Hodad

Do you subject a hopeless patient to heroic measures to maintain a pulse? That's the same conversation--between families and physicians--that every patient deserves. Think about a baby born without a brain or some other essential organ, for whom life is impossible outside the womb. Do you think they should do chest compressions on the thing until it's just a pile of mush? Or offer whatever palliative care they can and let it pass with grace? These are actual conversations that have to take place. They are difficult and heartbreaking. And here you are exploiting that fact in an effort to score some cheap political points. Have some decency.

Thanks for the permission. I would definitely like to engage in some belittling, starting with the fact that you are not even part of "this nation." You have a massive case of "freeness envy" and just can't manage to focus on your own business. You're not content with lashing out at your fellow countrymen, but instead manage to get your soiled knickers in a twist about the social progress in an entirely different country. lol But no, progress will march on. All the people your hate-filled little heart would love to oppress will continue to move toward equality in this country--and many others.

🤪Sure it does. Because the one thing we can count on is that progress will stop if enough old men shake their impotent fists at the sky. Or maybe you are magic? If you shake your fist hard enough a flag turns into a book!

Ah, so not a chain email, but rather a disinformation meme. Great. But Northam was only addressing what happens in cases where a baby is born with severe deformities and has a low chance of survival. So, yes, the fate of severely deformed newborns, who naturally lack a living will, should indeed be a discussion between parents and physicians. I wish people would do some critical thinking about random shite from the internet before sharing it like it's news.

Dude, you were posting about a pride flag. I have no idea the provenance of that image. Let me know how the story turns out though.

"You can be proud of who you are" is sexual messaging to you? Well, I guess if ones self esteem is low enough...

A. That's false. He didn't say anything about evangelicals, unless you'd like to make the argument that all evangelicals are Christian nationalists? B. I don't think you know what "voter suppression" means. For that to be true he would have to come up with some way to prevent or make it more difficult for them to vote. Purging view rolls, eliminating polling locations, adding new requirements, eliminating alternative voting times--you know, the Republican playbook.

Gonna need you to decode that. I didn't get your chain emails.

You were flirting with reasonableness for a few weeks there, but now you're just saying crazy stuff again. Nobody is taking about "post-term abortion" and Biden is not involved in any voter suppression effort. You forget your lines? Your job is to rail at Democrats for making it easier to vote.

Hang on, is it your position that evangelicals=Christian Nationalists? Are these terms interchangeable, in your view? And look, I didn't know who convinced you of the (wildly improbable) prescription motive here, but it's probably time to abandon that news source. At least read up on it before making hateful allegations. It's a for-profit college, so you should trust it about as far as you can throw it. GCU's beef with the DoE goes back to the Trump administration. Was that administration persecuting Christians as well? And these penalties don't seem extreme for the scale. Remember, students end up paying $10k to $12k more than they were lead to expect. "The penalty amounts to $5,000 per violation, which totaled 7,547—the number of students who enrolled in doctoral dissertation programs from Nov. 1, 2018, to Oct. 19, 2023. ... The department noted in its fine notice that it could have issued a maximum penalty of $509.7 million, because the agency can impose up to $67,544 fine per violation." So the penalty amount was about half of the "ill-gotten" gains and just 7% of the maximum assessable penalty for these violations. That sure doesn't seem vindictive. Relatively gentle, actually. Any of that information cause you to re-evaluate?

I can prove that none of it was hearsay? Yes. I provided you with video of the events as they unfolded, direct quotes and direct witness testimony. Q.E.D.

Was it a record violation? Do you even know the facts before you cry persecution? It's a for-profit college issuing more federal student aid than any other institution in the county. Hm...

news/national-international/grand-canyon-university-largest-christian-university-in-the-us-faces-record-37-7-million-fine-over-deceptive-practices/3458221/%3famp=1 Already doing it by levying unreasonable fines to shut down major evangelical universities. Nonsense. Oh, really? Are non-Christian universities held to the same standard? ,(They are.) so how is it religious persecution? Do you believe that being "Christian" means that the laws don't apply? BTW, which part of that post do you disagree with?

Nah, it's pretty well defined. The short version is that Christian Nationalists do not believe in a separation of church and state or the first amendment freedom of religion. Rather, they want the United States to be a nation of and for Christians. Which sucks pretty bad for everyone else. Think Taliban rule in Afghanistan, but Christian sharia.

Neither of those things will happen. This is a shallow and corrupt incarnation of the court, but even this tattered shadow isn't so far gone as to establish an executive with unlimited immunity. It's probably also worth pointing out that Biden IS an actual Christian.

Ah, the famous Akimov "Yuh huh" rebuttal. Expertly played, sir. 🙄

Your powers of projection are off the chart. Powers of reason? Not so much. You can't seem to muster a single argument for why these actions, which meet every defined criteria of a coup, should not rightly be called a coup. Instead, you simply repeat, ad nauseum, that it's not a coup. And, at this point you're just blatantly lying about the facts of the Gore recount. Nothing there was even unusual, let alone illegal. It was a VERY poor analogy to begin with, but if you have to fudge the facts it's probably time to let it go. And no, I think you're rather proving my point. You've argued for pages now, without a shred of reason, about whether the actions of Trump and his cronies can be described by a commonly understood and wholly appropriate word. Why would Smith risk his conviction by allowing some foolish juror to do the same dithering? Far better to nip that in the bud and go with the simpler charges and their stiffer consequences. Isn't that what any sensible person would do?

No, not weird at all. Many of these trials would be over if Trump hadn't cynically played every delay tactic in the book. Much easier to pretend to be a political victim if you marry the timing to politics! Clever enough to fool you, and probably some Americans. No, it will not eliminate those cases. Both are chock full of personal actions that have nothing to do with the duties of the office.

Wrong and wrong. Trumps fakes were not alternates. They were fakes. Phonies. Frauds. Forged papers. -- Unlike Kennedy, there was no close race, there was no critical recount underway (they had been concluded), and there was no reasonable justification for any "alternates." And Kennedy's late slate of alternates was approved in state court and certified by the governor BEFORE they ever reached the Vice President, superseding the Republican slate--none of which is true of Trump's fakes. More to the point, the conspirators were willfully and knowingly acting in bad faith. They all knew it was illegal. Eastman himself told Trump it was illegal and asked for a pardon!

The word is "hearsay" and no, none of that was hearsay.🙄

Gee. One might say that's exactly what the fake elector scheme attempted to do? Hence why the Eastman memo is often referred to as the "coup memo."

Again, the ocean is a body of water. As I've pointed out to you multiple times, the plans and actions of that day fit the definition of a coup. Was it an attempt to seize power? Yes. Was it illegal? Yes. Did everyone involved know it was illegal? Yes. Was it a small conspiracy? Yes. Was it sudden? Yes. And on and on. Great. Welcome to the reality that this was an attempted coup. This was not "testing a legal theory" lol. As judge Carter wrote, "Their campaign was not confined to the ivory tower — it was a coup in search of a legal theory," There is no constitutional provision for judicial review of the certification process. There is no constitutional provision for what happens if the certification is not completed on January 6. And there is no constitutional prescription to reverse a seizure of power. -- And in any case, a group that has successfully executed a coup cannot reasonably be expected to surrender power. Trump had already been laughed out of court 60+ times. The SCOTUS had already decided NOT to entertain his claims. Your speculation that Trump would suddenly respect a court decision and surrender the power he had just stolen (unlike the other 60+times) is just laughable. And again, I apparently must repeat, Trump was charged using statutes that were clearly easier to prove and that carried longer sentences. Jack Smith likely had no interest in fending off bad-faith questions about "Hm... what really is an insurrection?" Making the clean charge--and more consequential charge--is just good strategy. I thought perhaps CATO would be a friendly source. You refuse to engage in reason, so I thought perhaps you might read along as someone friendlier did the work. Instead, it appears that you'll simply repeat and repeat the claim that these events, which tick every box of the definition of a coup, were somehow, in defiance of all logic, not an attempted coup. I guess everybody needs a hobby?🤷‍♂️

Every single thing I wrote there actually happened. It's on freaking video that you (yes, even you!) can watch. Hang Mike Pence What do you suppose Trump did while his mob was hunting Pence? He egged them on. Trump tweeted at 2:24 p.m., while the attack was going on, that “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution.” "It felt like he was pouring gasoline on the fire by tweeting that," Sarah Matthews, a Trump White House staffer, said in video testimony. ^^That's what he did publicly. Here's what he's alleged (in sworn testimony) to have done privately (and totally in character) and keeping with what he said on record to Jon Karl. Go peddle your lies to other fawning sycophants.

So, you want me to literally post definitions of the word "coup"? Articles exploring the concept? Is that a good use of anyone's time? Is this a new word? Do we need a glossary of basic words? WTF? Fine: Webster: Noun. a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics and especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group : COUP D'ÉTAT Dictionary.com a sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force. Cambridge a sudden illegal, often violent, taking of government power, especially by part of an army: Vocabulary.com https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/coup Oxford a sudden change of government that is illegal and often violent ^^WTF are we doing here? Is there any question that the loser of an election scheming to ignore and reject the certified EV votes in a scheme to seize and retain power for himself is illegal? Nope. Is there any question that's what Trump did? Nope. So why are you invested in pretending it was something other than a coup attempt? Here's a thoughtful analysis from decidedly "un-left" CATO: Yes, It Was an Attempted Coup I don't believe there is any statute in US law (related to domestic affairs) that includes the word "coup." Does that mean anything? Nope. But apparently in your world if a person can't be charged with a criminal code containing the word, the word simply can't be applied as a label. 🙄 The only argument you've made for why it shouldn't be considered a coup is that you imagine it would have been reversed (through some unexplained mechanism) if he had succeeded. That's not a real argument.

You may be old, but we live in the era of video recording. Anyone can watch the MAGA mob howling "Hang Mike Pence," and erecting gallows and literally pursuing imperiled legislators, cornering them, and smashing through the door to get to the last place of refuge--before a shot was fired to stop the incursion. All of that is recorded and shine a stark light on your revisionist lies.