- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or register to comment.
Imagine not wanting free and fair elections because your ideology has been soundly rejected by the silent majority.
I mean, notorious conservative apologist David Frum is the one who said it out loud:
“If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy.”
conservative apologist
Isn’t he just a conservative? I know he likes to pretend that Trump gave him serious distaste for some of the more extreme parts of modern conservatism, but - considering the blood on Frum’s hands - I’m not buying it. Am I getting him confused with a different Bush speech writer or perhaps a different Iraq war cheerleader?
I refer to him that way because you don’t see a lot of the others out desperately trying to make arguments that conservativism is a logically viable political stance. People like DeSantis know their views are shit; they just don’t care. Frum cares; he’s just wildly wrong.
Isn’t Frum an ex conservative? He realized what conservatives were really about and then became a Democrat?
Oh gods no! He would never stoop so low:
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/09/never-trumpers-democrats-now/620055/
Los dos
And we are living through that right now.
Conservatism. It’s in the name. Fighting change, halting evolution of our species.
This is isn’t conservationism though. They’re not trying to maintain the status quo. They’re trying to go backwards.
Regressive? Aggressive regressive?
Yes, I’ve been calling Republicans regressives for a while now.
Nuh-uh! That’s the elites! We’re the silent majority… which is why we had to sabotage the election. It makes perfect sense.
Their ideology is to not want free and fair elections.
In a separate appearance on Fox News, Lauro claimed that Trump is being prosecuted for “what he believed in and the policies and the political speech that he carried out as president.”
No he’s not. Do these people take everything from Fox at face value? The charges are public information and they’re all actual crimes.
The party of law & order should really let the justice system do it’s job on this one.
Well it’s on TV, must be legit.
Right? From the same people that decry “mainstream media”
What the fuck do they think Fox is?
It’s entertainment tv. No one would take it setiously.
I know a couple people that ride the Trump train pretty hard and 100% yes. It blows my mind that people actually believe this as unbiased news and any conversation leads to just repeating the same thing.
The got found guilty of spreading lies and had to pay 750M… I’m starting to think people want to be lied to
I think that might be it. Because they only read, talk and deal with that.
My “libertarian” friend refused to watch the Jan 6th hearing, but declared with conviction that we were throwing grandma’s in jails for peacefully protesting.
He was aghast that I supported the “murder” of Ashley Bobbit. Who was “peacefully protesting”.
I showed him the actual videos surrounding her death, of her violently breaking through the door, the multiple warnings, and the context around congressmen being trapped in the next room with no other exit.
He was shocked for about 30 seconds, and then he dismissed it by moving to another topic where liberals are evil. It almost seemed like he would have a moment of introspection that maybe his news sources were not being honest with him.
And he’ll vehemently deny being a republican or conservative, and says Fox News is mostly trash (while saying it’s not as bad as CNN).
This is the best summary I could come up with:
In a separate appearance on Fox News, Lauro claimed that Trump is being prosecuted for “what he believed in and the policies and the political speech that he carried out as president.”
But Alvarez also indicates that “where false claims are made to effect a fraud or secure moneys or other valuable considerations, say offers of employment, it is well established that the Government may restrict speech without affronting the First Amendment.”
The federal judiciary, and particularly the Supreme Court, is controlled by Republican appointees who cannot always be trusted to apply the law fairly in the most politically charged cases.
And it claims that Trump “directly pressured the Vice President to use his ceremonial role at the certification proceeding on January 6 to fraudulently overturn the results of the election.”
Thus, while Kennedy faulted the Stolen Valor Act for sweeping too broadly — criminalizing private statements that were unlikely to cause harm to anyone — he made clear that the government may still make it a crime to commit fraud.
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Look at the meatheads in the thumbnail lmao.
Each one has fucked themselves for life for Donald J. Trump and memes. The utter density in that photograph rivals that of osmium and iridium.
Pretty sure it just means you’re allowed to say it without being jailed.
But if it actually happens it could certainly be used against you.
It means he’s free to say what he wants about the election, but that protection stops when attempting to use the instruments of government
Exactly. Freedom of speech* means you are free to speak something.
Not free of the consequences of the effects of what you are saying. It also means you are not free of social consequences of your speech (i.e.: people not listening, walking away, ignoring you, shunning you). You’re also not free to speak in a private context, as the First Amendment only pertains to the state, not individuals and their private property. Meaning a social media platform is free to ban you for whatever view you are stating.
Freedom of speech, not from consequence.
*: With limitations in regards to genuinely illegal things, such as denying the holocaust as a citizen of Germany.
Yeah by this reasoning no kind of crime that involves speech is actionable.
Yes, you can say things that are illegal, there are combinations of words that are criminal to speak. Like, I could tell you some of the classified system vulnerabilities I know about at work - but that would be really really illegal. That is not protected by free speech. All kinds of things are illegal to say.
This defense suggests that to not be the case.
Free speech is not unlimited, and for good reason.
…overturning an election has nothing to do with free speech.
It says “First Amendment” right in the title. The subtitle is:
Trump’s lawyers plan to argue he had a First Amendment right to subvert the 2020 election. He didn’t.
Paragraph two is:
“This is an attack on free speech and political advocacy,” Trump attorney John Lauro told CNN Tuesday evening. In a separate appearance on Fox News, Lauro claimed that Trump is being prosecuted for “what he believed in and the policies and the political speech that he carried out as president.”
The whole point of this article is that they’re going to argue that overturning an election has everything to do with free speech.
Yeah but trumps lawyers are actually clowns.
And I’m saying that’s exceedingly dumb
Correct, which is why the lawyers’ argument is invalid.
Yup, agreed
did you read the article??
I’m responding to this specific comment. I agree that the argument Trump’s lawyers are attempting to make is incredibly stupid.
I see what you mean now, my bad bro
No worries man, it’s my bad. Seems like lots of people misunderstood so that’s on me for not being clearer.
As indicated in the article, United States v. Williams, 553 U.S. 285 (2008).
Free speech does not cover pandering an illegal act. If what you’re saying is eliciting an actual illegal act, that’s not covered by free speech.
Trump asked election officials to change an outcome of an election. That is asking someone to violate 52 USC § 10307. Asking some to violate United States Title Code is not protected speech.
I like the comparison of a robber going into a bank with a piece of paper saying “put all the money in the bag or else” and then getting indignant “Ohhh well I guess WRITING IS ILLEGAL NOW”
deleted by creator
Exactly that.
There is no first amendment right defense when you are the president. You can’t incite insurrection, start a coup, while as president and claim you have a right to lie about it.
Insurrection to turn over the election
This new January 6th indictment of Trump is great… But I’m disappointed we didn’t see Trump charge specifically with inciting the insurrection.
Among other things, Trump should be held legally responsible for the death of Ashli Babbitt. She would not have died but for Trump’s lies and incitement.
It sure seems like the Felony Murder Rule should apply here.
That’s not off the table. And anything can be added / charged in the future.
Unless he becomes president
firstand pardons himselfHe could still technically run for president after he’s in jail. A guy named Lyndon Larouche did it in 1992
This would be an absolute losing strategy.
Which is great, because he’s clearly guilty, as we all saw and heard for ourselves the crimes he did.
It’s for public consumption. They don’t actually expect it to carry any weight in court.
They got to the real guts of the issue in the middle and kind of glossed over it.
Arguments and logic simply don’t matter any more. Are we getting a corrupt judge or not will determine the outcome.
The Supreme Court is bought and paid for…the real legal question is did Trump pay them enough?
I can hear the right now, “But there’s a 2nd…”
In related news-
Duh.
The only place where I think the first amendment / political speech argument works is for the actual physical assault on the Capitol. That was not an action Trump took, he didn’t enter the premises, and he didn’t straightforwardly say to do anything illegal. That is where I think you have to let it go.
But pretending the ask to “find” votes is free speech is crazy.
Well sure I instructed them to commit a crime… but I didn’t say “Simon Says” so it doesn’t count.
Unfortunately the Brandenburg test (“imminent lawless action”) isn’t too far from that. His actual speech was unethical and selfish, but unlikely to be deemed illegal.
My state stupreme court (Wisconsin)ruled that the covid voting measures taken during the 2020 election were illegal. That isn’t a conspiracy theory, it’s just fact.
Ignoring people’s grievances with the process being illegally changed and acting as if it’s just a conspiracy theory is just going to drive many to vote forfor Trump.
That is not what the court ruled. In 2022 the (Wisconsin Supreme) court ruled that the practice of unstaffed ballot drop boxes cannot be used and are inconsistent with Wisconsin law as currently written. Your statement implies some sort of impropriety that effected the 2020 election results. The same court system you are citing, has ruled on 60 occasions that the election was valid.
Stop telling me I’m wrong or you’ll make me vote for a fascist!! Compelling argument.
I don’t think we’re ignoring your grievance. What you seem to be ignoring though, is that Trump tried to take the process into his own hands in an extralegal way which led to an attempted coup.
The courts are the legally recognized venue for resolving these disputes, not the streets. And the courts at that time ruled unanimously against his claims.
My grievances? I do not have any, I voted Joe Biden in 2020. I’m simply telling you how people you clearly don’t understand see this situation.
The fact Trump was willing to do that is proof to many of his supporters that he “has their back”.
Well, it’s technically an opinion. And then Biden STILL won a month after WISC. And now voters have kicked out the Republican majority.