oromagi

-> @oromagi

Your use of the word BAN suggest a legal prohibition but I don't think its illegal to say that word anyplace in America or should be.  There will always be social sanctions for breaking the rules of any society but that is not a legal prohibition.

Why did you feel compelled to type the word out?

-

Free Speech does not imply that every allegation must be given weight or every lie given due consideration.  The First Amendment prevents the US Federal Govt from infringing on individual's speech.  The First Amendment does not empower the President of the United States to muster a militia and order it to stop Congress from electing a successor.  Quite the opposite, the First Amendment expressly forbids the chief executive from any infringement on any expression.  When it comes to the results of this election or any other the POTUS is constitutionally required to shut the fuck up- certainly not launch lynch mobs to reverse the vote.

I never said it did.  But nor does it give some people the authority to decide what is weighty and what is not. 

The Left do not get to determine what is correct and what is not.

I reject your position that the First Amendment forbids anyone from commenting on the results of the election. 

If so, would you think that both Hillary and Biden after the last election should have shut up rather than B'd about it for many - even years after it happened? Trump might well be  a sore loser - but compared to Hillary - and to Pelosi - it comes close. 

It was not a peaceful transition on the last occasion with thousands of protestors lining the streets and committing violence.   why is that permissible then - but not now?

And when a multi-national private corporation can shut down and silence the President of America, then I wonder what about the rest of us who do not have power, money or influence? 

Republicans are suddenly finding religion on anti-trust regulation- about 30 years too late.

So are you saying you are not concerned?

This is one of the biggest coups in history

Yes, Trump attempted a coup.

Trump is already in power.  The coup is bigger than Trump - 

I am not a Republican. 

that they have lost sight of reality. 

The QAnon party wants us to believe it knows what's real. 

What is QAnon? 

I can see why you would love Trump. He had 5 kids with 3 different women and he gave the USA the first Soviet Union born First Lady that has a cute accent since English is not her first language.

And every one of those qualities is vital for a good president? The sheer pettiness of the derangement is astounding. I, and millions of American citizens, love Trump because he....

1. Kept his promises to us

2. Improved the economy

3. Respected our religious rights

4. Attended to America first

5. Did not tolerate loony leftist ideas

6. Started no wars

7. Kept our military strong

8. Placed sane judges on the courts

9. Did not care for political correctness

10. Was transparent, saying to us exactly what he thought

--> @oromagi

78 Million American Citizens:

We love President Trump

Trump is our President

We do not think he should be impeached

We do not think he should be removed from office

for one to believe the N-word is rude is to overlook two fundamental factors, being

a) how language can evolve over time and

b) that rude words simply enhance the ability to free speech

hip hip hooray is allegedly derived from the German phrase “hep hep”, an anti-semtic term used during the riots of 1819, in which the Nazis use the phrase whilst rounding up Jews during the holocaust.

• "hep hep" was a traditional herders' call in German. 
  
• Most of the German Jews who remained in NAZI Germany were rounded up in 1938-39.  The Hep Hep Riots of 1819 were anti-Semitic German Pogroms but there was no such thing as a NAZI then. 
  
• The first recorded use of the phrase "hip hip hooray" in English dates back to 1803 although hooray had been around for much longer and hip hip may even be an Anglo-Saxon descendant of the German phrase.
  

--> @oromagi

This is important.  Republicans are committing acts of terrorism upon my nation  in real time and threatening more and you are buying those terrorists' lies. 

I think you should lay out your evidence and why you find it so convincing.  Here, or a new forum topic or a debate.

I will tell you what I think is important.  Free speech. 

And when a multi-national private corporation can shut down and silence the President of America, then I wonder what about the rest of us who do not have power, money or influence? 

This is one of the biggest coups in history

 and most of the Left and the Democrats cannot see the precedent.

Or are so busy congratulating themselves and patting themselves on the back

that they have lost sight of reality. 

Another issue is just what the affidavits allege. Many filed by the Trump campaign don’t actually allege wrongdoing, but rather refer to alleged issues in the vote-counting process. And as The Washington Post’s David A. Fahrenthold, Emma Brown and Hannah Knowles reported this week, many of them have been rather thin:

“Shocking allegations of voter irregularities revealed in 234 pages of signed and sworn affidavits,” the Trump campaign wrote on Twitter.

But a closer look at the affidavits showed that many did not allege any wrongdoing with ballots. Instead, they showed poll challengers complaining about other things: a loud public-address system, mean looks from poll workers, and a Democratic poll watcher who said “Go back to the suburbs, Karen.”

Some poll observers had become suspicious simply after seeing many ballots cast for Democrats — in Detroit, a heavily Democratic city where Biden won 94 percent of the vote. “I specifically noticed that every ballot I observed was cast for Joe Biden,” one observer wrote. The Trump campaign filed that as evidence in court.

The most this proves is that the Trump Campaign was being run by amateurs

Statistically it probably is plausible that such a high number of people voted for one candidate. Certainly it should raise alarm bells as it looks like something out of Putin's textbook

What it also demonstrates is that the GOP could not organise a conspiracy to try and pull down a government.  On the other hand - the Democrats would think that they - the Democrats - are clever enough to do it. Arrogant people. 

That result is telling. Many people are involved in the counting of ballots. Plenty of them are dispatched to observe the process on behalf of one party or another. And given Trump’s claims about voter fraud in the months before the election, you can bet those who decided to participate would be on the lookout for anything that might strike them as being problematic.

Don't forget too that Biden's office was putting out that Trump received help from Putin at the last election even trying to impeach him for it. Only to have the reports come back throwing it out as bogus.

The Democrats are not squeaky clean.  Your point is valid - yet when anyone did complain - what happened? They were mocked - you have no evidence. 

It’s also not something that even the many authors of affidavits cited by the Trump campaign truly have to worry about. It’s significant that they decided to make these sworn statements. But contrary to what Giuliani said, most of them make no conclusive allegations of wrongdoing, and many more don’t seem to constitute genuine evidence — according to the judges tasked with reviewing them.

This may be the case - but it is not the many - it is the some which is important.  Even one statement making one statement is evidence.

And to say that everyone of these affidavits is faulty or dodgy is - implausible.  It really is. Statistically impossible.  

“If he is talking about affidavits that the swearers will submit or that Giuliani will submit as their authorized agent in a judicial proceeding, they would be at risk of a perjury prosecution,” said Julia Simon-Kerr, a law professor at the University of Connecticut. “If he’s talking about affidavits he’s collected to wave in front of reporters, but that won’t be submitted in a judicial proceeding, they would not subject the swearers to a perjury prosecution.

“Given the disjunction between what is actually happening in the courts and what he is talking about,” Simon-Kerr continued, “I wouldn’t be surprised if it is the latter.”

This is just an opinion and an opinion which wants to believe the impossible - and that is that every single affidavit contained not even a skeric of evidence worth considering. And that simply is too big an absurdity to seriously maintain. 

I agree that anonymous affidavits are not sworn testimony.  They could however  be used as evidence if the person is prepared to enter the court room.  The question in my mind is why are they afraid to put their name to the statement? Plausibly because they are afraid of the consequences of telling the truth.  

Hearsay generally speaking is not evidence about what happened - unless of course it is used in a sex case or a DV case - where the testimony is provided by someone who is credible. It is not always thrown out. Often the case is that the victim won't speak out - but the person of 1st report is considered admissible hearsay. 

No one can make a determination that a statement is not sworn testimony.  Who would have that authority? Judges might disagree with the sworn testimony- but this would not determine it was not sworn testimony.   Affidavits are evidence per se  and if sworn are sworn testimony. 

For the record - how many actual sworn affidavits have you seen with your literal eyes - not on tv or social media or on a screen? ACTUAL affidavits in the flesh. And then provide your lawful justification for having such an affidavit in your actual hands.  

But how much weight do these affidavits carry? And what is their true reliability?

Has this not been my point?  I take the view that evidence is evidence.  Not all evidence is equal.  Some has no weight or very little weight. It however is still evidence. 

The Trump campaign has repeatedly cited the hundreds of sworn affidavits it has assembled. It has even shown stacks of them to illustrate the supposed heft of its legal case. Many of them are not available because they haven’t been filed in actual lawsuits or made available publicly. (Giuliani cited the alleged targeting of their authors for keeping them obscured.)

Affidavits are not always filed.  

But among the witnesses who have had their allegations aired in court, many have been dismissed by judges as inadmissible or not credible. One particularly high-profile one alleged many precincts in Michigan had more votes than actual voters, but shortly after Giuliani et al. raised the issue Thursday — alongside their pleas to take the affidavits seriously — it fell apart.

It is true that judges in each court have the say of determining whether evidence is admissible or not. For you information - please be aware that evidence that is not admitted - is not a ruling that that evidence is not evidence.  It is admissible. And very often good evidence - compelling evidence is not admitted on the rules of court.

A key issue is whether the affidavit is filed in court, as most filed by the Trump team haven’t been. Beyond that, any false statements would need to be deemed to be “material” to the proceedings — i.e. relevant to the actual claims. And from there, any legal jeopardy would require that the statements made were knowingly false.

I don't agree.  A sworn affidavit is a sworn affidavit.  To rely upon it - places the person at risk of perjury the moment it is used as evidence.  And whether it was sworn in a court or filed with the court or whether it was made in a politicians office or a lawyer's office is totally irrelevant.  I don't for the record particularly care about the affidavits not filed with the courts.  I certainly however do not agree that the assumption is that if it is not filed it must be false statement. 

In the case of affidavits from election observers, for example, it would be difficult to prove that what they were saying was false, especially in instances in which they alleged other people involved in the ballot-counting process said something to them. In addition, statements from those like the Texas security consultant who mistook data from Minnesota to be from Michigan could be understood as an honest mistake or resulting from a lack of expertise in the subject matter — rather than an outright lie.

The Trump campaign’s affidavits also have a checkered history, to put it kindly. When they have been used in court, they’ve often been cast aside.

Not sure what this paragraph is supposed to be saying. 

One Michigan judge noted that the evidence wasn’t direct evidence, despite the Trump campaign’s contention that it was:

TRUMP LAWYER: Your Honor, in terms of the hearsay point, this is a firsthand factual statement made by Ms. Connarn, and she has made that statement based on her own first hand physical evidence and knowledge —

JUDGE: “I heard somebody else say something.” Tell me why that’s not hearsay. Come on, now.

TRUMP LAWYER: Well it’s a firsthand statement of her physical –

JUDGE: It’s an out-of-court statement offered where the truth of the matter is asserted, right?

The judge later dismissed the complaint as “inadmissible hearsay within hearsay.”

Judges have that prerogative.  Actually if the statement above is a true record of accounts - then it was not hearsay.  Hearsay is when I hear someone tell me something about something else.  For instance - I am talking on a phone - and I am talking to Fred - and Fred says to me - It is raining here in England.  If I was to testify that Fred was in England and he said it was raining in England.  That would be hearsay evidence.  Fred after all could be in Australia and it might be raining there. 

However If I said I was talking to Fred on a telephone - and he answers me back. If I said Fred told me something - it would not be hearsay. Can you see the difference?

If Ms Connarn testified that she had spoken to someone - and that person has told her to keep away. That is direct evidence.  It is not hearsay - because she is testifying to the direct evidence that occurred to her.  If however she says - I was speaking to someone and they told me that so and so had told that other person to stay away - - then that would be hearsay evidence.  

Have you actually seen the affidavit material or not?  Your portrayal of it is not sufficient to persuade me it was hearsay. In fact it looks like the judge erred. 

Other witnesses signed affidavits that said, “I believe my vote for Donald J. Trump and Michael Pence was not counted.” But when pressed by judges, they admitted they didn’t have any actual evidence to support that.

I would also press for evidence to support what they are saying.  I would not dismiss it as being not evidence- however I would say it had no weight because it no compelling element to it - save and except their own beliefs. 

A similar thing happened in Chatham County, Ga., where the GOP called two witnesses as part of its allegation that 53 ballots received after Election Day were predated to make them appear valid. But under questioning, the witnesses acknowledged they didn’t know whether the ballots were actually received after the deadline, while witnesses for the local elections board testified under oath that they were received on time.

Yet, again - it only makes their evidence less thin. It does not mean it was not evidence. Nor that what they said was not true

You prove my point.  the case was not a joke.  After all, if it was just a joke, the Supreme Court would not have even entertained it being listed.  The fact that it was listed demonstrates the court itself did not consider it a joke.  

Yet it like the other cases never got to giving evidence.  No evidence was ever tested in court. This does not mean there no evidence - because we know there was evidence - every affidavit is evidence.

The Trump campaign clearly had sworn affidavits.  This by definition is evidence.

• Anonymous affidavits do not count as sworn testimony.
  
• Hearsay does not count as sworn testimony.
  
• Affidavits evaluated as meritless by an official charged with making such a determination do not count as sworn testimony.
  
• Affidavits immaterial to voter fraud do not count as sworn testimony.
  

If they had not lied about the fact that there was evidence about a mass fraud then those who knew that such evidence was real would not have felt so threatened. 

Why are secret societies, like the masons, rosicrutians etc secret? They are supposedly modern mystery schools, and the ancient mystery schools were secret as well. What's the secret, and why are they hiding? I can understand that during the middle ages that they had to hide things from the church, but before and after that? What's the deal?

--> @oromagi

And Adolph was a wonderful Guy.....Never hurt a flea.

So in lite of Twitter and fakebook and Google (privately owned companies) choosing to discriminate against any and all users of their service for any reason they see fit, will bakeries now have the same luxury?

John McNeill is a professor of history at Georgetown University.

Oct. 21, 2016 at 4:00 a.m. MDT

“Donald Trump is a fascist” sounds more like a campaign slogan than an analysis of his political program. But it’s true that the GOP nominee doesn’t fit into America’s conventional party categories, and thoughtful people — authors Robert Kagan and Jeffrey Tucker, among others — have hurled the f-word at him.

Fascism was born in Italy during World War I and came to power with the ex-journalist and war veteran Benito Mussolini in 1922. Since the 1950s, dozens of top historians and political scientists have put fascism, especially the Italian and German versions, under the microscope. They’ve come up with a pretty solid agreement on what it is, both as a political ideology and as a political movement, factoring in all the (sometimes contradictory) things its progenitors said as they ascended to power. As a political ideology, fascism has eight main traits. As a political movement, it has three more. So: Just how fascist is Trump? On the fascist meter, we can award him zero to four “Benitos.”

First, the ideological features:

1. Hyper-nationalism. This attribute is not confined to fascism, but it is central to all fascism. Trump regularly promises to put America first and extolls the virtues of ordinary Americans (by which he often seems to mean white Americans). His trade policy qualifies as economic nationalism. By the standards of American politics, he is a hyper-nationalist, but by the standards of historical fascism, he is not in the upper echelon. Two Benitos.

2. Militarism. Fascists routinely lionized military institutions and military virtues, and at least rhetorically sought military solutions to political issues. Trump lavishes praise on the troops, as almost all American politicians do these days, and he has proposed (in vague and vulgar terms) a militaristic solution to the problem posed by the Islamic State. He has recommend taking the oil of the Middle East, which presumably would require armed force. But by and large, Trump does not blithely recommend military action and often lambastes his rivals for allegedly incompetent military adventurism. He does not dress his followers in ersatz military garb. Two Benitos.

3. Glorification of violence and readiness to use it in politics. Fascists such as Mussolini thought violence could cleanse and redeem a tarnished nation. They encouraged loyal thugs to rough up, and occasionally kill, people whose politics differed from theirs. Trump scores low here. His rallies, according to many reports, have a frisson of menace to them; he has said things that could be interpreted as invitations to assassination; his followers often speak longingly of violent acts they wish to see committed against others; he has recommended using torture and killing the families of terrorists. But this still leaves him well short of the standard of Mussolini’s blackshirts or Hitler’s brownshirts, who not only called for political violence but resorted to it extensively. One Benito.

4. Fetishization of youth. Fascist movements, even when led by middle-aged men, always extolled the vigor and promise of youth and made special efforts to appeal to young people. Trump, as a septuagenarian, is ill-positioned here. He has no special youth organization to speak of. His most devoted followers are long in the tooth. Zero Benitos.

5. Fetishization of masculinity. Fascists trumpeted what they saw as masculine virtues and supported male authority within family and society, urging women to confine their sphere to home and children (the more of which the better). Trump shares much of this outlook, lauding his own stamina and accusing his female rival, Hillary Clinton, of lacking it. He mocks men whom he deems deficient in virility. But whereas Mussolini liked to hold up his own mother, devoted to home and hearth, as the feminine ideal, Trump’s vision of the proper woman seems to be a supermodel, more in line with Hugh Hefner’s ideology than Mussolini’s. Nonetheless, on swaggering machismo he gets full marks. Four Benitos.

6. Leader cult. Fascists always looked to a leader who was bold, decisive, manly, uncompromising and cruel when necessary — because the parlous state of the nation required such qualities. Mussolini and Hitler, both veterans of World War I, drew their models of leadership from army officers and worked hard to polish their images as dauntless rulers beholden to no one. They encouraged their followers to idolize them as Il Duce and der Führer. They claimed special insight into the will of the people. Trump, although not a war veteran, fully embraces the cult of the leader. He offers his business experience as evidence of his decisive leadership and is very testy when his business acumen is doubted. He also claims to channel the common man, enjoying a connection all other politicians lack. Four Benitos.

7. Lost-golden-age syndrome. Italian and German fascism shared a strong commitment to the notion of national rebirth. Mussolini and Hitler encouraged their supporters to believe in lost (or stolen) greatness, in a glorious past. That could be long ago, as with the Roman Empire, which Mussolini liked to invoke, or only a couple of decades prior, as with the German Reich that was, according to Hitler, “stabbed in the back” in 1918. Trump makes this appeal to a golden age the centerpiece of his campaign, assuring audiences that only he can “make America great again.” Four Benitos.

8. Self-definition by opposition. Fascists defined themselves as the bulwark against various evils and menaces to the nation. Those included communism, routine democratic politics, the traditional conservatism of industrial and agrarian elites (although both Mussolini and Hitler eventually made peace with these elites), and, especially in the German case, foreigners and minorities. Communism is no longer an issue for American politics. But Trump constantly rails against politics as usual, against political correctness, against elites of all kinds (including, curiously, business elites), and he has made a habit of vilifying minorities. He does not advocate their annihilation, as Hitler did. Three Benitos.

As a political movement, fascism displayed three further important traits:

9. Mass mobilization and mass party. Both Mussolini and Hitler rode to power on tidal waves of support that were organized into new political parties. A new party might fit Trump better, but he has not created one. Instead he has made a venerable one, the Grand Old Party, into his vehicle. He likes to refer to his following as a movement, and since the GOP convention in July has rarely tried to brand himself as a Republican. Many in his party loathe him. Two Benitos.

10. Hierarchical party structure and tendency to purge the disloyal. Fascist movements, like revolutions, ate their children. Anyone who displayed only tepid loyalty to the leader or who showed the potential to outshine the leader risked being purged or killed. So did followers who outlived their usefulness. Trump’s campaign shares this tendency toward purges, but the Republican Party under his leadership does not. And violence plays no role. One Benito.

11. Theatricality. In style and rhetoric, fascism was highly theatrical. Film and audio of Mussolini and Hitler make them seem like clownish buffoons, with their exaggerated gestures, their salutes, their overheated speeches full of absolutes and superlatives. Their rallies evolved into elaborate collective rituals for loyalists. Trump does not strut across stages like a Mussolini, and Nazi-style torchlit parades are out, but his rhetoric fits the fascist style well. He constantly calls things and people the worst or the best ever. His rallies feature repetitive chants. Even his studied frown of disapproval recalls a classic Mussolini pose. Three Benitos.

Add all this up, and you get 26 out of a possible 44 Benitos. In the fascist derby, Trump is a loser. Even Spain’s Francisco Franco and Portugal’s António de Oliveira Salazar might score higher. While there is a strong family resemblance, and with some features an uncanny likeness, Trump doesn’t fit the profile so well on those points where the use of violence is required. Projecting an air of menace at rallies, uttering ambiguous calls for assassinations, tacitly endorsing the roughing-up of protesters, urging the killing of terrorists’ families and whatever else Trump does — while shocking by the standards of American politics — fall far short of the genuinely murderous violence endorsed and unleashed by authentic fascists.

In a more nuanced approach, we might weight the various traits of fascism differently, but it’s not obvious how best to do so. Hyper-nationalism, for example, is more consequential than the youth fetish and perhaps ought to be taken more seriously. But it is also less distinctively fascist, being common to many types of political regimes. A longer list, too, might add refinement and complexity. But Trump does not do nuance. A crude, quick and flippant assessment is what he deserves. He is semi-fascist: more fascist than any successful American politician yet, and the most dangerous threat to pluralist democracy in this country in more than a century, but — thank our stars — an amateurish imitation of the real thing.

--> @oromagi

THEY COULD HAVE EASILY SHOWN THE 57 SECOND LONG CLIP.

WHY NOT JUST SHOW THE CLIP.

I'm afraid you've missed the point entirely.

You offered a conspiracy theory that "the news" had covered up the story of Capitol Hill police allowing rioter passage unopposed.  

I'M JUST ASKING WHY NOBODY "OFFICIAL" IS SHOWING THE CLIP.

ANY "CONSPIRACY" IS IN YOUR OWN IMAGINATION.

I MADE NO SUCH CLAIM.

--> @oromagi

Why are you so certain that this video must have taken place at the opening moments of the storming in spite of the fact that the end of the video shows the building already filled with rioters.

It doesn't matter when this video was recorded.

Beginning, middle, or end, THE COPS WHO ARE TASKED WITH PROTECTING THE BUILDING DO NOT JUST LET PEOPLE WALK INTO THE BUILDING THEY ARE PROTECTING.

Did you notice the protestor dressed in black from head to toe with the yellow cube on their back and carrying zip-ties?

This particular protestor has been singled out by "the news" as a "particularly dangerous individual" and have featured "scary" photos of them.

Now we know how this "particularly dangerous individual" gained access to the Capital building.

--> @oromagi

Election Fraud 2020: Capitol ‘Siege’ | Red Flags Point to Orchestrated False Flag ‘Insurrection’

https://hive.blog/hive-122315/@jasonliberty/election-fraud-2020-capital-siege-or-red-flags-point-to-orchestrated-false-flag-insurrection

--> @oromagi

The only logical explanation for letting the protestors in is to accomplish a political objective - such as increasing online censorship and directing the tools of US military occupation inwards on the domestic population.

Please link to either video of the actual Scarborough footage or some "official" mainstream coverage.

[YOUTUBESEARCHRESULTS]

Looking specifically for the quote you cited, I found, secondary, fringe and independent reports of the Scarborough event.

These reports say things like,

"Scarborough drops F bomb",

Who cares?  The story is not about an F bomb.

"Scarborough accuses Capital police of assisting protestors"

Accuses??  Why don't they just show the footage?  Can they not find it?  Aren't they professional journalists??

It's weird to me how easily they can turn a story into a RED-HERRING by trying to make it about "the Scarborough" while obviously downplaying the actual story.

Nobody gives a shit about the Scarborough.  THAT'S NOT THE STORY.

The "best" clip I could find so far, is from "the hollywood reporter" - [LINK]

It plays audio of the Scarborough after saying, "protestors BROKE INTO the Capital building" and then saying, "Scarborough calls for TRUMP's arrest" (which is what they want outrage all day and outrage all night turn the poor people against the other poor people in red hats) and "Scarborough ACCUSES police of cooperating with protestors".

It's not an "accusation".  They're acting like he's "crazy".

They play the Scarborough audio over still images of protestors clashing with police, directly contradicting the audio, making Scarborough seem unhinged and out of touch with reality.

WHY DIDN'T THEY SIMPLY SHOW THE 57 SECOND LONG CLIP OF THE PROTESTORS CALMLY AND PEACEFULLY BEING LET INTO THE CAPITOL BUILDING???

Ok, here's a clip from MSNBC - [LINK]

It's an uncut 7 minutes of AUDIO from the Scarborough rant with the f bomb clipped out.

In the full context, especially with the audio played over "scary" images of protestors clashing with police, the rant itself plays very strongly as a PRO-POLICE-STATE rant.

Make sure you pay attention to the part where they emphasize that "trumppies are cult members" (of course biden supporters aren't cult members, of course not).

I believe this clip also plays well because it suggests that the TRUMPPIES and the POLICE are "RACISTS" (pure rampant speculation, opinion stated as fact).

THEY COULD HAVE EASILY SHOWN THE 57 SECOND LONG CLIP IN THE FULL 7 MINUTES THEY DEVOTED TO THIS RANT.

Instead, when the Scarborough says "the cops opened the doors for them", that audio plays over protestors entering the building through a broken window and footage of protestors entering through a broken door and smashing a window with their fist.

The video very specifically suggests that the Scarborough is speaking metaphorically, as if their incompetence "opened the door".  the Scarborough does devote a good portion of the rant to complaining about how unprepared the police seemed to be.

the Scarborough practically rants, "WE NEED TANKS AND MACHINEGUN NESTS AND RAZOR-WIRE ON EVERY STREET IN WASHINGTON!!!!!"

THEY COULD HAVE EASILY SHOWN THE 57 SECOND LONG CLIP.

WHY NOT JUST SHOW THE CLIP.

"I haven't heard a single peep about this anywhere in "the news.  I'm actually very surprised my upload wasn't insta-banned by the magical algorithm."

--> @oromagi

The police are claiming that pieces are being taken out of context and that most of the videos took place an hour or two after the invasion but it 's hard to know what to credit.

Why would they let people into the building AFTER "the invasion"?

Oh, it's over now?  You guys are all leaving?  Hey, before you go, why don't you ENTER THE BUILDING??  We'll even open the doors for you.

--> @Death23

Oh well, I'm sure questions like this will be answered eventually,

You seem to have significantly more FAITH in the system than I do.

I haven't heard a single peep about this anywhere in "the news".

I'm actually very surprised my upload wasn't insta-banned by the magical algorithm.

“Why do you scream at people for walking across the street three blocks away from the Capitol? Why are you known as ‘badasses’ around the Capitol but then Trump supporters come in and you open the fucking doors for them?” Scarborough, a former GOP congressman with years of experience in the Washington, D.C., asked aloud. “You open the doors for them and let them breach the People’s House! What is wrong with you?”

-> @oromagi

There is little objective doubt that Hillaryous Balloon Girl destroyed email evidence that had been under congressional subpoena.

That alone, should have been prosecuted [because those emails were DOS business, and not yoga or Chelsea's wedding planning],

but I have felt the DOJ under Trump has had a lackluster performance, meaning, in my view, that the DOJ has been an under-performer for at least 12 years, and probably longer. That lack of performance has more to do with no finding of criminal activity on the part of Ms. Clinton than any claim of lack of evidence.

Ode on the Inauguration of 2021 

 

For the benefit of Mister Joe

There will be just empty rows to see his show,

Obama clan will not be there,

To celebrate the Mister’s hair, shout hurrah!

 

The Biden clan will burn the stage,

Burning Donald’s legacy in real fire,

In this way, Mister Joe will challenge the world!

 

The celebrated Mister Joe

Performs his feat, O, don’t you know, on the stairs.

The Party line will sing and stare,

As Mister Joe feels through your hair; don’t be late!

 

Madams’ H & P assure the public

This production will be second to one,

To be sure, Mr. T censors a tweet!

 

The band begins at six to six

When Mister Joe performs his licks on all the girls.

And Mister S will socialize

With everyone in Lucy’s skies; give it a whirl!

 

Having been some days since winning all

He promises a night of ginger ale.

And tonight, Mister Joe is going to fail!

--> @fauxlaw

Do you have a substantial objection?

> @HistoryBuff

Article III, section 2, clause 2 states "In all Cases... in which a State shall be Party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction."  "SHALL HAVE." AS Justices Alito and Thomas dissented in the Texas v Pennsylvania, et al. denial by the Court, "shall have" is a declarative statement of obligation, being the court of original jursidction, and from which, as a result, Plaintiff has no further recourse for relief. It is a mandate which the Court ignored. Standing? There is not elective allowance for making that determination. They are to hear the case, and only then determine results. Your, and thiers, is a cafeteria-style use of the Constitution: choose this, ignore that. Can't do that.

--> @oromagi

Are you enjoying your almost one-on-none conversation?