Amused to Death
Footballguy
I hear Garland just has to say it was corrupt and Joe and the Dems in the Senate will take care of the rest.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
***Official 1/6 Select Committee thread*** (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter dozer
- Start date
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
I disagree. But as long as you believe that applies to both sides at least you're consistent.
Either way I think the "harmful to democracy" and "saving our democracy" nonsense is just another example of hyperbolis overuse to the point of near meaningless.
ETA: I do agree with sanctioning or tossing out bad faith claims.
Last edited by a moderator:
If you can't see that STILL fighting this BS is one side with the bad faith, you might as well just keep that head in the sand and not bother for air.
zoonation
Footballguy
massraider
Footballguy
My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw a bunch of workers laid off at 31 Flavors last night.
I guess it's pretty serious.
moleculo
Footballguy
it's harmful to democracy because "low information voters" can be persuaded that the bad faith claims had merit. When they are tossed out (as they should be), these folks lose faith in our institutions. When that happens, they become convinced elections are meaningless. We are watching it play out, in real time.
It's clearly harmful to democracy and claiming it's just hyperbole really diminishes the damage that has (and is being) done.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
I couldn't disagree more. In fact, "harmful to our democracy" is a bad faith claim imo, meant to silence criticism. Furthermore "low information voter" is usually simply code for "people who disagree with me" because I'm so well informed.
(HULK)
(Smash)
(HULK)
(Smash)
It was a farking coup.
That is harmful to democracy.
Your ignorance here is willful.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
(HULK)
(Smash)
moleculo
Footballguy
"low information voter" is a phrase commonly used by Rush Limbaugh. I used the term tongue-in-cheek - curious if anyone would pick up on it. In this case, I use the term to describe the kinds of people who only get their news from youtube conspiracists - Qanon and the like.
If someone loses an election, I encourage them to pursue every legal means available to them to show how they were wronged. But when you have exhausted all legal opportunities, when you cannot make any meaningful claim of wrong doing...yeah, it's harmful to democracy. There is criticism that should be silenced - because it's nonsense.
Dickies
Footballguy
I've watched enough Jordan Klepper videos to strongly disagree with your take on low information voters.
bigbottom
Footballguy
Filing bad faith legal challenges for the purpose of undermining the public’s confidence in the electoral process is absolutely harmful to our democracy and those who do so should be punished (as they have been here). It’s not a bad faith claim meant to silence critics or political opponents at all - rather, it’s an uncontroversial statement that, together with the requisite punishment, should dissuade people and their lawyers (Republican or Democrat) from engaging in future abuses of the legal process through the filing of bad faith claims designed to undermine public confidence in the electoral process.
I’ve never used the phrase “low information voter” (at least I don’t think I have), because I think it’s unduly pejorative, so I agree with you there.
Last edited by a moderator:
Amused to Death
Footballguy
Tell me if you think these were "bad faith claims". They're lying to you.
Donald Trump And His Lawyers Are Making Sweeping Allegations of Voter Fraud In Public. In Court, They Say No Such Thing
Nearly two weeks after the election was called for President-elect Joe Biden, Donald Trump and his legal team continue to advance spurious and dangerous claims that the election was “rigged.” In a press conference on Nov. 19, Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani called the election a “massive fraud,” while an attorney for the Trump campaign, Sidney Powell, alleged without evidence a wide-ranging scheme perpetrated by “massive influence of communist money.” She also appeared to suggest a revolution, comparing this moment to “the 1775 of our generation and beyond.”
But Trump and his allies’ public allegations stand in stark contrast to what his lawyers are actually claiming— bound by professional ethics rules—in election-related cases in court.
In a recent Pennsylvania federal case, Giuliani alleged “widespread, nationwide voter fraud” in his opening remarks. But under questioning from the judge, he retreated. “This is not a fraud case,” Giuliani later admitted. In the same case, Trump lawyer Linda Kearns said explicitly that she is “not proceeding” on allegations of fraud.
-------
The judge pressed Goldstein to answer the specific question: “Are you claiming that there is any fraud in connection with these 592 disputed ballots?” To which Goldstein replied: “To my knowledge at present, no.”
In yet another state case in Bucks County, Pa., Trump’s attorneys signed a joint stipulation of facts that explicitly admits that they are not alleging fraud, despite the President and his lawyers’ repeated public claims, according to Marc Elias, a lawyer working for Democrats on election-related cases. The stipulation of facts reads in part: “Petitioners do not allege, and there is no evidence of, any fraud in connection with the challenged ballots.” The stipulation also says they don’t allege or have evidence of “misconduct” or “impropriety” in connection with the challenged ballots.
bigbottom
Footballguy
Here’s some of what the U.S. District Court Judge had to say in her sanctions order against Sydney Powell, Lin Wood and others.
This lawsuit represents a historic and profound abuse of the judicial process. It is one thing to take on the charge of vindicating rights associated with an allegedly fraudulent election. It is another to take on the charge of deceiving a federal court and the American people into believing that rights were infringed, without regard to whether any laws or rights were in fact violated. This is what happened here.
***
The attorneys who filed the instant lawsuit abused the well-established rules applicable to the litigation process by proffering claims not backed by law; proffering claims not backed by evidence (but instead, speculation, conjecture, and unwarranted suspicion); proffering factual allegations and claims without engaging in the required prefiling inquiry; and dragging out these proceedings even after they acknowledged that it was too late to attain the relief sought. And this case was never about fraud—it was about undermining the People’s faith in our democracy and debasing the judicial process to do so.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
I missed it sorry. I didn't listen to Rush (or any talk radio), I only watch youtube for history and cooking, and I'm willing to bet you know more about Qanon than I do.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
This is the type of thing we were discussing immediately after the election in the thread that got deleted.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
So why were they telling the public there was "massive fraud", but then going to court, where's there's repercussions for making false statements, they in fact weren't alleging fraud? Isn't that making claims and going to court in bad faith? Doesn't it seem like their only goal was to undermine trust in the election?
moleculo
Footballguy
probably. As a fellow footballguy, you are, by definition, a high information voter.
This interview with Adam Kinzinger covers a bunch of topics, so there isn't a perfect thread to put it in. I'll put it here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me8JNADr318
It's a really good interview.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Me8JNADr318
It's a really good interview.
apalmer
Footballguy
Those comparisons are clearly hearsay. Did anyone have a chance to cross-examine whoever published them? Dog and Pony show articles.
Terpman22
Footballguy
This is the part in football terms, where a Cowboy fan responds to something I say like "Tony Romo had hall of famers, never won a Super Bowl, Dak Prescott, also has come Hall of Famers, won't win a Super Bowl"
and the Cowboy fan goes:
SoUnDS LikE YouR A CoWBOys FAn YousELf!
And the whole conversation started b/c the Cowboys fan screamed something hyperbolic, bordering false to begin with.
When casual football fans are corrected about their favorite team, this seams to be a common defense.
Politics can have casual fans too. Just don't get mad when a true fan corrects you w the real facts.
George Costanza
Footballguy
Hey! I'm a Cowboys fan since 1981! I am fully cognizant about the fact that we won't win anything until Jerry is gone. He can't get out of his own way... but, man, even though I am from PA, do I hate the Eagles. Lol.
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
I get that - and I certainly see a LOT of it on the left. I'm not mad but anyone guessing that I listened to Rush or that I get my news from Youtube or that I follow Qanon is hardly "correcting me with real facts", sorry.
Terpman22
Footballguy
I'm not mad either. Frustrated, exasperated, annoyed? Sure. I'm not mad at small children for not understanding math either. I bet A LOT of the guys fighting the "I'm not a Trump fan/but also defend him to the death" have dabbled in the dark arts of Rush Limbaugh before though and they definitely knew what the "low information voter" thing was referring to.
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
Trump's Executive Privilege Claims Over Capitol Riots About To Be Tested By DOJ In Court: Report
12:19 am ET July 29, 2022 (Benzinga) Print
The U.S. Department of Justice is reportedly preparing to force former White House staffers to testify about what former President Donald Trump said and did around the time of the Jan.6 Capitol insurrection.
What Happened: The prosecutors at the Justice Department are zeroing-in on Trump's conduct around Jan. 6, CNN reported on Thursday, citing people briefed on the matter.
The DoJ prosecutors expect Trump to make claims of executive privilege to shield some information from the federal grand jury as the criminal investigation focuses on White House officials who interacted directly with the former U.S. leader, according to CNN.
A court fight centered around executive privilege could take a more aggressive shape than even the Mueller investigation, which took place when Trump was still president.
Why It Matters: How far Trump’s executive privilege goes is still unsettled, and DoJ officials believe that he is likely to try to assert his claim as he did before the House select committee probing the Jan.6 riots, noted CNN.
The question of executive privilege came up during the recent grand jury testimony of Marc Short and Greg Jacob — both close aides to former Vice President Mike Pence, according to CNN.
The Biden administration has mostly not asserted privilege claims around the riot, diluting Trump’s case for executive privilege, as per the report.
Both aides’ lawyers and prosecutors reportedly steered clear of potential privilege issues with the expectation that such questions could be answered later.
Notably, both Short and Jacob were present in a Jan.4, 2021 meeting where Trump pressured Pence to accede to a plan by attorney John Eastman to block the certification of the election results.
Past instances from the Nixon and Clinton eras indicate that executive privilege may not hold in the courts.
12:19 am ET July 29, 2022 (Benzinga) Print
The U.S. Department of Justice is reportedly preparing to force former White House staffers to testify about what former President Donald Trump said and did around the time of the Jan.6 Capitol insurrection.
What Happened: The prosecutors at the Justice Department are zeroing-in on Trump's conduct around Jan. 6, CNN reported on Thursday, citing people briefed on the matter.
The DoJ prosecutors expect Trump to make claims of executive privilege to shield some information from the federal grand jury as the criminal investigation focuses on White House officials who interacted directly with the former U.S. leader, according to CNN.
A court fight centered around executive privilege could take a more aggressive shape than even the Mueller investigation, which took place when Trump was still president.
Why It Matters: How far Trump’s executive privilege goes is still unsettled, and DoJ officials believe that he is likely to try to assert his claim as he did before the House select committee probing the Jan.6 riots, noted CNN.
The question of executive privilege came up during the recent grand jury testimony of Marc Short and Greg Jacob — both close aides to former Vice President Mike Pence, according to CNN.
The Biden administration has mostly not asserted privilege claims around the riot, diluting Trump’s case for executive privilege, as per the report.
Both aides’ lawyers and prosecutors reportedly steered clear of potential privilege issues with the expectation that such questions could be answered later.
Notably, both Short and Jacob were present in a Jan.4, 2021 meeting where Trump pressured Pence to accede to a plan by attorney John Eastman to block the certification of the election results.
Past instances from the Nixon and Clinton eras indicate that executive privilege may not hold in the courts.
Terpman22
Footballguy
Hey, hate recognizes hate. I think we can agree casual fans ON BOTH SIDES of our teams (in football at least) are Low Information Fans and sort of annoying.
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
George Costanza
Footballguy
Lol, totally. Longtime fans, and people who truly appreciate the game, can recognize truths about their own team and don't simply rely on automatic defensive arguments no matter what. As much as I dislike the Eagles, especially having grown up surrounded by them, I have many, many friends who are Eagles fans. We have fun with each other, but I will be the first to credit you guys when it's warranted... just like I can be critical of the Cowboys, and often am. A true fan recognizes their own team's faults.
JAA
Footballguy
AAABatteries
Footballguy
People saying you listened to Rush is like you calling me "the left" - poor assumption.
Terpman22
Footballguy
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
George Costanza
Footballguy
Herb
Footballguy
Similar to mold, spores, bacteria, and Packer fans.We are legion, for we are everywhere.
Amused to Death
Footballguy
G
Guest
Guest
I see it going the other way. Our second "day that will live in infamy" will never be forgotten.
Joe Mammy
Footballguy
Careful. I said the same thing a year or so ago and was lambasted for using a word reserved for FDR only.
You are right though.
Zegras11
Footballguy
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
It becomes a national holiday, everyone gets off work, but any money you would have made that day is taken from your paycheck and goes directly to the Trump's.
And everybody is "loved and very special" on that day
It becomes a national holiday, everyone gets off work, but any money you would have made that day is taken from your paycheck and goes directly to the Trump's.
2Squirrels1Nut
Footballguy
