" I think the argument your making (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that
they won't feel like they really lost unless they get to make their
arguments in a courtroom and THEN lose. I'm saying they'll feel like they
didn't really lose no matter what,"
Yes. but its separating the Tim McVeighs from the Housewife Bettys.
So you have something like 80 percent of the trump voters thinking he was
robbed (oddly enough a CNN poll showed 10 percent of democrat voters
agreeing). Of that 80 percent, there probably 25 percent youre not going to
get to ever listen to anything, theyre the ones who know alex jones is
garbage but still listen to him, they also believe theres a pizza joint
selling child sex slaves to rich people, theyre as bad as the cult of left
25 percent that still believe the russian collusion delusion. The remaining
55 percent will accept an actual case result from supreme court, as much as
most of us dont care for unelected officials making decisions, the
constitution matters. the biggest problem is that as we speak, the ilk of
alex jones are onboarding them left and right. It doesnt help what West,
who by most measures is respected (aside from bigot libs who call him Tom,
but thats a whole other bucket of hypocrisy) is talking openly about
constitutional secession, not new speak, but given the climate, a very
bloody prospect. He would tone down with a legitimate, constitutional
ruling. Without it, the scotus is literally saying there is no recourse
against a percieved wrong in the united states, at which point, the 2A
becomes active.
Like it or not, this is what it is.
Like I said, the ilk of mcveigh, weather underground, black liberation
army, ted Kaczynski, theyre all going to do what they do, regardless
I dont personally care either way, Ill survive the two years biden is a
half threat, Im not opposed to reeducation being not illegal for a period
either. I just cant tolerate coawardice at the supreme court (the 3 last
placements), and I dont like living in grey areas and I dont like the likes
of alex jones being given credibility to my mother.
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 12:15 PM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:
> This case was dismissed for lack of standing. Other cases were dismissed
> for a variety of reasons including the evidence being specious or
> deficient. That's losing. All of that is losing. If it was Steve Jones
> vs McCown Tech and it was dismissed then you'd say you lost. There'd be no
> doubt in your mind.
>
> I think the argument your making (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that
> they won't feel like they really lost unless they get to make their
> arguments in a courtroom and THEN lose. I'm saying they'll feel like they
> didn't really lose no matter what, and a courtroom just gives them another
> pulpit to preach from. If the evidence sucks, the arguments are illogical,
> and/or they're asking for relief that the court can't give them, then
> dismissing is the right move.
>
>
> On 12/14/2020 12:34 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
>
> Thats the issue, they havent "lost in court" they never went to court. The
> court responsible for hearing it. No one is saying hear every case, but
> cases of national importance and with immense national consequence need not
> ever be punted. The vast majority of pro 2A people understand the 2a
> isnt there for hunting game adn the lack of action on scotus part will
> result in action elsewhere. There will be blood over this, and its not
> necessary. Once scotus actually ruled after hearing the case, most would
> move on. The tim mcveighs out there are building their bombs regardless.
> But Jane Q would probably go back to canning beets. Instead right now shes
> listening to alex jones (why does covid take charlie pride, but not alex
> jones, somebody explain this)
>
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 11:18 AM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If they heard every argument and *then* dismissed it, isn't that just a
>> different kind of political messaging? Expedience mattered in this case
>> because the EC vote was imminent.
>>
>> I realize there are nutters who will rationalize the outcome as "we were
>> right, but the court didn't want to hear it because of a technicality."
>> But if they went all the way through with it the same people would come up
>> with some other reasoning why they actually were right. There are still
>> people who insist Nixon was framed, and people still think Iraq had
>> functional WMD's. Forevermore there will be people who believe Donald
>> Trump actually won the 2020 election, and nothing the court says will ever
>> change their minds. Losing in court >50 times didn't matter to them, why
>> would one more?
>>
>> I'm ready for "justsumname" to pipe and prove me right.
>>
>>
>> On 12/14/2020 11:55 AM, Steve Jones wrote:
>>
>> That's exactly why the supreme court needed to do their job and hear it.
>> Then smack it down, I don't like the supreme court making decisions out of
>> political expedience as they did here (hint the last 3). Hell, these arent
>> even states actually at each other, its elected state officials. Scotus
>> needed to put case law with a ruling (this wasnt a ruling) in the books.
>>
>> There will be violence that could have been avoided. Outcome of the
>> "case" would have been the same either way.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 7:24 AM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> There's a school of thought that since their jurisdiction is exclusive,
>>> the Supreme Court has an obligation to hear *any* case a state brings
>>> no matter how flawed it might be. Their feeling is that since there's no
>>> higher power to appeal to, that they *have *to hear the case so that it
>>> gets heard. Thomas and Alito are in that school of thought, and that's why
>>> they expressed the opinion they did.
>>>
>>> My reading of it is that the only disagreement was whether to tell Texas
>>> to go away before or after they're allowed to file their complaints.
>>> Either way, the court unanimously told Texas to pound sand. The only way
>>> this is unclear is if someone willfully interprets it that way. If someone
>>> is inclined it interpret it that way, then they would have been unhappy
>>> with any outcome. There was absolutely zero chance that the Supreme Court
>>> of the US would overturn one state's election at the behest of another.
>>> Especially based on the argument that "their election processes hurt us."
>>> If they did that, then similar suits would happen every 4 years henceforth.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/12/2020 10:31 PM, Steve Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> We need to have scotus do their damn job and get case law. If they keep
>>> punting for politics it will get stupid. This team when one snaps out you
>>> dont get some cross dresser popping through a crowd to bike lock someone
>>> and scurrying off, you get Oklahoma city. They need to shut the shit down
>>> or pay the cost of the product they purchased.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 12, 2020, 6:24 PM Bill Prince <part15...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Deep within this troll, the force runs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> bp
>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/12/2020 4:10 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, thank you.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don’t know what was more bizarre, that music video, or Chuck being
>>>> the one who sent it. Who knew.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From:* AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> *On
>>>> Behalf Of *Bill Prince
>>>> *Sent:* Saturday, December 12, 2020 5:55 PM
>>>> *To:* af@af.afmug.com
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> bp
>>>>
>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/12/2020 2:55 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Is there a mind blown emoji?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>
>>>> From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of
>>>> Chuck McCown via AF
>>>>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 4:30 PM
>>>>
>>>> To: af@af.afmug.com
>>>>
>>>> Cc: Chuck McCown <ch...@go-mtc.com> <ch...@go-mtc.com>
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://youtu.be/yModCU1OVHY
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>
>>>> From: Bill Prince
>>>>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 3:28 PM
>>>>
>>>> To: af@af.afmug.com
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> First place I heard it was from Molly Wood on Make Me Smart:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://twitter.com/mollywood/status/1169705055194247168?lang=en
>>>>
>>>> <https://twitter.com/mollywood/status/1169705055194247168?lang=en>
>>>> <https://twitter.com/mollywood/status/1169705055194247168?lang=en>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> bp
>>>>
>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/12/2020 12:03 PM, Ken Hohhof wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I was not familiar with the term banana-pants. A Google search yields
>>>>
>>>> lots of results, mostly photos of banana pants, as well as some songs,
>>>>
>>>> none of which shed much light on the subject for me. I assume it
>>>>
>>>> means cra-cra?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>
>>>> From: AF <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> <af-boun...@af.afmug.com> On Behalf Of
>>>> Robert Andrews
>>>>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, December 12, 2020 1:42 PM
>>>>
>>>> To: af@af.afmug.com
>>>>
>>>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT: Not all Texans are idiots
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This was similar to how the south leaders hauled all the regular
>>>>
>>>> people into the civil war. Yes they did a good job stirring things up
>>>>
>>>> before.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/12/2020 11:19 AM, Bill Prince wrote:
>>>>
>>>> The people who should really be looking at this are the citizens in
>>>>
>>>> the states who think it's appropriate for their AG to sue another
>>>>
>>>> state's election results.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The suit was what I would call banana-pants.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> bp
>>>>
>>>> <part15sbs{at}gmail{dot}com>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/11/2020 4:19 PM, Jaime Solorza wrote:
>>>>
>>>> All these craven lackeys got a big fuck you from the SCOTUS...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> AF mailing list
>>>>
>>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>>>
>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> AF mailing list
>>>>
>>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>>>
>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> AF mailing list
>>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> AF mailing list
>>> AF@af.afmug.com
>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>>
>>
>> --
>> AF mailing list
>> AF@af.afmug.com
>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>>
>
> --
> AF mailing list
> AF@af.afmug.com
> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
>
--
AF mailing list
AF@af.afmug.com
http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
