- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Lawfare: how is this defined, and how can it be (legally) stopped?
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:19 am to oklahogjr
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:19 am to oklahogjr
quote:
I define lawfare as a dog whistle type of phrase used to signal between maga supporters that something is unfair to them or someone they are required to support.
There is more to it than that, but within the political rhetoric context, that is largely correct right now.
The fact they don't include the bogus lawsuits after the 2020 election in "lawfare" and didn't gasp in horror after the Thiel-Gawker lawsuit make me question their objectivity in the assessment, however.
If we can't call a clearly political-partisan based lawsuit that relied on fraudulent accusations, "lawfare", then the drawing board is going to get real big, real quick.
The bigger issue is that including legitimate convictions/suits as "lawfare" opens the door to a lot of territory they reject (the "BLM argument" stuff)
The larger issue is the "we need to make the conspiracy bigger and add another layer" reliance to group together actors who are essentially independent, in order to permit the whataboutism (to loop in legitimate suits and prosecutions).
This post was edited on 4/27/24 at 11:22 am
Posted on 4/27/24 at 11:44 am to SlowFlowPro
That's a very good point.
Perhaps the definition is closely aligned to what you say here
Perhaps it's any lawsuit or case against a party that relies upon fraudulent information AND has a party involved that would benefit from perpetrating the fraud on the court in order to punish a specific party.
I'm sure they could be cleaned up a bit but something along those lines where there's both motivation and fraudulent information.
Perhaps the definition is closely aligned to what you say here
quote:
clearly political-partisan based lawsuit thatrelied on fraudulent accusations
Perhaps it's any lawsuit or case against a party that relies upon fraudulent information AND has a party involved that would benefit from perpetrating the fraud on the court in order to punish a specific party.
I'm sure they could be cleaned up a bit but something along those lines where there's both motivation and fraudulent information.
Popular
Back to top
![logo](https://images.tigerdroppings.com/images/layout/TDIcon.jpg)