refresher for US Congress

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 00 gauge

And then there's this little jewel from royamcr (in post #13): "In all other elections the loser had long before conceded and wasn't using every avenue to discredit a fair election" ..... I guess he doesn't remember the presedential election of 2020, you know the one where the Dimocrats cheated to try to win Florida but didn't ..... and how Gore conceded until he didn't, and how ugly it got by him "using every avenue to discredit a fair election" ..... and how it took the Supreme Court bitch-slapping Gore to force him to realize he'd lost ..... so the shenanigans of the 2020 election were just repeats of stunts the Dimoturds have tried before in trying to rig an election by any means necessary until they achieve their goals, or the courts have to get involved .....

They just don't want to be reminded do they.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

For those who are trying to compare issues from past elections, here is your answer
why those do not compare. Hope you can understand the difference.



"Within an hour of Cruz’s speech, a violent pro-Trump mob broke through a police line and forced their way into the Senate chamber itself."

I won't hold out hope that you can understand that you can not make a statement like that without proof. Taken as written Ted Cruz could have recited Green Eggs and Ham as Senators have been known to do on occasion just to filibuster and you would cite that as the reason for the riot.


You must examine the speech for words that a reasonable person would see as inciting violence. Talking about not certifying electors from a certain state as done by Democrats at least twice before would not incite violence in any reasonable person's mind.


So I'll challenge you to find Cruz's speech which I would bet my life's savings you haven't read and provide this court with the words that incited violence. Other wise, you are just saying you don't like this guy so let's charge him with something without proof.



Do that and I'll apologize for suggesting you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

[HedonistForever]

Talk about using "whataboutism" in a legal case, Parler sued Amazon for removing them for violating rules against hate speech and speech that might lead to violence.


Parler attorney pointed out to the court that one of the treading tweets on Twitter, still on Amazon servers, is "Hang Mike Pence" and pointed to tweet by the Ayatollah of Iran. What about that, your honor?



https://nypost.com/2021/01/09/twitte...ter-trump-ban/


Twitter allows ‘Hang Mike Pence’ to trend hours after Trump ban



https://nypost.com/2020/07/30/twitte...amenei-tweets/


Twitter execs refused Israel’s request to remove Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei tweets



Twitter executives last month rebuffed a request from the Israeli government to remove tweets from Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calling for the genocide of the Israeli people — claiming in a stunning letter obtained by The Post that the Jew-hate qualified as “comments on current affairs.”
The decision comes after the social media giant recently began policing President Trump’s tweets, alleging they “glorify violence” and spread misinformation about mail-in voting.
In a May 20 letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey, Israel’s Minister for Strategic Affairs Orit Farkash-Hacohen called for the company to uphold its own hate speech policy and remove antisemitic tweets from Khamenei calling Israel a “cancerous growth” to be “uprooted and destroyed.”
“Twitter’s own Hateful Conduct Policy clearly stipulates that a user “may not promote violence against, or directly attack, or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin or religious affiliation… or calls for mass murder,” Farkash-Hacohen wrote to Dorsey.
“However, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is unremittingly abusing your platform by doing just that — without any enforcement or repercussions,” she continued.
“For far too long he has been allowed to spread calls for physical violence and antisemitism on Twitter,” she added.
But in a tone-deaf response, Twitter’s Vice President of Public Policy Sinéad McSweeney said the hateful screed did not violate their policies.
“World leaders use Twitter to engage in discourse with each other, as well as their constituents,” McSweeney wrote in the June 15 letter obtained by the Post.
“Presently, our policies with regards to world leaders state that direct interactions with fellow public figures, comments on current affairs, or strident statements of foreign policy on economic or military issues are generally not in violation of the Twitter Rules,” she continued.
“Our assessment is that tweets you have cited are not in violation of our policies at this time, and they fall into the category of foreign policy saber-rattling on economic or military issues of our approach to world leaders,” McSweeney wrote.
Twitter’s refusal to remove the Iranian dictator’s tweets have led to accusations of “double standards” from Israeli lawmakers after the social media giant recently began restricting President Trump’s tweets, claiming they were misinformation or promoted violence.

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

I'll ask you again since you either chose to ignore it or merely forgot. If you had a Black client charged with selling crack and he said, "what about the White guy selling powder that didn't get the same charge or even any charge". Would you tell your client not to get into "whataboutism" or might you say, "that's a good point, I think I'll use that as part of my defense" which we all know is exactly what happened in hundreds if not thousands of cases of Blacks charged differently than Whites.


What about that argument councilor? Is there a place for "whataboutism" in legal arguments?

You should have sold powder.

[royamcr]

There was no cheating in Florida in 2000. It was a different time where punch cards were still used. Literally 60000 ballots were thrown out and this was contested in court. The vote difference was 500. 2020 had no races near that close. This is a totally different situation than 2020. It didn't help that brother Jeb Bush was Governor.... He did concede the the election though and didn't act like a pussy like Trump. He was professional about it, and did contest it and he had every right to. In this case ONE state hinged the election, not 4. If there ever was a stolen election it was 2000. Trump wasn't even close in any of the states and Biden stomped all over him and even won Georgia.

Now go back to your corner with your dunce cap on trumptard.

Originally Posted by 00 gauge

And then there's this little jewel from royamcr (in post #13): "In all other elections the loser had long before conceded and wasn't using every avenue to discredit a fair election" ..... I guess he doesn't remember the presedential election of 2020, you know the one where the Dimocrats cheated to try to win Florida but didn't ..... and how Gore conceded until he didn't, and how ugly it got by him "using every avenue to discredit a fair election" ..... and how it took the Supreme Court bitch-slapping Gore to force him to realize he'd lost ..... so the shenanigans of the 2020 election were just repeats of stunts the Dimoturds have tried before in trying to rig an election by any means necessary until they achieve their goals, or the courts have to get involved .....

[00 gauge]

"There was no cheating in Florida in 2000" ..... yeah right, Dimturds have been cheating since Kennedy's election in 1960, and Johnson's victory in 1964 was the first where dead voters were counted. Cheating in elections is aDiPSHiT tradition, it's in their DNA ..... oh and you know where you can shove that dunce cap, too .....

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by 00 gauge

"There was no cheating in Florida in 2000" ..... yeah right, Dimturds have been cheating since Kennedy's election in 1960, and Johnson's victory in 1964 was the first where dead voters were counted. Cheating in elections is aDiPSHiT tradition, it's in their DNA ..... oh and you know where you can shove that dunce cap, too .....

lbj's cheating goes back to at least 1948

of course there's tammany hall and so much more

[royamcr]

Originally Posted by 00 gauge

"There was no cheating in Florida in 2000" ..... yeah right, Dimturds have been cheating since Kennedy's election in 1960, and Johnson's victory in 1964 was the first where dead voters were counted. Cheating in elections is aDiPSHiT tradition, it's in their DNA ..... oh and you know where you can shove that dunce cap, too .....

You are dumb, Trump cheated in 2016. Everyone will cheat if they can. Gerrymandering is cheating too. Pubtards are well known for that.

[VitaMan]

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) thinks that he is quite clever. He built his political reputation on combating the Republican establishment, on being a thorn in their side who, despite his educational and career pedigree, stood with the far-right wing of his party. His strategy was clear: leverage the energy of the Republican fringe to earn a presidential nomination.
In 2016, he gave it a shot — only to see Donald Trump emerge from the world of celebrity to more effectively speak to Cruz’s intended voters. Cruz was at a disadvantage, to be fair; he was still bound to at least some degree by his constituents and by some sense of what was and wasn’t acceptable in politics. Trump was simply adhering to right-wing rhetoric and cable-news commentary, as were many of the people who wound up supporting him.
As the Trump presidency unfolded, Cruz largely stood by him. After all, someone, at some point, would inherit that base of political support. Why not him? So over and over, Cruz has leveraged his college-debate-champ savvy on behalf of the president he once described as a “sniveling coward.”
After Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, Cruz stood with Trump as the president repeatedly misled his supporters about alleged voter fraud. As weeks went on and no evidence of said fraud emerged, Cruz and other Republicans on Capitol Hill were silent, betting that it was politically safer to stick with Trump than to stand with reality. When Trump’s efforts to seize a second consecutive term by subverting the will of the voters narrowed down to an effort to obstruct the formal counting of electoral votes on Jan. 6, Cruz jumped to the front of the line to promote the effort in the Senate.
On Wednesday, the time came for Cruz to make his case for why the transfer of power mandated by the Constitution should not occur.
“Mr. President,” he began, referring to the president of the Senate, “we gather together at a moment of great division, at a moment of great passion.”
“We have seen and no doubt will continue to see a great deal of moralizing from both sides of the aisle,” he continued. “But I would urge to both sides, perhaps a bit less certitude and a bit more recognition that we are gathered at a time when democracy is in crisis.”
How? Not because the president of the United States was lying to the public to seize power. No. Because the president’s supporters believed him.
“Recent polling shows that 39 percent of Americans believe the election that just occurred, quote, was rigged,” Cruz said. “You may not agree with that assessment. But it is nonetheless a reality for nearly half the country.”
After noting that this wasn’t limited to Republicans, he continued.
“Even if you do not share that conviction, it is the responsibility, I believe, of this office to acknowledge that it is a profound threat to this country and to the legitimacy of any administrations that will come in the future,” he said.
Cruz went on like this for a while, including claiming that the deeply corrupted determination of the 1876 presidential election might serve as a positive example of what could be done. He then lamented that some might not treat voters with the respect they deserve.
“For those who respect the voters, simply telling the voters, go jump in a lake, the fact that you have deep concerns is of no moment to us?” Cruz said. “That jeopardizes, I believe, the legitimacy of this and subsequent elections.”
All of this, from start to finish, is dishonest opportunism. Trump — and through omission, Cruz — misled the public in service of their own power. It’s no more complicated than that. Trump and Cruz made obviously untrue claims to an aggravated electorate, knowing that the claims were inaccurate, so that they could maintain power (in Trump’s case) or soon gain it (in Cruz’s). Even as temperatures rose and even as Trump encouraged massive protests at the Capitol in an effort to pressure legislators, Cruz did nothing more than nod along.
“Let me be clear,” Cruz said in his speech: “I am not arguing for setting aside the result of this election.”
Senators faced two bad choices, he said, including that moving forward with certifying the electoral votes would mean that “tens of millions of Americans” would get the message that “voter fraud doesn’t matter, isn’t real and shouldn’t be taken seriously.”
Voter fraud at the scale being claimed by Trump isn’t real. In electoral terms, voter fraud almost never matters at all. Trump’s ostensible concerns about fraud should, in fact, not be taken seriously.
This was not Cruz’s first attempt to slyly thread the needle between what the far-right base wanted to hear and what was considered within the bounds of proper senatorial activity. But it was the first such attempt that took place against the backdrop of looming violence, of far-right protesters who had been actively discussing an armed insurrection making their way to Washington. Cruz, like Trump, figured he had a way to endear himself to the viper, to use it for his own advantage.
Within an hour of Cruz’s speech, a violent pro-Trump mob broke through a police line and forced their way into the Senate chamber itself. As of writing, the Capitol remains out of law enforcement’s control.
Cruz’s effort to walk the line failed. The viper devoured him. His speech Wednesday — a cynical effort to undermine democracy, some of the last words to echo in the chamber before he and his colleagues had to flee — will be one of his primary legacies.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

You should have sold powder.

Is that what you told your Black clients?

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by VitaMan

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) thinks that he is quite clever. He built his political reputation on combating the Republican establishment, on being a thorn in their side who, despite his educational and career pedigree, stood with the far-right wing of his party. His strategy was clear: leverage the energy of the Republican fringe to earn a presidential nomination.
In 2016, he gave it a shot — only to see Donald Trump emerge from the world of celebrity to more effectively speak to Cruz’s intended voters. Cruz was at a disadvantage, to be fair; he was still bound to at least some degree by his constituents and by some sense of what was and wasn’t acceptable in politics. Trump was simply adhering to right-wing rhetoric and cable-news commentary, as were many of the people who wound up supporting him.
As the Trump presidency unfolded, Cruz largely stood by him. After all, someone, at some point, would inherit that base of political support. Why not him? So over and over, Cruz has leveraged his college-debate-champ savvy on behalf of the president he once described as a “sniveling coward.”
After Trump lost the 2020 presidential election, Cruz stood with Trump as the president repeatedly misled his supporters about alleged voter fraud. As weeks went on and no evidence of said fraud emerged, Cruz and other Republicans on Capitol Hill were silent, betting that it was politically safer to stick with Trump than to stand with reality. When Trump’s efforts to seize a second consecutive term by subverting the will of the voters narrowed down to an effort to obstruct the formal counting of electoral votes on Jan. 6, Cruz jumped to the front of the line to promote the effort in the Senate.
On Wednesday, the time came for Cruz to make his case for why the transfer of power mandated by the Constitution should not occur.
“Mr. President,” he began, referring to the president of the Senate, “we gather together at a moment of great division, at a moment of great passion.”
“We have seen and no doubt will continue to see a great deal of moralizing from both sides of the aisle,” he continued. “But I would urge to both sides, perhaps a bit less certitude and a bit more recognition that we are gathered at a time when democracy is in crisis.”
How? Not because the president of the United States was lying to the public to seize power. No. Because the president’s supporters believed him.
“Recent polling shows that 39 percent of Americans believe the election that just occurred, quote, was rigged,” Cruz said. “You may not agree with that assessment. But it is nonetheless a reality for nearly half the country.”

Was that it?

After noting that this wasn’t limited to Republicans, he continued.

“Even if you do not share that conviction, it is the responsibility, I believe, of this office to acknowledge that it is a profound threat to this country and to the legitimacy of any administrations that will come in the future,” he said.

Was that it? Is that what caused the riot?

Cruz went on like this for a while, including claiming that the deeply corrupted determination of the 1876 presidential election might serve as a positive example of what could be done. He then lamented that some might not treat voters with the respect they deserve.

“For those who respect the voters, simply telling the voters, go jump in a lake, the fact that you have deep concerns is of no moment to us?” Cruz said. “That jeopardizes, I believe, the legitimacy of this and subsequent elections.”

I don't know, maybe there is code in there that I don't recognize.

All of this, from start to finish, is dishonest opportunism.


OK, but is that what incited the riot? Surely that was it, right? And could you please find the statue that says "dishonest opportunism" is illegal and that dishonest opportunism leads to violence because dishonest opportunism, is kinda what politicians do for a living, everyday.

Trump — and through omission, Cruz — misled the public in service of their own power. It’s no more complicated than that.


OK, so misleading the public, like saying "you can keep your doctor and your policy if you want to" is the kind of thing that can lead to a riot?


Trump and Cruz made obviously untrue claims to an aggravated electorate, knowing that the claims were inaccurate, so that they could maintain power (in Trump’s case) or soon gain it (in Cruz’s). Even as temperatures rose and even as Trump encouraged massive protests at the Capitol in an effort to pressure legislators, Cruz did nothing more than nod along.

There you go! That was it, the nodding, that was the moment, right, right?

“Let me be clear,” Cruz said in his speech: “I am not arguing for setting aside the result of this election.”

Ah OH! That surely wasn't what the rioters wanted hear. Maybe that's the moment they decided Cruz was a traitor and they went after him?

Senators faced two bad choices, he said, including that moving forward with certifying the electoral votes would mean that “tens of millions of Americans” would get the message that “voter fraud doesn’t matter, isn’t real and shouldn’t be taken seriously.”

Damn, I think he copied that word for word from what the Democrats said in "05

Voter fraud at the scale being claimed by Trump isn’t real. In electoral terms, voter fraud almost never matters at all. Trump’s ostensible concerns about fraud should, in fact, not be taken seriously.

Some advice. When trying to convince somebody of something, never, ever say "it almost never matters" because you see, that leaves room for sometimes it does matter.
So help me out here, when Democrats voted ( about 100 of them ) to not certify Ohio electors because there was some kind of fraud, that was inciting violence?

This was not Cruz’s first attempt to slyly thread the needle between what the far-right base wanted to hear and what was considered within the bounds of proper senatorial activity.

Slyly threading the needle! Surely that is illegal and incited violence, right?

But it was the first such attempt that took place against the backdrop of looming violence, of far-right protesters who had been actively discussing an armed insurrection making their way to Washington. Cruz, like Trump, figured he had a way to endear himself to the viper, to use it for his own advantage.

Sounds like a lot of speculation without any evidence to me. Where are the words calling for violence?

Within an hour of Cruz’s speech, a violent pro-Trump mob broke through a police line and forced their way into the Senate chamber itself. As of writing, the Capitol remains out of law enforcement’s control.

And you are quite sure that nothing else happened outside, that might have started the violence? A whole hour after his speech? One might think that if the speech, lit the fuse, it wouldn't take an hour to decide.

Cruz’s effort to walk the line failed.

Oh, so Cruz was trying to "walk the line" and not outright incite violence! Sorry councilor, you were almost there and then blew it with that line creating reasonable doubt.

The viper devoured him. His speech Wednesday — a cynical effort to undermine democracy,

Wait a minute, let's back up. Didn't you just quote Cruz as saying

That's what you said right? Man you are stepping all over your argument. You should have quit sooner, maybe when Cruz was nodding because that may have been the "signal" to attack! You think?

some of the last words to echo in the chamber before he and his colleagues had to flee — will be one of his primary legacies.

Let me first congratulate you on finding what looks like a partial speech. I didn't think you had it in you. Now if you wouldn't mind, please point to the words that incited a riot.

I tried my best but I'm sorry, I don't see words to incite a riot. And I doubt any judge in a court of law would see them. What I see was Cruz saying he wasn't there to overturn the election.

But a damn fine effort on your part, a damn fine effort. Now go back and read the CNN article and see why Democrats rose on the House floor and objected to certifying duly constituted electors because it sure sounds like you just said doing that, is an attempt to undermine Democracy and perhaps incite a riot.

[VitaMan]

Son, you have missed it again.
You don't understand what this thread is about. Read the start of this thread.

There is no discussion of a judge and court for Mr. Cruz. That must be your idea.
I have no opinion of a like or dislike for Mr. Cruz. How could you possible know anything about that ? Yet you say I must dislike this guy.

There are other senators mentioned in this thread.


At least you are taking the time to educate yourself.
For your reference, what you have just read is an opinion piece. It is not written by me.
CNN is a corrupt network of slanted opinions. Good you are able to see others now.

[dilbert firestorm]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

https://www.aclu.org/other/aclu-hist...-speech-skokie

In 1978, the ACLU took a controversial stand for free speech by defending a neo-Nazi group that wanted to march through the Chicago suburb of Skokie , where many Holocaust survivors lived. The notoriety of the case caused some ACLU members to resign, but to many others the case has come to represent the ACLU's unwavering commitment to principle. In fact, many of the laws the ACLU cited to defend the group's right to free speech and assembly were the same laws it had invoked during the Civil Rights era, when Southern cities tried to shut down civil rights marches with similar claims about the violence and disruption the protests would cause.

Which is not to say what a handful of people did at the Capital was right because it wasn't but there were plenty more people that stayed outside than tried to enter. Were the "peaceful protestors" wrong too?

ACLU has changed in many areas. I think they're not very many that truly follow ACLU's founding principles.


the current generation of ACLU are not defending certain people of their 1st amendment right because they didn't meet their "values".

[1blackman1]

Originally Posted by HedonistForever

Is that what you told your Black clients?

That’s what I would have told them if I represented someone arrested for selling crack. Particularly if they complained that the law was unfair because had they sold powder they’d have less time.

The point is, the place to make the change and whine about the fairness of the law is at the legislature. Where it can be changed.

[HedonistForever]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

That’s what I would have told them if I represented someone arrested for selling crack. Particularly if they complained that the law was unfair because had they sold powder they’d have less time.

The point is, the place to make the change and whine about the fairness of the law is at the legislature. Where it can be changed.

Wow. You just might get a reputation with that attitude, as the Black lawyer unwilling to acknowledge the injustice of non equal treatment of Blacks under the law. The "I don't care about your plight, take it up with the legislature" probably wouldn't fly with to many clients.



I guess all those lawyers all those years citing unequal justice under the law were just spinning their wheels. I hope none of you future clients see your post