- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
0
Posted on 2/10/25 at 1:48 pm to Flats
quote:Ding ding ding
If a punishment is never used then it doesn't really exist.
There is no punishment.
SFP is a man of using past precedent to generate current stances (
), but there is zero precedent set showing that judges face consequences for their actions outside of bribery, essentially. And we always discuss how police have power to destroy our lives, but judgeships have political power FAR more destructive.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 1:48 pm to CU_Tigers4life
If Congress won’t do its job then you may see him declare a Constitutional crisis and then declare martial law dissolve the congress and make himself Lord Protector of the US Constitution.
Then the liberal horde will feel the wraith of 70 years of American frickery.
Then the liberal horde will feel the wraith of 70 years of American frickery.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 1:48 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
I understand what you're saying. I think it is a grounded, sensible way to look at things.
It's the type of sensible approach that has seen us get our arse handed to us repeatedly over the last half century.
So emotional outbursts and following the wave of populist reverb is better, especially doing that in a way we know signals authoritarianism is advancing?
Posted on 2/10/25 at 1:49 pm to Scruffy
quote:
And we always discuss how police have power to destroy our lives, but judgeships have political power FAR more destructive.
Your police point was already discussed.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 1:50 pm to Scruffy
If a judge can back up decisions backed by law and legal citations to bolster, tell me how that's not legitimate? You may not like it, but it is legitimate.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 1:52 pm to SlowFlowPro
yet you only attack trump and people who support him. never seen you once say something critical about the left. makes you wonder....
Posted on 2/10/25 at 1:54 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Hopefully never. That indicates a failed state and authoritarian takeover
You overestimate your intelligence. A failed state is exactly what your gay, trans loving ideas of government had us heading into. Your attempt to overcomplicate and confuse issues doesn't work.
You should stop or move to Cuba.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 1:54 pm to DawgCountry
quote:
yet you only attack trump and people who support him.
I corrected a Democrat in this very thread, hoss.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 1:55 pm to KiwiHead
quote:
If a judge can back up decisions backed by law and legal citations to bolster, tell me how that's not legitimate? You may not like it, but it is legitimate
Agreed. List em.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 1:55 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
Thats why they took out USAID first
They cant pay someones way, if they are scrambling to pay their own mortgage
Eh, maybe. I think the USAID thing is ultimately about pathways more than capital. There will still be Open Societies and Tide and Gates and so forth. They'll just have to create new dirty hands to do the work in some instances if USAID funds were keeping them in the black (or until private money can fill in the gap).
I definitely think it's a worthwhile effort and it helps, but I don't think it changes the game. I think shining a light on it and being willing to "go there" changes the game in a vacuum and may do so practically in the long term, but I don't think the NGOs and entities put out of operation will genuinely change the landscape in the near term, if that makes sense.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 1:55 pm to CU_Tigers4life
Marshall Law..the military will eventually get involved…
Posted on 2/10/25 at 1:56 pm to KiwiHead
quote:The point is when they don’t do that or their ruling is so egregious that they are actually chastised by the superior courts.
If a judge can back up decisions backed by law and legal citations to bolster, tell me how that's not legitimate? You may not like it, but it is legitimate.
That isn’t enough.
Judges should face reprimand and loss of their positions for blatant judicial misconduct/poor rulings, which they don’t.
There has not been a single federal judge impeached for that, and if you believe they have never done that, I have beachfront property to sell you in Oklahoma.
This post was edited on 2/10/25 at 1:58 pm
Posted on 2/10/25 at 1:58 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So emotional outbursts
There's nothing emotional about it, nor is it an "outburst". That's you attempting an appeal to ridicule.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 2:00 pm to Flats
quote:
There's nothing emotional about it, nor is it an "outburst".
He described my view as "a grounded, sensible way to look at things."
If the grounded, sensible way is wrong, then I was asking what is the right way?
quote:
That's you attempting an appeal to ridicule.
I'm not the one advocating for a non-grounded, insensible way to look at thigs. I imagine that's going to do the work of the logical fallacy you cited.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 2:01 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:Correct.
Just because I didn't melt down at a level deemed appropriate, that means I somehow support it, without me ever saying so.
Your behavior/takes suggest you support it.
If you don’t, you have a very odd way of communicating.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 2:01 pm to Scruffy
quote:
Judges should face reprimand and loss of their positions for blatant judicial misconduct/poor rulings, which they don’t.
So then tell me how we correct a Roe? Plessy? Wong Kim Ark?
Posted on 2/10/25 at 2:01 pm to ReauxlTide222
quote:
Correct.
Your behavior/takes suggest you support it.
I don't get emotional over politics (outside of one example). That's for plebs.
Posted on 2/10/25 at 2:02 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
So emotional outbursts and following the wave of populist reverb is better, especially doing that in a way we know signals authoritarianism is advancing?
In 2024, the soon-to-be President came a hair away from death by assassin due to, at best, government incompetence. In 2024, the official position of the United States government - a first in human history, mind you - was that men can get pregnant. In 2024, the administration continued to pursue punishment against pro life advocates because of the administration's anger over Dobbs - something the administration openly stated it would take vengeance for. In 2024, the soon-to-be President was rung up in a show trial by a state government that openly promised to persecute him for reasons entirely unrelated to the charges alleged.
In other words, I'm not really worried about the emotional outbursts signaling authoritarian advancement.
Left: "We don't believe in norms and our ethos is to undermine them with every action we pursue, but you need to comply with the norms."
Right: "Ok, we will."
Posted on 2/10/25 at 2:06 pm to Pettifogger
quote:
In other words, I'm not really worried about the emotional outbursts signaling authoritarian advancement.
That's exactly why the people promoting emotionality and partisan brain rot want you to do it. You're moldable in that outrage into their NPCs.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News