The Constitution does not protect incitement to riot. This has been settled case law for nearly two centuries.The problem was the Constitution; the first amendment protected what he said, even though the result was criminal behavior by other people.
Trump actively engaged in sedition and conspiracy. His seeking co-option of the pro forma ratification of the EC report to Congress was high treason at worst, and in direct violation of his oath of office, regardless of his failure to act to forestall an assault on the Capitol, at best.The Constitution does not protect incitement to riot. This has been settled case law for nearly two centuries.
Trump's behavior was criminal.
1A doesn't allow you to talk about a criminal fucking conspiracy.The problem was the Constitution; the first amendment protected what he said, even though the result was criminal behavior by other people.
So... don't take notes?1A doesn't allow you to talk about a criminal fucking conspiracy.
I’m really fucking sick and tired of this bullshit doomerism. If what you said had any merit, why are democrats still winning elections?You're assuming that we'll have midterm elections, and that they won't be rigged.
I’m really fucking sick and tired of this bullshit doomerism. If what you said had any merit, why are democrats still winning elections?
Make sure nobody takes notes, which is hard when you're giving an internationally televised address.So... don't take notes?
Of course he’s going to say that shit. Doesn’t mean he can actually do itIt would be easier to be optimistic about the chances of a free and fair election, if Trump would stop "joking" about things like taking control of elections or canceling them entirely.
Now look up what it takes to prove incitement to riot, under current precedent. You basically have to lead them there and orchestrate every step of the process. Just getting the crowd riled up isn't enough, otherwise you'd have protesters being arrested for it constantly.The Constitution does not protect incitement to riot. This has been settled case law for nearly two centuries.
Trump's behavior was criminal.
Republicans also sure aren't acting like the fix is in. If it was, why would they bother with all this panicky last-minute redistricting?I’m really fucking sick and tired of this bullshit doomerism. If what you said had any merit, why are democrats still winning elections?
That Secret Service agent, the one that Trump choked, prevented Trump from actually being part of the mob storming the capitol. At this point I'm not sure whether that was a good thing or a bad thing.Now look up what it takes to prove incitement to riot, under current precedent. You basically have to lead them there and orchestrate every step of the process. Just getting the crowd riled up isn't enough, otherwise you'd have protesters being arrested for it constantly.
Of course not, how silly of me. That would be illegal.Of course he’s going to say that shit. Doesn’t mean he can actually do it
And then there is the evidence that Trump and his allies paid for many of the Proud Boys and other insurrectionists to come to DC for the speech and subsequent events.That Secret Service agent, the one that Trump choked, prevented Trump from actually being part of the mob storming the capitol. At this point I'm not sure whether that was a good thing or a bad thing.
I am officially coining the phrase "Ok, doomer."I’m really fucking sick and tired of this bullshit doomerism. If what you said had any merit, why are democrats still winning elections?
On the other hand, the elections just held in Texas suggest the re-districting isn't working the way they hopedRepublicans also sure aren't acting like the fix is in. If it was, why would they bother with all this panicky last-minute redistricting?
That's the hazard of redistricting, at least the way they're doing it. You create more seats that lean toward your party, but you also dilute your margin in what would otherwise be safe districts. It potentially leaves you vulnerable to a wave election, although that's not really a realistic concern in Texas.On the other hand, the elections just held in Texas suggest the re-districting isn't working the way they hoped![]()
I refer again to the actual recent results in Texas.That's the hazard of redistricting, at least the way they're doing it. You create more seats that lean toward your party, but you also dilute your margin in what would otherwise be safe districts. It potentially leaves you vulnerable to a wave election, although that's not really a realistic concern in Texas.
The first one is a state Senate seat, though; did they even redistrict those? I thought it was just their US districts.
Oh, I'm with you on not reading too much into it. As for Abbot burning the state to the ground, that is a tempting offer...The first one is a state Senate seat, though; did they even redistrict those? I thought it was just their US districts.
Regardless, people promise me Blue Texas every election year and every year the state just gets more red, so I'm not going to get my hopes up. I'm pretty sure the governor would burn the state to the ground before letting it go blue.
See, for years I was told that the Latinos in Texas would eventually hand it to the Dems. Then last election cycle Latino voters lurched to the right and gave Trump the biggest margin since George W. Bush. I don't believe anyone who says they know how it's going to go this time, but after a lot of disappointments my money is always on red states getting redder.Texas has a lot of Mexican immigrants - they're skewing towards the Democrats this election cycle.
It's pretty obvious. Trump is a terrible candidate and yet we're 0-2 running qualified women against him. The one time we ran a man against him, the man won.Anecdotal but one of things I'd heard that caused that lurch was good old fashion misogyny. Trump was the big strong manly man (absolute lol) while Harris was a woman and therefore could never do the job.
That's the hazard of redistricting, at least the way they're doing it. You create more seats that lean toward your party, but you also dilute your margin in what would otherwise be safe districts. It potentially leaves you vulnerable to a wave election, although that's not really a realistic concern in Texas.
No, I’m saying he’s not capable of doing half the things he says. Does that mean he won’t try? Of course not. But he’s not going to be able to succeedOf course not, how silly of me. That would be illegal.
Easy... Because I still believe in humans being human. You have to use the flexibility part of your executive functions to see it though.Why on god's green-ish Earth would you assume ANY TSA indoctrinee has a sense of humor that isn't maliciously geared to consider him a sacred cow beyond reproach?
I don't know if that beats the time the Chinese analog to the TSA pulled me aside and a female agent at the Beijing airport searched me extremely thoroughly, while her also female counterpart, automatic weapon at the ready, watched, smiling. The shorts I was wearing made access to all... subject areas, shall we say, readily available.Easy... Because I still believe in humans being human. You have to use the flexibility part of your executive functions to see it though.
Edit: just dug a bit in my memory. I used to travel to the states a lot for work. I was still young, had all my hair and was pretty skinny. Especially to American standards. Had a very nice conversation with a TSA officer. According to my colleague she said I was cute... Definitely human...
Looks like not only the TSA is human...I don't know if that beats the time the Chinese analog to the TSA pulled me aside and a female agent at the Beijing airport searched me extremely thoroughly, while her also female counterpart, automatic weapon at the ready, watched, smiling. The shorts I was wearing made access to all... subject areas, shall we say, readily available.
I toyed with the idea of asking if I needed to buy her dinner as she concluded, but chose to simply bow politely and move on.
The government also uses facial recognition technology from Clearview AI. A Clearview AI spokesperson told Ars that the “central focus of Clearview AI’s contract with DHS is supporting HSI [Homeland Security Investigations] and their child exploitation and cyber crimes investigations.”
It is exactly on point for a certain class of flag-shaggers.Nor even the American constitution. Which seems rather ironic for someone who's avatar is based on the American flag.
The Dems used to be the big tent. Now if you don’t support all their agenda and god forbid you are a Christian, Jew or gun owner you are reviled. That’s how you loose elections in the heartland. Fly the American flag and you must be a facist.