I don't think the gun nuts and militiamen stand a chance against the national guard if they wanna rebel and spill blood over trump losing the election fair and square.
On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 8:33 PM Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> wrote: > Apathy only works when stupidity isnt fed, scotus needs to shut off the > feedmill. It no secret I dabble in right wing extremism, even though I'm a > statist. What people in those circles talk about scares me, and I like > violence > > On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 8:27 PM Lewis Bergman <lewis.berg...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I think you underestimate the apathy of most Americans >> >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:55 PM Steve Jones <thatoneguyst...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Scotus is unique in that they arent elected, they ha e a wide berth of >>> discretion, they are the literal last line prior to violent engagement. So, >>> say the feds want to add a tea tax on Massachusetts. Massachusetts says >>> hey, I'm harmed by this. Without a hearing the court says, nope, no merit. >>> Massachusetts says, hey now, we really think you should hear us out. >>> Discretion being the key. >>> >>> We are at the point of a harbor being a tea kettle in close to 40 >>> million of the most heavily armed people on the planets minds . Whether >>> what they think is real, or make believe, it is what it is, and their >>> communications have been forced out of the public's surveillance, so you >>> never know what they're going to do next. They're not the kind who wear >>> black clothes, masks, and disappear right after they do something cowardly >>> like beat an old man in a wheelchair. They also believe the italian guy >>> pretending to be latino wasnt kidding. >>> >>> Either way >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020, 4:19 PM Carl Peterson <cpeter...@portnetworks.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I'm not exactly clear as to the train of thought, or even what >>>> case/issue the SC should hear out. The "case" argued in public is nothing >>>> like anything presented in any court. It isn't like Trump's >>>> lawyers weren't given an opportunity. Q. Are you alleging fraud? A. >>>> No. Well OK then. You can't then go to the PA supreme court and allege >>>> fraud. When the PA supreme court declines to let you, you can't go to the >>>> SC and do the same. They will rightly tell you to pound sand. This basic >>>> script played out over and over again. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 3:49 PM Adam Moffett <dmmoff...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> If I'm following Steve's train of thought: he's saying giving the >>>>> issue a day in court might convince some people that justice was done more >>>>> effectively than simply dismissing the case. An independent judiciary >>>>> shouldn't have to consider political angles like that. The cases are >>>>> being >>>>> dismissed because they lack standing and/or lack merit. If that doesn't >>>>> convince people, then neither would taking the case to court and losing >>>>> it. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> -- >>>> AF mailing list >>>> AF@af.afmug.com >>>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>>> >>> -- >>> AF mailing list >>> AF@af.afmug.com >>> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >>> >> -- >> AF mailing list >> AF@af.afmug.com >> http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >> > -- > AF mailing list > AF@af.afmug.com > http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com >
-- AF mailing list AF@af.afmug.com http://af.afmug.com/mailman/listinfo/af_af.afmug.com
