It’s a coup if democracy is overpowered.
Your link is broken, and the portion you quoted doesn’t appear to support your hypothetical that “the court did know and still ruled the request to be sufficient”. I doubt, short of speculative interviews of the members of the FISA court, that we’ll ever know what they would have done had they been informed of the “information”'s origins.
And you see that happening here? The only one talking about possibly cancelling an election is Maggie the Ocelet
Just here to warm your hands, are you?
In slow motion, one step at a time, with the same result. That process starts by deriding the notion that anyone could seriously think the country is more important than one’s party, that they do it too (whatever it is) so they should just shut up, and that any attempt at correcting rigging of elections or in judicial appointments or in proceeding with justice is mere partisanship.
Don’t you think debasing democracy and the responsibility of citizenship in the public eye is a coup? Isn’t it even more of a coup if you can get the public, or large enough fractions of it, to actually support it and deride the naive?
The succinct version: I don’t think we’re anywhere near what I’d call a “coup”.
The long version: I’m curious, who do you think is “deriding the notion that anyone could seriously think the country is more important than one’s party”? Did they say that, or is it more based on your assumption because you disagree with their political actions? It may be hard for you to accept, but many Republicans also believe they’re doing what’s best “for the country”.
All the evidence to date suggests that there was no serious “rigging of elections”. Agree or disagree?
I’m not sure what you mean by “or in judicial appointments or in proceeding with justice”. Are you still upset that Gorsuch is on the Supreme Court? Something else?
I don’t see how democracy has been ‘debased’, or the responsibility of citizenship. In a grand display of democracy a little over a year ago, tens of millions of our fellow citizens went to the polls and voted, and even though the results of that election discomfited a great many Washington insiders and the media establishment, the result was honored. The various attempts to overturn the election results were defeated, and we’re still alive to tell the tale.
Sorry. Better link
I never said the court did know. What I was asking was what the right would be arguing if it knew.
No, I don’t think last year Trumpists wanted the FBI purged. The “FBI is corrupt” thing didn’t have traction amongst Trumpists last spring. It takes awhile for Fox News, Russian propoaganda bots, and the like to get these things set in the public mind.
As you haven’t said if you would support or oppose such a Supreme Court ruling, there is nothing to point to.
This is, again, par for the course for Trumpists, who will never say if they’ll finally disagree with Trump given any specific future hypothetical.
I do watch Fox from time to time, and you might, too. You see it yourself any time you see a faction of fellow Americans demonized for not sharing the same tribal instincts, instead of respected for having the same patriotism but a somewhat different sense of where the future should lie.
Friend, that there is an example of it. Just pause and ponder for a moment, please.
And there’s another example. Yes, there are, still, many Republicans who put country before party (and why, pray tell, would you think I don’t think so? :dubious: ). But they’re no longer in control of that party, now are they?
I think the gerrymandering issue has been discussed, even here, extensively enough that I’m astonished you’re even asking.
It is not Gorsuch as such that bothers me (what bothers me more is that you keep giving examples of the problem I’m trying to help you understand you’re participating in), but the process of hijacking nominations, slowing and stopping ones by one party’s president and fast-tracking ones by the others, that dates back to the Clinton administration (note that I said the coup has been slow). Is that not weakening our democracy, and violating the spirit of the Constitution? If not, why not? Or is it really just the party-before-country spirit that has already taken over one of our parties that you actually endorse?
I’ve just shown you some prime examples.
We still follow the forms. Even countries with military dictatorships have elections.
Except the ones by Putin and Wall Street and the neo-Nazis and a few others. Those attempts to overturn the election were quite successful.
Let’s see what Kim has to say about that. Or what happens when the temper-prone child in the White House finds the football.
If just being alive is enough to satisfy you, then you just may have accepted what’s been happening. But wouldn’t someone who understands what being a citizen of a democracy really means have joined the resistance instead?
You seem to think I’m a “Trumpist” (for myself, I don’t think that label is a very good descriptor of my views), so would you accept a single instance of me saying if I’ll disagree with Trump given a specific future hypothetical as evidence that you are wrong?
I think you must be using some non-standard definition of “overturn” here, because I’m having trouble making heads or tails of this sentence otherwise.
Sounds like no true Scotsman would dare oppose the resistance. That’s very convenient, for the resistance.
Not my problem.
I’ll take that as evidence that you don’t have a thoughtful response.
It wasn’t a thoughtful question.
And there’s yet another example. I did say you had provided enough already.
But let’s continue anyway: The putative thread topic is the Nunes memo. Just tell us, are you in favor of its release, its *existence *even? Why? Is it because of what you think would be good for democracy, or because of what you think its effects on partisan advantage would be?
Yes, I’d like to see it released because I’d like to see what evidence there is that the FBI acted inappropriately in obtaining FISA warrants. Secret courts spying on Americans make me uncomfortable, so a bit of sunshine being shone into that particularly dark corner of our government is probably, overall, a good thing.
See? You’re assuming that’s what the conclusion is and should be. You simply *know *the justice process being applied to Trump is corrupt, the product of a corrupt organization, and is therefore not credible.
*Why *are you letting yourself be played?
I just wanted to say that this is the impression I also got from HD’s last post: he’s already reached a conclusion and he wants to see something that justifies his conclusion.
It’s harder to tell which party you are roasting with this zinger than you probably think.
I too dislike the idea of secret courts spying on Americans. However I am quite certain that this memo is nothing but vacuous bullshit concocted to support a false narrative of corruption intended to discredit the proceeding investigation against the crook in chief. If this was a legitimate exposé of non-trumpian corruption, there’s no way in hell it would have been handled as this stupid thing has been.
I don’t feel that I’ve reached a conclusion in advance of seeing the evidence. I consider it a very real possibility that there’s no credible evidence of FISA abuse. I want to see what they have found and judge for myself if I think it’s significant or not. ETA: and I’d like my countrymen to have the same opportunity.
ETA2: @ElvisL1ves and @Snowboarder Bo, do you think begbert2 has “already reached a conclusion” as well, or just me?