Because Trump 2.0

[17thfabn]

6 hours ago, Josh said:

Republicans, or at least MAGA Republicans, are obviously a minority trying to impose their will on the rest of the country anyway they can. If it were otherwise, they would not embrace the EC like it was the last peanut on earth. They know they are a minority but they think are better Americans.

I would agree that the MAGA group are a minority trying to get their way. I also see that the hard left in the Democratic party are a minority trying to get their way. 

[rmgill]

8 minutes ago, 17thfabn said:

I would agree that the MAGA group are a minority trying to get their way. I also see that the hard left in the Democratic party are a minority trying to get their way. 

There's no 'trying'. The DNC lefties ARE getting their way. See also the DEI and trans agenda that's main stream and part of things like Title IX. We also see the embracing of communist ideas to get their way and buy votes. See also the tax on unrealized gains, price controls and the censorship they've pushed. 

Conversely, what's the awful thing the MAGA types want exactly? 

[sunday]

Curious, I thought most claims about election fraud, or the major ones anyway, were dismissed because of lack of standing or some other excuse. So there were no court cases.

Example:

https://www.texastribune.org/2020/12/11/texas-lawsuit-supreme-court-election-results/

Quote

U.S. Supreme Court throws out Texas lawsuit contesting 2020 election results in four battleground states
The lawsuit challenged election results in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. The high court said Texas did not have standing to bring the case.

Quote

In a few brief sentences, the high court said it would not consider the case for procedural reasons, because Texas lacked standing to bring it.

"Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections," the court wrote in an unsigned ruling Friday evening.

 

Edited August 27, 2024 by sunday

[rmgill]

What's doubly weird is that the Supreme court is the first and last point for states to sue other states. That IS where they'd have standing. 

[DKTanker]

8 hours ago, Josh said:

Republicans, or at least MAGA Republicans, are obviously a minority trying to impose their will on the rest of the country anyway they can.

What will is that?

[sunday]

I find a bit disingenuous to equate a ruling with a negative to consider.

But I am no lawyer.

[DKTanker]

1 hour ago, rmgill said:

Conversely, what's the awful thing the MAGA types want exactly? 

To not be Marxists?

[DKTanker]

4 minutes ago, rmgill said:

What's doubly weird is that the Supreme court is the first and last point for states to sue other states. That IS where they'd have standing. 

Not weird, cowardly.  "No standing" is many times an excuse to be a moral coward.  Yes, John Roberts, looking at you.

[Murph]

He wants his "Legacy" so they refuse to take cases that really need to be looked at.  Although I am shocked he voted with the majority on some of the bigger cases before the court.  

[Josh]

3 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Still free to do them both though. For now.

Actually I assume a burnout on most public streets would get you a ticket and hypothetically having an unconfined fire in public should do the same in most local jurisdictions. Enforcement of course will change from precinct to precinct.

[Josh]

3 hours ago, glenn239 said:

Good to know.  Here, I was wondering whether what you actually were suggesting by talking about the total vote was that because Biden won the popular vote, that a bit of fraud to swing Georgia would just be the system confirming the will of the collective electorate.

No, I am merely pointing out it is not especially hard to believe Biden won or that Kamala will win given a Trump deficit of millions of votes. That said, I think currently it would be roughly a coin toss.

[Stuart Galbraith]

9 minutes ago, Josh said:

Actually I assume a burnout on most public streets would get you a ticket and hypothetically having an unconfined fire in public should do the same in most local jurisdictions. Enforcement of course will change from precinct to precinct.

A year in prison?

Not that Id have an issue with jailing people for a year burning the British flag. But then, I keep getting told Britons arent free, so....

[Josh]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

A year in prison?

Not that Id have an issue with jailing people for a year burning the British flag. But then, I keep getting told Britons arent free, so....

Trump clearly wants a specific law against flag burning purely because FLAG! Which is silly. In fact I doubt he personally cares one way or the other; he just knows his voting base likely by and large feels that way. It is not a remotely new idea; it pops up in Republican circles every other election or so.

I was just pointing out that the two actions in the post on the last page likely are misdemeanors for reasons outside free speech. They would probably not rate an arrest unless the individual in question had other charges.

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Josh said:

Actually I assume a burnout on most public streets would get you a ticket and hypothetically having an unconfined fire in public should do the same in most local jurisdictions. Enforcement of course will change from precinct to precinct.

If you steal a flag off of a public structure that should also yield a theft of government property and destruction of same. 

The flag at Union Station is very much that. Doubly, across from where moving Pelosi's podium yielded a felony charge iinm. 

[rmgill]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

A year in prison?

Not that Id have an issue with jailing people for a year burning the British flag. But then, I keep getting told Britons arent free, so....

Does burning a British flag yield the same charge as burning a pride flag? What if you're burning a Palestinian flag? 

OR burn a Koran that you bought. then burn a bible. Does that yield the same or lack of charges? 

There's your test. 

[Ivanhoe]

https://www.dailywire.com/news/heres-where-people-have-been-charged-for-vandalizing-pride-flag-displays-with-tire-marks

https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/crime/st-pete-police-pride-street-mural-arrest/67-c45a98e4-496b-484c-a2dd-75b2835e82e8
 

Quote

 

ST. PETERSBURG, Florida — The truck driver accused of defacing St. Pete's Progressive Pride Flag street mural on Central Avenue and 25th Street in May has been arrested, the St. Petersburg Police Department said in a news release.

Antonio Silvestri, 30, is being charged with felony criminal mischief and racing on a street, officers said. Surveillance video taken from Ride-em Cowboy, a nearby country bar, allegedly shows Silvestri in a white truck grinding tire marks into the mural on May 17.

This marks the second arrest related to defacing the Pride mural. More footage taken at 3:45 a.m. on May 22 from the bar allegedly shows Christian Maler, 18, doing circular "doughnut-burnouts" in his car on the mural. He was arrested last week and is facing the same charges as Silvestri, St. Pete police said in a separate statement.

 

 

Not just misdemeanors.

 

 

[rmgill]

10 minutes ago, Josh said:

Trump clearly wants a specific law against flag burning purely because FLAG! Which is silly.

It's a repeated issue. It seems to step over a line. 

If you buy your OWN flag and burn it, go right a head. Do you have a burn permit for your demonstration and burning in effigy? No, then that's the charge. 

If you're burning a flag you stole, then it's theft and destruction of property. 

We don't NEED new laws for this. 

This is my principled and consistent standard that I've had on the subject for decades, even back to when I donated to the ACLU in the mid to late 90s when they had a consistent standard on the 1st amendment. 

10 minutes ago, Josh said:

In fact I doubt he personally cares one way or the other; he just knows his voting base likely by and large feels that way. It is not a remotely new idea; it pops up in Republican circles every other election or so.

Yes. And it pops up in Democrat circles when something THEY want protected is burnt. While at the same time they argue that dissent is patriotic OR if the shoe is on the other foot the height of racism. 

Lets be clear though, the Democrats ahve a definative pattern of 1st amendment violation on the books and on the record. 

So, do be careful with that bag of stones and that greenhouse you're sitting in. 

10 minutes ago, Josh said:

I was just pointing out that the two actions in the post on the last page likely are misdemeanors for reasons outside free speech. They would probably not rate an arrest unless the individual in question had other charges.

Not if you steal it from a government building. It should be the same as moving Pelosi's podium which resulted in a prison sentence.  

[Josh]

10 minutes ago, rmgill said:

If you steal a flag off of a public structure that should also yield a theft of government property and destruction of same. 

The flag at Union Station is very much that. Doubly, across from where moving Pelosi's podium yielded a felony charge iinm. 

Agree, burning someone else’s flag probably involves a couple of additional crimes on top of the uncontrolled fire.

[rmgill]

Lets remember, the left was ok with repeated attempts to burn a court house in Portland with people IN IT for a period of weeks. And that Trump having federal agents track down and arrest the perpetrators outside of/away from the riot, arson, etc was considered to be jack booted thuggery. No dogs were shot. No homes burned down. People snagged on the street in a great example of police work. 

[Murph]

13 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

https://www.dailywire.com/news/heres-where-people-have-been-charged-for-vandalizing-pride-flag-displays-with-tire-marks

https://www.wtsp.com/article/news/crime/st-pete-police-pride-street-mural-arrest/67-c45a98e4-496b-484c-a2dd-75b2835e82e8
 

 

Not just misdemeanors.

 

 

It is their religion, and a sacred symbol of death and abortion.

[Mr King]

[Murph]

New indictment from the illegal special prosecutor just filed.  When will these criminals in the doj go to prison for what they are doing?

[Josh]

I feel like there is a rhetorical double standard when any law enforcement problem during a protest is a concerted effort of the left to destroy the rule of law where as January 6th was a spontaneous peaceful protest, and that a certain failed presidential candidate spending tens of millions of dollars organizing it after six months of saying elections are a sham somehow had nothing to do with it.

[Stuart Galbraith]

13 hours ago, rmgill said:

Does burning a British flag yield the same charge as burning a pride flag? What if you're burning a Palestinian flag? 

OR burn a Koran that you bought. then burn a bible. Does that yield the same or lack of charges? 

There's your test. 

Apparently not. Bloody well ought to be.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11845899/burning-union-jack-flag-illegal-uk/

I think you would be hard placed to charge someone with burning a Palestinian flag, since it doesnt really exist as a state. It would be rather like burning the flag of the Duchy of Grand Fenwick.I think primarily it would come down to whether its your property or not.

[glenn239]

9 hours ago, Josh said:

I feel like there is a rhetorical double standard when any law enforcement problem during a protest is a concerted effort of the left to destroy the rule of law where as January 6th was a spontaneous peaceful protest,

Jan 6th was a riot, not an insurrection.  But I see what you did there - by focusing on riot vs peaceful protest, you dodge talking about one exaggeration by talking about another.