0
- 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: SFPLCs buddy spills the beans on Lawfare
Posted on 10/21/26 at 1:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 10/21/26 at 1:55 pm to SlowFlowPro
Ask Elon Musk.
Dems are going to go hunting if they take back the reins of terror.
Dems are going to go hunting if they take back the reins of terror.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 1:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
Okay, Would you accept disincentivize? That doesn't change what she advocated for.
So far none of your corrections have negated the main issue here. So you can keep counting how many times you can squint and split hairs, or you can address the behavior she's advocating for.
quote:
This is your 2nd or 3rd time incorrectly representing what she actually said
So far none of your corrections have negated the main issue here. So you can keep counting how many times you can squint and split hairs, or you can address the behavior she's advocating for.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 1:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So legitimate prosecutions of actual criminal behavior are "lawfare" if a person from one party controls the prosecuting arm of the accused?
Was that what happened in the FISA warrant applications and approvals in the "Russian Collusion" fiasco? That's just one simple example.
And here is your definition you so desperately want.
Lawfare simply is the strategic use of legal systems, courts, and regulations to delegitimize, financially exhaust, intimidate, bankrupt, or silence adversaries. Easy pleasy.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 1:56 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You're leaving out the "breaking the law" part
As did Slotkin.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 1:57 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Okay, Would you accept disincentivize? That doesn't change what she advocated for.
We're back to page 1
quote:
Isn't deterrence ("scaring others") part of prosecuting people who broke the law?
Posted on 10/21/26 at 1:59 pm to CleverUserName
quote:
Was that what happened in the FISA warrant applications and approvals in the "Russian Collusion" fiasco?
Not all of them. There were prosecutions for the dishonesty involved in certain warrants.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 1:59 pm to deathvalleytiger10
quote:
As did Slotkin.
All the "signature cases" so far involve allegations of breaking the law.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 1:59 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Lawfare
Still waiting on an operative definition of this
I try to give you space, but, man ur pretty f'in ignorant if you can't reconcile this. And claiming you can't starts to push you into stupid territory and I don't think you're stupid.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 2:00 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
We're back to page 1
No. She wants to scare young people from taking jobs in the Trump Administration, not scare young people into not breaking the law.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 2:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
All the "signature cases" so far involve allegations of breaking the law.
"Signature cases" do not involve potential future employment of young people that dare to be employed in the Trump Administration.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 2:02 pm to captainFid
worthless to discuss anything with lawyers. they are slime without morals. will argue for argument's sake.
heard 1 celebrating that he got a young male a reduced sentence (8 years) after found guilty of child abuse in which the infant eventually succumbed to
heard 1 celebrating that he got a young male a reduced sentence (8 years) after found guilty of child abuse in which the infant eventually succumbed to
Posted on 10/21/26 at 2:05 pm to Meauxjeaux
quote:
I try to give you space, but, man ur pretty f'in ignorant if you can't reconcile this.
We have 4-5 competing definitions in this thread alone
Posted on 10/21/26 at 2:05 pm to Azkiger
quote:
She wants to scare young people from taking jobs in the Trump Administration, not scare young people into not breaking the law.
What scares them is being prosecuted for breaking the law as part of the admin.
which brings us back to page 1
Posted on 10/21/26 at 2:06 pm to deathvalleytiger10
quote:
"Signature cases" do not involve potential future employment of young people that dare to be employed in the Trump Administration.
Did you watch the video?
You're disputing what she clearly said, with the quoted language.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 2:06 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
What scares them is being prosecuted for breaking the law as part of the admin.
Why not *any* admin?
Also, what does being part of the Trump admin have to do with breaking the law?
This post was edited on 10/21/26 at 2:07 pm
Posted on 10/21/26 at 2:08 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
Do repulsive and repugnant mean the same thing? thought I would ask the expert
Posted on 10/21/26 at 2:09 pm to SlowFlowPro
Witch hunting is a valid tool .
Posted on 10/21/26 at 2:09 pm to Azkiger
quote:
Why not *any* admin?
I don't think it's exclusive
Trump just has a lot of people in his orbit who are bad at following the law, including multiple lawyers
quote:
what does being part of the Trump admin have to do with breaking the law?
Nothing organically. It's what specific members of his admin do that involves allegations of breaking the law.
Just being in or associated with the admin doesn't automatically bring you under criminal scrutiny.
Take Stephen Miller for one example. Has completely fricked up so many simple things it's mind-boggling. Has been a leader in both admins. I don't think he's ever come close to any criminal prosecution. I think he's incredibly dumb at government and policy implementation, but I don't think he's a criminal.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 2:10 pm to Azkiger
Guilt by association.
Posted on 10/21/26 at 2:10 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Not all of them. There were prosecutions for the dishonesty involved in certain warrants.
Who cares about the later slap on the wrist "prosecutions" in which effectively NOTHING was actually done in the long run..... does the actual FISA warrant fiasco, and the intentions for it, in any way meet the definition I laid out for it?
If this makes you uncomfortable... we can move on to General Michael Flynn.
Page 4 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News