Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Electr_O_Purist t1_iy9ir1r wrote

Doesn’t matter. They can throw their tantrum. Fetterman is still their senator. Shapiro is still their governor.

231

ahhhhhhhhyeah t1_iy9vc75 wrote

It does matter, because they absolutely will try this when their votes potentially do shift the election.

84

Electr_O_Purist t1_iy9vgsv wrote

And lose in court like they have been all along.

39

ahhhhhhhhyeah t1_iy9y8cq wrote

Right now with the current court appointed judges…

5

No-Professional-1884 t1_iya36ta wrote

Most are the judges that threw out Trump’s BS, soo….

19

ahhhhhhhhyeah t1_iya5892 wrote

Yes, they are. But what do you think will happen in the future if a republican president appoints conservative judges are vetted to rolling back voting rights? This matters, regardless of the outcome.

14

fartjokes4prez t1_iyadegp wrote

GUYS, WHAT IF THIS MADE UP SCENARIO WAS TRUE?!?! WOULDNT I BE SO RIGHT THEN

−17

ahhhhhhhhyeah t1_iyafzn5 wrote

Good job completely misunderstanding my point

6

fartjokes4prez t1_iyajeqp wrote

Your made up point was addressed.

−11

Hopeful_Scholar398 t1_iycha5b wrote

It's really not unreasonable to think these election denying conservatives would appoint judges based on whether or not they'd be open de- certifying election results that don't go their way.

1

discogeek t1_iycidvr wrote

"In 2022 we threw out Luzerne County votes because of a paper jam... in 2024 we threw out Philadelphia's votes because some pillow salesman made a documentary that aliens manipulated the minds of voters there."

7

Plane_Vanilla_3879 t1_iy9nmwz wrote

Going to enjoy conservative tears for decades to come. 😩😭😩😭😩😭

41

chickey23 t1_iy9owqe wrote

Mostly at funerals

18

Shift-Subject t1_iyap8vh wrote

Whys that?

1

chickey23 t1_iyapf89 wrote

Because they are old

8

Shift-Subject t1_iyapzrv wrote

All of them are. If you're young and joining either of the two major parties, you really shouldn't be trusted. The "lesser of two evils" is evil.

−11

chickey23 t1_iyaq7b7 wrote

I agree in principle. The system must be reformed or replaced, but failing that, there is a marked difference in the social policies that conservatives put into law

6

Shift-Subject t1_iyarcbh wrote

Why not dismantle the power of government and nullify laws all around? I mean... I'm not going to follow unjust laws whether it was Shapiro or Mastriano. They're both pieces of shit.

−14

chickey23 t1_iyarx8z wrote

Government does more good than harm. Removing government policies and procedures without having replacements in place will be destabilizing. Rather, a progressive replacement of government apparatus is the only method to build a better future

8

Shift-Subject t1_iyatk2d wrote

Government does not do more good than harm. Government is the cause of most of our problems on both sides of the populist isles. Government should function on the local level and in accordance with the local populous.

−10

Muscadine76 t1_iyawctl wrote

Yes, hyperlocal control has historically worked out great for minorities and economically marginal groups. And for pretty much any problem requiring large-scale coordination, like: infrastructure, pollution control, healthcare, etc.

3

Shift-Subject t1_iyaytg4 wrote

Centralization of government is better? Lol

−1

Muscadine76 t1_iyaz6q6 wrote

That’s not what I said. But for some things a more centralized government is basically essential. The key is a good balance between more localized and more centralized forms of government.

3

Shift-Subject t1_iyazxgh wrote

I disagree. I think the more localized solutions are, the better focused they are, and the more autonomy (freedom) is given to the localities.

Everyone likes to say there's a social contract, but nobody likes to take responsibility for their end of it.

1

Muscadine76 t1_iyb1kyu wrote

Your disagreement isn’t based in anything different than a religious doctrinal declaration of faith. The idea that “government is the cause of most of our problems and those problems would be solved if we only had local government” is nonsensical to anyone actually familiar with contexts where there are no functioning government or only local/tribal governance. And handwaving wishful thinking doesn’t solve any of the issues I already mentioned.

3

Shift-Subject t1_iyb1z5k wrote

Well, we haven't mentioned any problems yet, so your accusation and argument are based on your imagination.

The only claim I've made is that localities can focus on local problems and provide solutions that centralized government can't... you've yet to refute the claim.

0

Muscadine76 t1_iyb28lw wrote

I literally listed problems earlier so I guess reading comprehension isn’t your strong suite. But also I’m not in the habit of arguing with religious fundamentalists. Have a nice delusional day.

2

chickey23 t1_iyav95t wrote

Your local, self-governed population will be absorbed by a larger neighbor. Happens every time

2

Shift-Subject t1_iyayqsi wrote

It should be defended with weapons if necessary. Decentralization should prevent larger absorption.

−2

chickey23 t1_iybaieu wrote

Your proposition is that we replace a global system of international cooperation with an endless series of armed camps

1

Shift-Subject t1_iybb0zl wrote

Lol you think we have an operational system of international cooperation?

You mean ideological colonization?

How many countries do we have to bomb into oblivion before it becomes concerning?

0

chickey23 t1_iybgg4k wrote

I'm in favor of a complete reform of government and social organization, but I firmly believe that cooperation is more efficient than competition

2

Shift-Subject t1_iybh4yx wrote

Cooperation and competition go hand in hand (economically) but states should be able to negotiate state concerns. With other states and across nations. The United States was meant to be a consolidation of mini-nations (not exactly, but essentially).

0

[deleted] t1_iyb341m wrote

[deleted]

2

Shift-Subject t1_iyb3vgm wrote

>One evil wants to deny my right to make life or death decisions about my own body.

Lol gross

>The other evil believes black, brown, gay, trans or female people deserve to be treated like people.

... what??

They're both evil.

0

[deleted] t1_iyawefi wrote

[deleted]

−4

Shift-Subject t1_iyayn0d wrote

They're totalitarians. They're the ones who will go along with what they're told to go along with no matter what. The democratic consensus now is pro-war. Never thought I'd see the day, but those people hold no value outside of the in-groups values. Republicans are just as bad, they just don't wear it on their sleeve the way dems do.

−3

Cogatanu7CC95 t1_iybid7u wrote

repubs literally wear antisemitism and anti-democracy on their sleeves they are the ones that committed treason with the terrorist attack on our capital

5

spoookytree t1_iybyfdb wrote

Lol WHAT? Republicans OOZE off their sleeves what the hell you talking about 😂

3

Shift-Subject t1_iybymvu wrote

Republicans don't seek absolute conformity the way democrats do. Theres Republicans running ads against people who doubt the 2020 election and are not happy with party leadership. Meanwhile, the democrat messaging is monolithic and mainstream. What the hell are you talking about?

−3

[deleted] t1_iyb7izn wrote

[deleted]

1

Shift-Subject t1_iyb8amg wrote

Lmfao 🤣🤣🤣 it's self-classification. Hearing that claim in 2022, the age of intersectionalism, is just cringe.

1

Shift-Subject t1_iyap5rg wrote

And? I still won't follow either of their laws if they subvert the constitution 🤪

−7

Electr_O_Purist t1_iyawfzn wrote

Ok, Mr Badass, don’t follow “tHeIr lAwS”- I doubt that they’re planning to cancel Sons of Anarchy anyway, lol

11

Shift-Subject t1_iyayas7 wrote

If they made gay marriage or abortion illegal, would you abide? If not, are you always a hypocrite?

−1

[deleted] t1_iyatymr wrote

[deleted]

−33

glberns t1_iyaukxo wrote

I mean... show me a liberal who threw a tantrum so hard they committed sedition

18

Buc4415 t1_iyb4zy8 wrote

What do you call attacking the White House and forcing the president into an anti terrorism bunker?

I would argue they aren’t liberal, they are progressive/leftists though so yea, I can’t find a “liberal” who committed sedition.

−5

glberns t1_iybav95 wrote

And what crimes were those people convicted of? Was it seditious conspiracy?

No.

Because they were not trying to overthrow the government.

Also, Trump says that he wasn't in the bunker because of the protests, but for an "inspection"

4

[deleted] t1_iybuojk wrote

[deleted]

0

glberns t1_iyck8kt wrote

I was asking about the White House protests. None of those people were charged, nor convicted of seditious conspiracy.

2

Buc4415 t1_iybb6tv wrote

So crimes only happen when there is a conviction? That’s weird. Crimes are always measured in reports and not in convictions because of legal maneuvering and just because the offender hasn’t been caught, doesn’t mean a crime hasn’t been committed.

−2

glberns t1_iybch8y wrote

Educate yourself: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-1999-title18-section2384&num=0&edition=1999#:~:text=If%20two%20or%20more%20persons,force%20to%20prevent%2C%20hinder%2C%20or

2

Buc4415 t1_iybd2sq wrote

You didn’t address anything I said at all. Lol. Convictions or lack there of don’t mean a crime hasn’t taken place.

Also, the first paragraph seems to have a part that is applicable

“destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof,”.

I’d imagine attacking the White House qualifies here…. Lol. You can try to explain this away though. I’m looking forward to “but actually this isn’t that bc trump was a fascist”

−2

glberns t1_iybez72 wrote

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate how anyone in that incident tried to overthrow the government.

2

Buc4415 t1_iybgw61 wrote

You are having trouble staying focused. Crime isn’t measured in convictions, it’s measured in reports. If person X gets murdered, and the killer is never found, person x still got murdered. Lack of conviction doesn’t mean crime wasn’t committed. Lol. You can keep trying to play semantics but it’s a weak game.

Let’s examine another source shall we.

The decision to physically move the President came as protesters confronted Secret Service officers outside the White House for hours on Friday -- shouting, throwing water bottles and other objects at the line of officers, and attempting to break through the metal barriers. At times, the crowd would remove the metal barriers and begin pushing up against the officers and their riot shields. The Secret Service continually replaced the barriers throughout the night as protesters wrestled them away. Protesters pushed hard enough a few times that officers had to walk away with what appeared to be minor injuries. At one point, the agents responded to aggressive pushing and yelling by using pepper spray on the protesters

Let’s be real, that’s not your burden of proof. If it was, you would be vying for 90% of the people who entered the capitol on 1/6 to be freed or charged with trespassing. You don’t actually care about “proof that anyone tried to overthrow the government”. Lol The people who attacked the White House are on your side and the people who attacked the capitol aren’t so it’s different.

−1

glberns t1_iybjdzf wrote

I don't know what part you're missing.

  1. That most people at the Capitol were only charged with trespassing, assault, vandalism, etc. (I.e. not seditious conspiracy)

  2. That Rhodes and the Oath Keepers enacted a months-long plan to overthrow the government that included radio communications, weapons stockpiles, armed teams waiting to get called in, etc. You have shown none of this for the White House protests. No planning. No weapons. No organized violence. No explicit intent to overthrow the government. All of these were present on 1/6.

2

Buc4415 t1_iyblvtx wrote

So is it the norm for people to be held without bail for trespassing, assault, vandalism, etc… even those without any priors? This seems like a new thing for dems who have been championing bail reform even for people with prior felonies.

Yea cool. You are attacking an argument I never made. Awesome. I literally never said “no one planned to overthrow the government”. While I did say 90% didn’t, and I didn’t verify that number, I feel fairly confident you can’t connect any sort of criminal conspiracy to 90% of the people who entered the building.

So let’s bring this back full circle now. Should people charged with simple theft, trespassing, vandalism be held without bail? Do you think it is a miscarriage of justice to hold those people without bail? If you want to say simply attacking government property/ government employees isn’t sedition, then cool. I look forward to you appealing to Merrill Garland that it’s a miscarriage of justice to hold those people without bail.

0

glberns t1_iycveec wrote

I don't know what kool-aid you've been drinking, but most January 6th defendants have been released on bail.

>“Of the hundreds and hundreds of folks who have been arrested in the Capitol riots, the majority of them, most of them have received some sort of bail,” Rahmani said. “But the folks that engaged in the most violent acts, they are being detained without bond.”

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/why-capitol-riot-defendants-being-held-without-bond-before-trial-january-6-congress/65-1e4d4dd6-eded-4187-85f1-d4dfcc3a9519

And this isn't full circle. This started when you insisted that the White House protests constituted sedition. They didn't. You've made no effort to show that their actions fit that crime. You've only made the bizarre insistence that because a crime was committed, it's sedition. That makes no sense.

Nice try at moving the goalposts though. It's become abundantly clear that you aren't interested in having a good faith discussion, so I'm done here.

2

Buc4415 t1_iycw0j9 wrote

How long did they spend in jail, without bail set? You keep moving the goal post here. They were held for months without bail being set. They were treated like violent repeat felons. I just find it weird the party of bail reform kept so many non violent offenders in jail without setting a bail amount for them for such a long time.

You are a shifty one but I’m gonna nail you down on this.

0

[deleted] t1_iyav28y wrote

[deleted]

−19

Electrical-Wish-519 t1_iyavto7 wrote

Pretty sure Trump appointing 3 judges to get Roe overturned had a major effect for lots of people.

16

[deleted] t1_iyaw19q wrote

[deleted]

−12

Electrical-Wish-519 t1_iyawh6j wrote

No, but answering your dismissive statement that both political parties are the same and that voting doesn’t make a difference gives me a smug satisfaction.

14

glberns t1_iyb572l wrote

>Like liberals don’t throw 1000x more tantrums lmao

You clearly care about one "side" more than the other.

>I just think it’s hilarious you people think and believe everything you’re told

Do you not believe that Republicans are refusing to certify elections? Do you not believe that the Oath Keepers have pled guilty and been convicted of seditious conspiracy?

>Like it’s amazing how brainwashed everyone has become to think these elections even make a difference or have any real effect on anything.

Tell that to the hungry children who were lifted out of poverty because Democrats gave their parents monthly child tax credits over Republican objections.

Tell that to the senior citizens who will save hundreds of dollars a month next year because Democrats capped their insulin costs at $35 per month over Republican objections.

Tell that to the millions of people who have health care because Democrats expanded Medicare and forbid being denied insurance to preexisting conditions over Republican objections.

Tell that to the women who get sepsis because Republicans forbid their doctors from performing a D&C.

Elections have consequences.

3