When they can't run on policy they always fall back on culture wars. Just look at lewk.
Printable View
When they can't run on policy they always fall back on culture wars. Just look at lewk.
I don't know what's worse—that american conservatives are so ridiculously racist, or that they're just so fucking boring
Twitter Link
Dipshit caucus:
Twitter Link
https://twitter.com/RepAndyBiggsAZ/s...041637888?s=20
Meh much ado about nothing, I don't see how voting for the resolution leads to us going to war there, but I also don't see how passing the resolution really accomplishes anything but showmanship either.
I.e., there is no sane reason for voting against this resolution. One that doesn't involve trying to normalize coups.
Imagine how small you have to be to define yourself solely by who you hate.
AKA, How Lewk came to be
The guy condemns what is going on there in his tweet. Which is all the resolution was doing. But he couldn't bring himself to vote for the resolution. Because. . . it goes against his principles to condemn Myanmar when there are Democrats in the room? I don't get it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...guez-election/
Surprise, surprise, which party do you think committed fraud in the election?
Oh wow, I was hoping but not expecting to see anyone charged for that bizarre scheme... there were a few other unusually weird sham candidates this election—maybe some of their patrons got sloppy, too.
Would be interesting to see which parties put up or benefit the most from sham candidates, overall. I think the overall balance might be a little less skewed.
Well that's pretty damning. Although there is some genius in the simplicity of the sham. :o
~
If Artiles and his fake GOP candidate are convicted, would that mean the 6k votes are discounted? Which would mean ... the seat is reversed and given back to the Democrat Rodriguez?
I highly doubt that, I think it's final (unless the winner resigns).
There will be no consequences, as usual.
No. The votes were legally cast. If the winner were directly implicated in the scheme they could be impeached/recalled/unseated (particularly if they were convicted and sitting in jail, can't do much representing there) but it would just fall to the governor to appoint someone to temporarily take over the seat and maybe see a special election to fill the rest of the term. Not sure what the Florida standard is.
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/03/22/p...aud/index.html
Quote:
Sidney Powell argues in new court filing that no reasonable people would believe her election fraud claims
Washington (CNN)Right-wing lawyer Sidney Powell is claiming in a new court filing that reasonable people wouldn't have believed as fact her assertions of fraud after the 2020 presidential election.
The election infrastructure company Dominion Voting Systems sued Powell for defamation after she pushed lawsuits and made appearances in conservative media on behalf of then-President Donald Trump to sow doubt about the 2020 election results. Dominion claims that Powell knew her election fraud accusations were false and hurtful to the company.
In a new court filing, Powell's attorneys write that she was sharing her "opinion" and that the public could reach "their own conclusions" about whether votes were changed by election machines.
"Given the highly charged and political context of the statements, it is clear that Powell was describing the facts on which she based the lawsuits she filed in support of President Trump," Powell's defense lawyers wrote in a court filing on Monday.
I don't get it - she was stating her opinion, while simultaneously describing them as facts a lawsuit is based on.. how can it be both?
"Facts" in this context don't actually have to be true. You can state your opinion on untested/unproven questions of fact.
Filing here: https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/...699.22.2_3.pdf
Sure, I get that those 'facts' are unproven at the start of a lawsuit, but surely if you know it's false that's not legal?
Then avain, this is her defense, it can be thrown out of course. Didn't Trump when he was a president also claim something similar about his tweets, and Fox something similar about their claims on TV?
It's strange that Foxnews spent so much time on Sidney Powell months ago, but this story can't be found on their site.
Twitter Link
American conservatives are fucking pathetic. They know it too.
American conservatives are small and pathetic:
Twitter Link
Even in a little shithole like Arkansas, this policy will harm young people belonging to an already extremely vulnerable minority. Imagine being so utterly repugnant that you'd propose—and vote for—this sort of legislation. What are the long-term prospects for the archaic, fundamentalist, extremist ideology that is American conservatism?
Oh for fucks sake the ACLU being silly here. They aren't banning health care for trans youth. They are banning specific things like hormone blockers and surgeries that can have life long impacts. For minors.
Twitter Link
Specific lifesaving things, and, as you know, suicide can have a "lifelong impact".
American conservatives—and esp. the ones that pretend to be libertarians—are really just incredibly dumb:
Twitter Link
Rand Paul is the college libertarian even other college libertarians avoid.
The grift is strong with the NRCC.
Twitter Link
Twitter Link
What hope does American conservatism have, when its thought-leaders are this dumb?
The ideological death-spiral continues, with these derpheaded losers calling for competence tests that would entail their own immediate disenfranchisement (as well as the disenfranchisement of much of their voter-base, already a shrinking minority):
Twitter Link
I'm beginning to think the problem with young American conservatives might be that they are, in fact, dumb:
Twitter Link
What does that even mean :confused: