Donald Trump is the Bigliest sore loser ever (Page 5)
LoisS: *Laughs Hysterically*
Tongue cut out and scalped. We seem to bring that out in some, yes? lololol
AretoNyx: Some may find it fun to watch Fox correct those that worship Trump and say the darndest things.
MJ59: This should be shared copiously in the US:
Trump Supporters Have Forfeited the Right to Call Themselves Patriots
Bleeding Heart Liberal Marine
2 days ago·4 min read
A Trump supporter holds a Q sign outside a campaign rally— Rick Loomis/Getty Images
For as long as I can remember, the far right has acted as though they have a monopoly on patriotism. Seeing themselves as “real Americans,” while demonizing the left, attacking progressive ideals, and blaming liberals for all of their problems.
But the United States is a complex country with diverse people, perspectives, and experiences. There is a flourishing LGBTQ+ community with its own diversity. There are immigrants and minorities who have endured unimaginable suffering and hardship to help build and shape our nation into what it is today. To love America, you must embrace it all. To be a true patriot, you must put the country ahead of any political party or leader.
Do You Really Support the Troops?
Patriotism is about more than loving your country and just saying, “I support the troops.” It requires selflessness, service, and often sacrifice.
The highest form of patriotism is giving your life for your country. More Than 1,800 U.S. Marines did just that during the Battle of Belleau Wood in World War I. But Donald Trump — on a trip to France — didn’t understand why he should visit a cemetery full of “suckers and losers.” Concepts like service and sacrifice are as foreign to him as the Vietnam War he dodged.
Trump infamously said of John McCain, “I like people who weren’t captured.” He attacked Gold Star families who disagreed with him. But his worst act of treason was allowing Russia to put bounties on the heads of our troops and siding with our enemies over our own military intelligence. Yet millions of Americans voted for a traitor who has zero respect for our military.
Symbols Aren’t the Same As Sacrifice
Waving a flag and standing during the national anthem are casual acts of patriotism that require little effort. But it takes real courage to kneel in protest during the nation anthem and lose your job in order to effect real change. Colin Kaepernick’s courageous act honors those who paid the ultimate price for our country. It is a wholly American form of patriotic protest.
I take pride in the American flag. But as the late great comedian George Carlin reminded us, Old Glory is a symbol.
“I don’t get all choked up about yellow ribbons and American flags. I see them as symbols, and I leave symbols to the symbol-minded.” –George Carlin.
The flag represents the shared values of our nation: freedom, equality, and justice. If the promise of those ideals doesn’t include all Americans, it’s our patriotic duty to fight for their inclusion.
Freedom Ain’t the Same As Freedumb
The coronavirus pandemic has revealed who is a real patriot and exposed those who are just loud-mouthed, cult-minded assholes unwilling to do the basic things necessary to protect their fellow citizens. The misguided loyalty of Trump supporters drives their entire decision-making process, ahead of what’s right for our county in the midst of a deadly pandemic.
They refuse to wear masks, they scoff at social distancing, and they are unmoved by 275,000 American deaths. When lockdown measures are enacted, as a direct result of their reckless behavior, they blame “science,” the “liberal elite,” and the “main stream media,” rather than evaluating their own selfish actions. They are the very antithesis of patriots, unwilling to think of the greater good of the country.
Truth As a Casualty of Culture War
The death of truth in our country didn’t start with Donald Trump. He only exploited it with his vile form of racist-driven populism. From its inception in 1996, Fox News went beyond the political spin of the past, launching a new era of divisive rancor where the truth mattered little. Not only did Americans disagree on the issues, but they couldn’t even agree on what was fact and what was fiction. Alternative facts became the manure from which the alt-right grew out of.
After four years of enabling a racist demagogue who’s unfit for office, the Republican Party has been taken aback by their inability to control their own supporters. Or rather, the Trump supporters they whipped into a fury of anger by perpetuating dangerous lies and violent rhetoric.
Kooky Conspiracy and Treasonous Terrorism
Now we are seeing the rise of the QAnon conspiracy cult. These warped conspiracy theorists believe Democrats are running a pedophile ring and drinking the blood of children and only Donald Trump, sent on a mission from God, can save our nation from evil liberals hellbent on destroying it. It would be amusing were it not such a serious domestic terrorist threat to our country.
What was once a fringe ideology has become an acceptable viewpoint within conservative circles. They’re even electing QAnon kooks like Marjorie Taylor Greene to congress.
America is not one thing. There are conservatives and liberals and centrists and people who hate politics. There are religious people, atheists, and agnostics. There are Blacks and whites and Asians and Hispanics.
But we can’t come together when facts and truth don’t matter. When conspiracy theories are given credence. And when selfishness replaces patriotism. We can — and must, for the sake of our republic — find a way to unite based on our love of country and our shared values, even if we disagree on which of those values should take precedence. We must fight for what’s right for all Americans. That’s what real patriots do.
AretoNyx: I can say at least one thing good about Trump that many of his followers hate...vaccines. Trump is pro vaccine of all sorts even if he would never take them and think they cause autism. I mean he wants everyone else to take them for sure.
AretoNyx: Even if that was shared some would freak out about it and cry Trumpism cope tears. People will conspiracy and racism anyhow.
MJ59: Texas can’t block votes cast in other states. Absurdly, it’s trying.
The Supreme Court is sure to reject this latest attempt to overturn the election.
Lisa Marshall Manheim
Lisa Marshall Manheim is an associate professor at the University of Washington School of Law and a co-author of "The Limits of Presidential Power: A Citizen's Guide to the Law."
Dec. 10, 2020 at 3:51 a.m. GMT+11
In Texas, Republicans have worked hard to impose burdens on voters — at least, within the state’s own borders. But now they have grander plans. On Tuesday, Texas filed a lawsuit announcing its desire to interfere with voting processes in other states across the country. The lawsuit has no merit. It will fail. The effort though represents a galling expansion of Texas officials’ disregard for voters and the electoral process.
In anticipation of the 2020 elections, Texas set a plan for its voters. Even before the coronavirus pandemic, the plan included shuttering voting locations and refusing to meaningfully expand registration or mail-in voting options. The pandemic, in turn, convinced Texas officials to race into court — but not to ensure that voters could safely cast a ballot. Instead, officials litigated to prevent voters from securing a mail-in ballot for the purpose of avoiding the virus. Republican plaintiffs, including a member of the Texas House of Representatives, tried to convince courts to invalidate the votes of over 100,000 Texans who had voted at outdoor polling locations designed to reduce risks of contagion. Yet another line of litigation saw Texas officials vigorously defending voters’ ability to enter a polling place without wearing a mask. Efforts of this sort will help Texas to retain an ignominious title: hardest state in the country in which to cast a ballot.
(Edited by MJ59)
Trump Asks Supreme Court To Let Him Join Widely Scorned Texas Election Lawsuit
December 9, 20205:14 PM ET
Election experts scoffed this week when Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced he would be filing a lawsuit in the Supreme Court against four key states in an attempt to block presidential electors from finalizing Joe Biden's election victory.
But now President Trump and 17 states he carried are joining that effort.
Officials in the states targeted in the suit — Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania — derided it as nothing more than an unfounded publicity stunt.
The lawsuit may be a typically adept Trump move to get attention, but election law experts said he has little chance of getting the Supreme Court to support his move.
As election law expert Richard Hasen put it about the Texas filing, "This is a press release masquerading as a lawsuit. ... What utter garbage. Dangerous garbage, but garbage."
Just how little legal support there is for the lawsuit is evidenced by who signed the briefs asking the high court to intervene. Trump's brief was not signed by acting Solicitor General Jeffrey Wall or any other Justice Department official. Rather, the brief was signed by John Eastman, a conservative law professor at Chapman University. (A Trump campaign statement said the president intervened "in his personal capacity as candidate for re-election."
The Texas brief was not signed by the state's solicitor general, Kyle Hawkins. Paxton, who signed the Texas brief, remains under indictment over securities fraud and is also facing an FBI investigation on bribery and abuse of office allegations.
All of the briefs filed so far are in the form of a motion seeking permission to sue the states in the Supreme Court. As legal experts have noted, it is unclear what legal standing Trump, Texas or the 17 states supporting their move have for challenging the results of elections in other states.
Moreover, with the Electoral College slated to meet next week, this legal action amounts to little more than an eleventh hour Hail Mary pass. It is more like trying to stop the stop the game clock from ticking when all the players are walking off the field.
MJ59: And that is why this case, like so many of the others, are so offensively cynical. Knowingly or not, willfully or not, the lawyers filing these actions are co-opting the courts — who have no obvious mechanism for pushing back besides dismissing the suits. They are appropriating the procedural formalities and substantive nuances of judicial review for purely political ends without regard to the results, all of which have been adverse. And in the process, they are showing stunning contempt for the very idea of an independent judiciary — with everyone from the president on down taking the position that, as soon as there are enough Trump-appointed judges on the right court, all of these cases will come out the “right” way, never mind what the law actually has to say about them.
In other words, when (not if) the Supreme Court slams the door on this Texas case, the president’s critics will (once again) claim victory, the president and his defenders will (once again) move the goal posts (to Congress, one suspects) and the collateral damage will be to the institutional reputation of the courts — and the idea that the courts are anything other than another lever to be pulled in partisan political squabbles.
How the Supreme Court Can Swiftly Dispose of the Texas Lawsuit Seeking to Overturn the Election [Updated]
The case is within the Court' original jurisdiction. But longstanding precedent still allows the Court to dismiss it without full consideration.
Ilya Somin | 12.9.2020 2:32 PM
Flag of Texas.
Yesterday, the state of Texas filed a lawsuit essentially asking the Supreme Court to reverse the outcome of the presidential election in four key swing states—Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, thereby potentially giving Donald Trump a second term he failed to win at the ballot box. The case has been roundly denounced by legal commentators as utterly lacking in merit. Prominent election law scholar Rick Hasen summarizes some of its defects and concludes that it may be the "the dumbest case I've ever seen filed on an emergency basis at the Supreme Court." Co-blogger Jonathan Adler points out a variety of procedural flaws in the case. David Post highlights its reliance on bogus statistical "analysis."
However, because this case is a lawsuit filed by one state against others, it falls within the Court's "original jurisdiction"—the narrow set of cases that can be filed directly in the Supreme Court, without first being considered by lower courts. Therefore, the justices may not be able to reject it in the same way as they just refused to hear a GOP lawsuit seeking to overturn the result in Pennsylvania.
At the same time, however, there is precedent for the Court dispensing with state vs. state original jurisdiction lawsuits without a full hearing or opinion. In 2016, that's exactly what the Court did with a lawsuit filed by Nebraska and Oklahoma seeking to force neighboring Colorado to rescind its legislation legalizing marijuana under state law. The justices disposed of the Nebraska-Oklahoma lawsuit in a one-sentence order. Here it is in all its glory:
The motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied.
Nothing prevents the Supreme Court from doing the same thing with the Texas case (which some other red states might sign on to). Like the Texas case, the Nebraska-Oklahoma lawsuit had no real merit and was roundly denounced by legal commentators across the political spectrum. I summarized its weaknesses and linked to critiques by others here. The justices apparently concluded it wasn't worthy of the Court's full attention, and acted accordingly.
In a dissent joined by Justice Alito, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the Court lacks the authority to dispense with original jurisdiction cases in such a cursory fashion. I think he makes some good points, particularly that—unlike with virtually all other cases—cases within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court cannot be heard by lower federal courts, so SCOTUS is the only possible venue for them. But Thomas recognized that the Court's disposition of the marijuana legalization case was backed by longstanding precedent, under which the justices often dismiss bogus original jurisdiction cases without full consideration on the merits:
Federal law does not, on its face, give this Court discretion to decline to decide cases within its original jurisdiction. Yet the Court has long exercised such discretion, and does so again today in denying, without explanation, Nebraska and Oklahoma's motion for leave to file a co-plaint against Colorado…
[T]he Court has exercised discretion and declined to hear cases that fall within the terms of its original jurisdiction. See, e.g.,United States v. Nevada, 412 U. S. 534, 537–540 (1973) (per curiam) (controversy between United States and individual States); Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp., 401 U. S. 493, 500–505 (1971) (action by a State against citizens of other States). The Court has even exercised this discretion to decline cases where, as here, the dispute is between two States and thus falls within our exclusive jurisdiction. See, e.g., Arizona v. New Mexico, 425 U. S. 794, 796–798 (1976) (per curiam). The Court has concluded that its original jurisdiction is "obligatory only in appropriate cases" and has favored a "sparing use" of that jurisdiction. Illinois v. Milwaukee, 406 U. S. 91, 93–94 (1972).
Since the Court issued this 6-2 ruling in 2016, three new justices have been appointed by Trump, including Neil Gorsuch who filled the seat vacated by the death of Justice Antonin Scalia a few weeks before the Oklahoma-Nebraska case was decided. If all three of the new justices support Thomas' position, the Court might not be able to dispose of the Texas case quite as easily. But even in that event, it could still deal with it in a short per curiam opinion, and does not necessarily have to go through extensive briefing and oral argument. There is no statute or constitutional rule requiring the latter.
MJ59: No fair dinkum politician wants to touch this frivolous lawsuit with a barge pole lol
MJ59: There’s no bottom for how low Republicans will let Trump go
Most Republicans either cheer him on or quietly stand by as Trump, high on denial and megalomania, trashes democracy — and then gleefully buries the remains in a deep grave.
MJ59: If You Didn’t Vote for Trump, Your Vote Is Fraudulent
The president’s supporters believe that the votes of rival constituencies should not count—even though they understand, on some level, that they do.