go no where until after the election. At which point I really hope Smith files to have Cannon replaced.
They don't want to do it now to avoid the optics in the run op to the election, which is itself preposterous.
Stuff like the classified issues is just bullshit. The contents of the files is entirely irrelevant to the case. Their security level is what matters and there is no reason for the defence to be allowed access to beyond top secret files to make their case. (A case they don't have as Trump doesn't even deny having the files...)
|
It is a novel case with a huge number of documents and new legal issues. While Cannon has been more deferential to Trump than required, the smart people I was reading always said there was a high chance it didn't happen until after the election, which is actually what everyone is really mad about. The scale and complexity meant the initial trial timeline was always a starting point and not a promise.
|
Yeah, she guaranteed that the case won't be scheduled before the election, and so therefore there won't be a verdict that could affect the election.
KwarK, can you please elaborate on why/how this relates to the second amendment?
|
On May 27 2024 06:41 Introvert wrote:
It is a novel case with a huge number of documents and new legal issues. While Cannon has been more deferential to Trump than required, the smart people I was reading always said there was a high chance it didn't happen until after the election, which is actually what everyone is really mad about. The scale and complexity meant the initial trial timeline was always a starting point and not a promise. It was never ending before the election, but it would have been on going. Cannon is making it her job to ensure its not even started in November.
|
Maybe this relates to the second amendment in that somebody needs to take matters into their own hands in dealing with a corrupt criminal justice system, a la Law Abiding Citizen (fun movie btw)
|
United States42966 Posts
On May 27 2024 06:47 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Yeah, she guaranteed that the case won't be scheduled before the election, and so therefore there won't be a verdict that could affect the election.
KwarK, can you please elaborate on why/how this relates to the second amendment?
I refer you to Presidential candidate Trump’s explanation about how second amendment enthusiasts can remove people from office.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
