1
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- SEC Score Board
- 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: SFP- This is Lawfare
Posted on 10/31/26 at 8:07 am to RandRules
Posted on 10/31/26 at 8:07 am to RandRules
quote:
Does this qualify as Lawfare according to Google’s definition?
Which action are we judging?
Go back to my original post:
quote:
Which part?
The actions by the admin?
The rulings?
The comments?
This post was edited on 10/31/26 at 8:08 am
Posted on 10/31/26 at 8:08 am to SlowFlowPro
The ruling issued by the judge
Posted on 10/31/26 at 8:12 am to SlowFlowPro
The creative framing is the court equating a letter informing people that the DOJ intends to enforce laws with threatening and intimidating election workers.
If the election workers don’t plan on breaking the law, they shouldn’t be intimidated at all.
If the election workers don’t plan on breaking the law, they shouldn’t be intimidated at all.
Posted on 10/31/26 at 8:13 am to RandRules
When they go to these lengths to deny, protect illegal voting it’s beyond reasonable actions and shows the indifference of laws
Posted on 10/31/26 at 8:15 am to RandRules
If you view it via partisan lens, all of that is lawfare.
The actions by the admin certainly fall under the definition of lawfare you gave, as the admin is clearly using the legal process "as a weapon to harm, weaken, or defeat a political l adversary.”
Now you get into the "eye of the beholder" with the judicial response. A big problem the "lawfare" argument has is that it lumps in all bad rulings as "lawfare" when you can't prove the intent part. And when you have rulings given in response to such clear "lawfare" (per your definition) you get into the legitimacy flashpoint and the chicken/egg scenario.
Is thwarting partisan legal actions by its nature, partisan? Even if legitimate? However you answer that question will determine if the ruling is "lawfare" per your definition. Legitimate, proper, and legal rulings can be "lawfare" by that definition, if they "weaken or defeat" a "political adversary" (even if the action by that adversary is illegal).
Again, this is why "lawfare" is not such a simple concept to throw out so willy nilly without proper, stated justification.
The actions by the admin certainly fall under the definition of lawfare you gave, as the admin is clearly using the legal process "as a weapon to harm, weaken, or defeat a political l adversary.”
Now you get into the "eye of the beholder" with the judicial response. A big problem the "lawfare" argument has is that it lumps in all bad rulings as "lawfare" when you can't prove the intent part. And when you have rulings given in response to such clear "lawfare" (per your definition) you get into the legitimacy flashpoint and the chicken/egg scenario.
Is thwarting partisan legal actions by its nature, partisan? Even if legitimate? However you answer that question will determine if the ruling is "lawfare" per your definition. Legitimate, proper, and legal rulings can be "lawfare" by that definition, if they "weaken or defeat" a "political adversary" (even if the action by that adversary is illegal).
Again, this is why "lawfare" is not such a simple concept to throw out so willy nilly without proper, stated justification.
Posted on 10/31/26 at 8:15 am to TrueTiger
quote:
If the election workers don’t plan on breaking the law, they shouldn’t be intimidated at all.
This is exactly what I told people melting bout Slotkin's comments last week, but her comments themselves were called lawfare.
Posted on 10/31/26 at 8:21 am to SlowFlowPro
Her comments outlined a plan or idea.
So did the DOJ letters.
I don’t see any judges enjoining Slotkin.
Notice how these injunctions tend to always run in the same direction.
So did the DOJ letters.
I don’t see any judges enjoining Slotkin.
Notice how these injunctions tend to always run in the same direction.
Posted on 10/31/26 at 8:23 am to RandRules
First comes the deflection, then later in the thread SFPLC will derail the thread.
Exactly why he was banned recently
Exactly why he was banned recently
Posted on 10/31/26 at 8:24 am to ArHog
quote:
then later in the thread SFPLC will derail the thread.
How do you failing so badly?
quote:
Exactly why he was banned recently
Again. Failure
I was posting 100% on topic when I was banned.
Posted on 10/31/26 at 8:26 am to TrueTiger
quote:
Her comments outlined a plan or idea.
So did the DOJ letters.
I don’t see any judges enjoining Slotkin.
Her alleged plan hasn't turned into action yet. The DOJ's plan has.
quote:
Notice how these injunctions tend to always run in the same direction.
How fast we have forgotten Biden's policies being thwarted
Posted on 10/31/26 at 8:30 am to SouthEasternKaiju
Lawyer defends lawfare, news at 11.
I don't know why you guys bother with him.
I don't know why you guys bother with him.
Posted on 10/31/26 at 8:30 am to Pedropatterstine
quote:
This right here should allow everyone to truly see what and who you are on this site
Only very contrarian and cynical type of people aren't repulsed by slp.
Posted on 10/31/26 at 8:31 am to SlowFlowPro
And yet, you have no defense.
Posted on 10/31/26 at 8:31 am to Houag80
quote:
And yet, you have no defense.
Reality and the truth is my defense
Posted on 10/31/26 at 8:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
I don't know what lawfare is to support or oppose it
It's probable because you are a high functioning retard with autistic critical thinking skills.
Posted on 10/31/26 at 8:32 am to Centinel
quote:
Lawyer defends lawfare, news at 11.
I don't know why you guys bother with him.
You're engaging in a strawman fallacy here
I have not "defended" any such action
Posted on 10/31/26 at 8:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Her alleged plan hasn't turned into action yet. The DOJ's plan has.
Her announcement is action.
She’s clearly intimidating Trump staffers in an effort to interferes with their work as government officials.
You and I both know that Fedgov has a bajillion laws and they can find one to fit just about any occasion.
You know the book, 3 Felonies a Day.
Posted on 10/31/26 at 8:33 am to Branson
quote:
It's probable because you are a high functioning retard with autistic critical thinking skills.
None of this is true.
Why lie and try to make this thread about a false version of me?
Posted on 10/31/26 at 8:34 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You're engaging in a strawman fallacy here
I have not "defended" any such action
K.
Posted on 10/31/26 at 8:34 am to TrueTiger
quote:
She’s clearly intimidating Trump staffers in an effort to interferes with their work as government officials.
You and I both know that Fedgov has a bajillion laws and they can find one to fit just about any occasion.
You know the book, 3 Felonies a Day.
But there is nothing to enjoin. The DOJ exploiting the same system you just described has engaged in behavior that can be enjoined.
That's teh difference. Not some systemic schism.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News