eduardo89
Banned

https://twitter.com/RealSpikeCohen/status/1733497591080321470 1733497591080321470

Texas Gets One Step Closer to Leaving US https://www.newsweek.com/texas-secession-question-2024-ballot-1848890 {Andrew Stanton | 01 December 2023} Advocates for Texas' secession from the United States believe they are on the verge of scoring a crucial victory. The Texas Republican Party's executive committee is set to vote over the weekend on which ballot propositions voters will decide during the Republican primary elections in March 2024. One measure would ask Republican voters, "Should the State of Texas reassert its status as an independent nation?" Ahead of the vote, the Texas Nationalist Movement, an organization that supports Texas' independence from the U.S., warned the GOP they have enough signatures to force a vote on the question of whether they support secession.

Why are they so desperate to silence him? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVRbGd_t3OU {Decoy Voice | 08 December 2023} Republican Presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy debated the rest of the GOP POTUS hopefuls, but somehow his platform is absolutely melting down the establishment media like CNN. But why are they so adamant about dismissing a theory that is basically been a cornerstone of the Democrats platform? I thought this was a good thing liberal voters?

Where's Xi Jinping when you really need him? Due to "First Amendment activity", Christmas is hereby cancelled with immediate effect. Thank you for your attention. Please continue to monitor for additional updates. He's finally surrendering https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPrwemta2Fg

Vivek Wins The Night | Part Of The Problem 1065 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXHs60oqEGE {Dave Smith | 09 December 2023} On this episode of Part Of The Problem, Dave takes a look back at the GOP debate between Chris Christie, Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis, and Vivek Ramaswamy, and discuss the biggest wins and losses of the night.

The Dirty Truth about The War | Part Of The Problem 1064 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJdoa-Z46zQ {Dave Smith | 08 December 2023} On this episode of Part Of The Problem, Dave and Robbie take a look at an expose from 972 Magazine on the tactics used by Israel to create chaos for the population of Gaza, Then the guys react to an NYU student speak about rising Anti-Semitism on college campuses.

Black Woman Tries To BURN MLK's Home https://odysee.com/@actualjusticewarrior:2/black-woman-tries-to-burn-mlk's-home:5 {Actual Justice Warrior | 09 December 2023} In this video I discuss the recent attempted arson at the birth home of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I explain how despite the common assumption that this was some kind of frame job or hoax, I as of now believe the perpetrator is disturbed and needs help. @actualjusticewarrior:2/black-woman-tries-to-burn-mlk's-home:5

The Oregon Problem | Mark Thornton https://odysee.com/@mises:1/the-oregon-problem-mark-thornton:c {Mises Media | 09 December 2023} The Wall Street Journal reported last month that the ballot initiative to decriminalize all drugs in the state of Oregon is failing, and that efforts are underway to recriminalize hard drugs. Mark points out that decriminalizing drug possession does nothing to improve black market production of drugs, which makes drugs much more dangerous to consume. More importantly, it is Oregon's socialist ideology that coddles homelessness and open hard drug use that is the real problem for the good citizens of the state—and is not helping the drug addicts either. The solution is for society—the nexus of private property owners—to reassert its will. See also "Welcome to Needle Park" by Mark Thornton: https://Mises.org/Minor48_A Be sure to follow Minor Issues at https://Mises.org/MinorIssues

Become Ungovernable

Please do not use tweet URLs with tracking cruft attached to them. (I have bolded the cruft in the URL in the qoute above.) Remove everything in the URL after the tweet id number - starting with the first question mark and including everything after it. Like this: https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1733508950459293865

She and Dave have tangled before: https://twitter.com/LizWolfeReason/status/1679127699502125064 & https://twitter.com/ComicDaveSmith/status/1679129316393623553 That was concerning Reason's interview of RFK Jr. (regarding which see this post / thread). There are other instances, as well. She may not have been best pleased that they booked Dave as the inaugural guest on her new podcast. Or maybe she was, for the sake of whatever publicity internecine libertarian melodramas might be worth.

Full interview:

Full interview:

bump

Well, that's mighty white of her.

Around seven hours later, with about 3.5x as many votes as before, it looks like it's stabilized around 70% Yes / 30% No. Yes 69.8% No 30.1% 1,641,889 votes

https://twitter.com/TenthAmendment/status/1732979796181979285

https://twitter.com/AuronMacintyre/status/1733227161585164642

https://twitter.com/FLVoiceNews/status/1733214909565993333 & https://twitter.com/FLVoiceNews/status/1733215450249486559 https://twitter.com/jackhunter74/status/1733226414416056527

Here's the Remembrance thread, in case you haven't found it yet: Pete Osmar memorial thread

Geezum crow! I did not refer merely to "any judge" - I specifically and explicitly referred to "any judge who any aspirations to higher judicial position" - (i.e., clearly and obviously not SCOTUS judges, since there are no higher judicial positions to which they can aspire). You elide and ignore the primary thrust of what I say, only to hyper-focus on the parenthetical asides - e.g., " (not to mention the aspiration of merely keeping the position he already has)". Speaking of which: In today's increasingly strident, inflammatory, and hysterical political environment, I am not at all sure that lower court judges wouldn't have a greater risk of impeachment if they dared to "seriously questio or challeng (let alone actually overtur) a U.S. presidential election". And as far as "the separation of powers and the notion of an independent judiciary" goes, if any judge(s) ever did dare to venture into that territory, then why wouldn't Congress (depending on its partisan composition at the time, and on whom any such rulings favored) regard impeachment and removal as an instance of "turnabout is fair play"? Separation of powers and judicial "independence" cuts both ways, after all. But however high or low the risk might be (or might be becoming), there's one surefire way to avoid it altogether: you can't be impeached (or even just thwarted in your ambitions for career advancement) for a ruling that wasn't made in a case that wasn't heard.

"was" ... ?

Way to go, snipping my remark out of all its preceding context - and then replying as if that remark had failed to adequately account for some critical factor. That's some truly lawyer-like behavior, there! But given that even the bit your retained explicitly refers to the "aspirations to higher judicial position might have", I was quite clearly not referring to SCOTUS judges - precisely because they have no such aspirations, as there is no higher judicial position to which they can advance. I'd have thought this was rather obvious, but apparently not ... Of course it doesn't explain it - apart from the fact that I wasn't referring to SCOTUS (obviously - see above), merely "rul against pro-Trump plaintiffs" (on the one hand) and "seriously questioning or challenging (let alone actually overturning) a U.S. presidential election" (on the other hand) are not even remotely commensurable things. My remarks explicitly concerned the latter, not the former.

One doesn't even need an "old guard" to explain it - nor any "vast conspiracy" (beyond the commonplace coincidence-of-interests kind of "conspiracy"). Even the most Trump-friendly judges (whether appointed by him or not) are apt to be extremely gun-shy when it comes to pulling the trigger on something so fraught and momentous as seriously questioning or challenging (let alone actually overturning) a U.S. presidential election - quite regardless of how good the reasons for such questions or challenges might be assumed to be (even if only for the sake of argument). At the very least, any judge who did so would almost certainly be saying goodbye to any aspirations to higher judicial position he might have had (not to mention the aspiration of merely keeping the position he already has).

Given Trump's lousy record of "hires" ... sure. Why not? Seems kinda likely, in fact. Well, after all, believing that states have rights - and that "the people" are any better than Trump at appointing "public servants" - is pretty wacky to begin with, so ...